| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS JUN 13 |
The cycle of life?
This is still darn funny!
I know those eyes…
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Wow- the cartoon (above) already feels like “old” news.
It feels like time is compressing on us all!
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS JUN 11 |
This may be the longest essay we have ever published. However, Dr. Bock does an excellent job of making the vast array of information available on autism comprehensible. For those interested in the subject, this is essential reading.
This is a treatise if you like, on the enigma scientists have labeled autism.
Opinions expressed are those of Dr. Bock, which may or may not be aligned with the positions of the Drs. Malone or Malone.News on this topic.
Autism diagnoses are surging, touching countless families, yet the reasons remain elusive, fueling debate and confusion. The Times’ recent exploration of autism’s rise attributes the increase mainly to broader diagnostic criteria, heightened awareness, and social influences like online communities, while firmly rejecting vaccines as one potential cause. However, it downplays the role of institutional incentives (research funding, special education staffing, therapy services, and pharmaceutical interests). Conversely, the pseudonymous “A Midwestern Doctor” on Substack dives into vaccine-related hypotheses that the Times avoids. Neither fully delivers the impartial, rigorous analysis that I believe is needed to untangle autism’s complex web.
Winston Churchill once famously described the Soviet Union as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Ironically, this phrase was repurposed in Oliver Stone’s JFK as a symbol not of clarity but of obfuscation. Like the Soviet Union or the JFK assassination, autism’s enigma may defy complete resolution, but without rigorous, transparent scrutiny, it will remain shrouded in mystery; conversely, a clear lens on the knowns, unknowns, and disputes is our only hope for clarity.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD – of which severe Autism is an overlapping subset of symptoms) is a group of developmental conditions that begin in early childhood, affecting how children communicate, interact socially, and behave. Autism looks very different from case to case. Most of the population-level risk comes from over 100 inherited gene differences, each with a small impact. Many of these gene changes affect gene regulation and synaptic function—key processes in brain development.
Autism likely involves epigenetic mechanisms, changes in how genes are expressed without altering the DNA sequence itself. Think of the genome as a musical score: the notes don’t change, but depending on who’s conducting, it can sound like classical or rock. Similarly, a person may carry genetic risk but only develop autism if specific environmental cues “activate” the genes into certain patterns, much like in schizophrenia.
Research shows that the brains of people with autism often have unique features, though these can vary widely from person to person. Commonly, children with autism experience faster brain growth in early life, especially in areas like the frontal lobe (involved in planning and social behavior) and the amygdala (linked to emotions as a “danger detector”). This overgrowth, noted between 1–14 months, can make it harder for different brain regions to “talk” to each other effectively, leading to challenges in processing information or emotions. Instead of a city that developed organically, it’s more like a centrally planned boomtown (E.g. China’s ghost cities)—roads laid down too fast, towers built in haste, and entire sectors left misaligned and underused.
Another shared trait is an imbalance in brain chemicals, like glutamate and GABA, which act like the brain’s gas and brake pedals. In autism, there’s often too much “gas” (excitation) and not enough “brake” (calming), which can explain sensory sensitivities or trouble focusing. Genes also play a big role—specific ones affect how brain cells connect; however, not everyone with autism has the same brain differences. Some have more pronounced changes in the cerebellum (affecting movement and coordination), linked to reduced Purkinje cells, while others show unique patterns via inflammation’s elevated cytokines. As a “spectrum”, autism’s underlying brain differences and their expression(s) are disparate and individualized.
The rise in autism diagnoses — approximately 1 in 36 children (!!) in the U.S. according to the CDC’s 2023 data…
…is staggering and demands scrutiny. Yet autism is not a singular, congenital condition like rubella syndrome — where first-trimester rubella-virus exposure causes a specific set of neurologic issues in a one-to-one identity function. Instead, “autism” has broadened into a sprawling diagnostic umbrella, encompassing a spectrum spanning “classic autism” (a.k.a “Kanner’s Syndrome”), Asperger’s, childhood disintegrative disorder, and “Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” (PDD-NOS).
These diagnostic labels don’t point to a single cause—only broad categories. Are we seeing an epidemic of biology, or semantics? As the term “mental retardation” gave way to “intellectual disability,” some cases were reclassified under autism’s expanding umbrella. Autism once overlapped heavily with ID; now it captures a far more diverse patchwork of traits, many without cognitive impairment.
Genetics play a significant role in autism, but not as dominantly as once thought. One early twin study (1977) showed identical twins (same DNA) were seven times more likely to share an autism diagnosis than fraternal twins. Yet, even identical twins don’t always align—in up to half of cases, one has autism and the other does not, suggesting genes are influential but not the sole factor.
Hallmayer’s 2011 California twin study, though often cited, involved 192 twin pairs but with only a 17% participation rate (of those asked)—raising concerns about selection bias. Its strength lies in a careful parsing of genetic versus environmental causation using (unlike prior studies’ Falconer’s formula) the ACE model of Additive Genetic, Common Environment, Unique Environment factors.
By contrast, a 2017 Swedish study analyzed millions of sibling and twin records, estimating heritability between 83% and 87%, with tighter statistical confidence but less fine-grained control. These studies illustrate a trade-off: precision in small samples versus power in large datasets. Together, they define the outer limits within which autism’s genetic component resides — shaped by method, scale, and erstwhile definitons. The table below shows twin and family studies’ presumed genetic component’s falling between Steffenburg’s 91% and Hallmayer’s 38%.
Autism Twin Study Concordance (and other Familial Pairing) Table:
In a hybrid model, both wide in scope and fine in partitioning — Gaugler et al.(using the Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study “PAGES”)estimated 52% of autism risk’s from genetic variants. Gaugler leveraged SNP-genotyping and diverse family relationships, aiming to break down genetic risk into its components, finding influence roughly split between “genes you inherit” (A) … and…” complex gene interactions” (D), “new gene changes” (N), “family environment” (C), and “unique life experiences” (E).
Havdahl conversely arrived at a genetic preponderance, based on Bai’s 2019 synthesis of large-scale genomic and familial studies.
Hallmayer’s study reported a relatively low heritability estimate (~38%) but with a wide (lack of) confidence interval—reflecting the limitations of its small, selective sample.
In contrast, Gaugler’s SNP-based and case-control design yields a higher but more statistically stable estimate.
This boxplot, drawn from Gaugler’s Swedish cohort data, shows a clear rise in autism prevalence across birth cohorts from 1980 to 1999. It’s consistent with diagnostic broadening, increased awareness, or real environmental shifts. As definitions change and milder cases are included, heritability estimates may appear lower—not because genes matter less, but because the diagnostic category itself has expanded.
Here’s a rough mapping, somewhat consistent temporally.
The Solomonic (un)happy medium indicates more than half of autism risk is genetically set by the time of birth; however, that assessment comes with caveats. Please observe this side-by-side:
NB: No diagnosis appears in either graph’s lower right half because even purely environmental factors (e.g. a house fire) would likely impact both DZ twins, keeping such data points above the diagonal.
Autism occupies a mixed-influence zone: genetically weighted, yet with implicit environmental triggers; not unlike schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Tourette’s.
One plausible explanation for the rise in autism diagnoses is the broadening of diagnostic criteria and increased awareness, but this shift also reflects a profound historical transformation in the concept itself. In 1911, Eugen Bleuler coined “autism” to describe excessive fantasy and hallucinations in severe schizophrenia, a meaning that persisted through the 1950s.
By the 1970s, British child psychiatrists redefined “autism’ as a lack of symbolic life— a 180° shift that coincided with the closure of institutions for the “mentally retarded” in the 1960s, releasing children into new diagnostic frameworks — a movement catalyzed by John F. Kennedy’s 1961 President’s Panel on Mental Retardation, influenced by his sister Rosemary’s institutionalization and the family’s complex feelings — an irony, as RFK Jr. now hunts the autism epidemic’s “killer”.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980 formalized autism as a developmental disorder, shifting it from a rare condition to a spectrum encompassing a wide range of behaviors. This change, coupled with parental advocacy, drove earlier screening — often at 18–24 months — and more inclusive diagnoses. By DSM-4 (1994), Asperger’s syndrome and PDD-NOS were included, capturing individuals with average or above-average intellect. DSM-5 (2013) dropped Asperger’s as a named diagnosis. Importantly, DSM-5 also removed the prior exclusion that had prevented an individual from being diagnosed with both ASD and ADHD, conditions once considered mutually exclusive.
This overlap expanded the diagnostic net, potentially reclassifying children with co-occurring traits. Additionally, individuals previously deemed “retarded” (sic) were subsumed under the (“severe” end of the) autism spectrum, inflating prevalence without a true increase in abnormality cases. Sociologist Gil Eyal in The Autism Matrix views these diagnostic shifts as ultimately beneficial. Earlier diagnosis means earlier access to services: speech therapy, behavioral interventions, educational support; ideally helping those children develop better communication, social skills, and independence than previously.
The decline of U.S. mental institutions may have played an indirect role in the rise of autism diagnoses—not by causing autism, but by reshaping how society categorized and responded to developmental differences once kept out of public view. Conditions previously confined to large custodial settings became newly visible, newly labeled, and (in the case of schizophrenia) medicated: Hello, Thorazine! (1953).
From 1955 to 2005, residents in public mental hospitals dropped from over 500,000 to under 100,000. This shift, more abrupt for those with serious mental illness, reflected changing legal standards, new pharmaceuticals, and an optimistic vision of “community integration.” For individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, the transition was slower and more deliberate—often focused on preventing new institutionalizations rather than discharging existing residents. But in both cases, the cultural shift was profound: from seclusion to exposure.
Before the 1960s, terms like “feebleminded,” “retarded,” or even “idiot savant” might have earned what we now call “autistic” – while “idiot” itself was both replaced by “retarded”, and then transformed into a mild insult.
And of course, “retarded” is now a pejorative as well, replaced by “ID”, intellectual disability.
Not everyone (back then) was a Gary Cooper with Albert Einstein’s mind and HL Mencken’s wit. As institutional care waned, these individuals entered broader diagnostic frameworks, potentially inflating autism’s labeling prevalence – separate from any independent potential increase in cases, per se.
This 1915 illustration starkly illustrates how intellectual and developmental differences were once categorized with terms now considered deeply offensive—“idiot,” “imbecile,” “moron”—yet these labels existed because same or similar variations in cognitive and adaptive functioning were present, just framed in a harsher, cruder way.
None of this implies that institutionalization was desirable—many facilities were underfunded, degrading, or worse. But it does suggest that part of autism’s modern profile arose not from new biology, but from new visibility.
In the early 1990s, autism was more tightly linked to mental retardation, now called “intellectual disability”.
In 1992, 72% of autism cases (3,210 out of 4,446) were associated with intellectual disability (ID). By 2005, that share had dropped to just 37% (10,410 out of 28,046). As this graph (adapted from King and Bearman’s 2009 study) shows, …
… autism without ID increased more than 13-fold—from 1,236 to 17,636 cases—while autism with ID rose just over threefold.
From 1992 to 2005, the U.S. population grew just over 10%, yet intellectual disability (ID) diagnoses rose by 54%, and autism with ID nearly tripled. That spike in autism’s most severe form points to more than shifting definitions—it may reflect real changes in early neurodevelopment. Still, confounding factors—like rising immigration, language barriers, and struggling school systems—could distort these figures. Before drawing conclusions, we need better data, sharper metrics, and more objective classification.
Swedish researchers tracked autism severity in 13-year-olds, finding that as diagnoses rose, the average symptom score steadily declined, suggesting institutional pressure to have “autism” capture milder cases. (chart clarified by @cremieuxrecueil).
Sweden’s autism is classified within an “ESSENCE” -framework (“Early Symptomatic Syndromes Eliciting Neurodevelopmental Clinical Examinations”); wherein ADHD, tics, movement disorders, and epilepsy also rise in prevalence. A cynic might analogize autism diagnoses’ rise to the more recent surge in gender dysphoria. Such expansions fuel jobs in special education.
Autism diagnosis rates have clearly increased over the past decade, principally in the younger age groups.
The “psychiatric and mental health industrialization complex,” particularly within schools, amplifies this trend. Financial incentives for special education, therapies, and clinical services create perverse pressures for over-diagnosis, as funding and resources often hinge on an autism label.
Additionally, families often gain from an ASD diagnosis, accessing benefits unavailable otherwise. The Social Security Administration reports a 154% increase in SSI recipients with ASD from 2004 to 2014 (to 28% of mental disorder cases), providing up to $943 monthly in 2024.
With 19% of Americans now identifying as “neurodivergent”—a broad category that includes ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and other cognitive differences—and with reports suggesting a majority of Britons may be doing the same, the expanding definition implies a widening diagnostic net.
These map-comparisons show how autism rates grew across U.S. states from 2003 to 2011 (darker blue means more kids were diagnosed, jumping from as low as 0.1% to over 2% in some places). Many states had policies that gave schools extra money for finding kids with autism (again, darker blue); e.g., the Northeast’s, the Rust Belt’s and Virginia’s “rewarded” autism-rates climbed. Michigan’s diagnoses (when rewarded) spiked to 1.5% by 2007; but, unrewarded, the rates dropped (NB: acknowledging, this is not a simple one-to-one explanation – as (e.g.) Minnesota’s autism rates increased without reward-incentive).
This kind of geographic disparity suggests we’re not just mapping a condition—we’re mapping responses to incentives. Take a look at (unrelated, but analagous) methadone distribution by state: supposedly the same disease (sic)of narcotic addiction for some reason “requires” ten times more methadone in Rhode Island than in Texas or Missouri. Wisconsin uses four times the dose of neighboring Iowa.
Now, autism includes Elon Musk. Have we simply disease-ified eccentricity and (occasionally) genius? The study, “Diagnostic change and the increased prevalence of autism” documents this expansion.
California’s caseload has ballooned; moreover, far beyond what diagnostic trends alone would predict. Jill Escher, head of the National Council on Severe Autism, insists the exponential increase: California’s caseload’s jumping from a few hundred in the 1980s to over 200,000 today (even excluding “high-functioning” cases)—reflects a real crisis, not just better detection. Moreover, Escher’s Getting Real About Autism’s Exponential Explosion shows…
…California’s autism caseload has nearly quadrupled since 2011: outpacing the national diagnosis rate for school-age children, which “only” doubled. The excess suggests bureaucratic inflation and system-driven incentives (or something “in the air” in California)– not just rising prevalence.
Britain’s Autism Research Centre director, Simon Baron-Cohen notes,
““What we call autism has itself changed to become a broader category (and with) the growth in private clinicians’ offering diagnosis — it has become an industry.”
“Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it,” wrote Charles Dudley Warner in 1897.
Some realities (e.g., the weather) do not yield to our words, hopes, or policy interventions—no matter how loudly or persistently we speak around them. Severe autism is one of them. Despite decades of advocacy, legislation, and funding, the outcomes for the most profoundly affected remain largely unchanged. The National Council on Severe Autism’s Jill Escher (in our conversation) put it bluntly: for many severely autistic students, special education is “little more than glorified babysitting,” teaching daily living skills, not academics. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs cost schools a fortune: specialized staff, autism-specific classrooms; yet Escher calls the system “completely irrational,” a “jerry-rigged” relic from a pre-autism-epidemic era.
Cui bono? Schools get funding; teachers’ unions lock in jobs; parents receive stipends; service providers cash in — but many severely autistic individuals remain dependent; moreover with the worry of “falling off a cliff” into underfunded Medicaid care at age 21 – and/or with the (inevitable) demise of their caretaking parents.
To be clear, without doubting the dedication of families or educators, one can acknowledge that “full inclusion” backfires. Severely autistic children disrupt classrooms. My own son’s middle school class, in the mid-2000s, was regularly derailed by persistent, involuntary, loud outbursts of vocal “stimming” of a severely autistic teen despite his omnipresent aide.
Might group homes be a more humane, realistic answer for such cases? Escher praises California’s relatively strong system, which offers tailored care and vocational programming—serving needs without disrupting others. This isn’t abandonment; it’s honesty. Just as 60-year-olds don’t train for the NBA, we shouldn’t pretend that the most severe autism fits the academic model. Margaret Thatcher’s warning still applies: eventually, you run out of other people’s money. We risk Cloward–Piven -style overload: collapsing systems with unsustainable burdens, unless we build something rational now.
Not every student in special education is autistic, but nearly every autistic student—especially those with severe cases—is in special ed. Today, about 15% of U.S. public school students receive special education services. That’s doubled from 8% in the late 1970s, and the numbers keep growing. Of those in special ed, roughly 12% have autism.
The staff structure at my local middle school today is worlds apart from my own public school experience in 1960s New York City. Back then, one teacher handled 30 students, with five or six such classes per grade, grouped by achievement level. The entire school ran with just a principal, assistant principal, secretary, nurse, and two janitors. My local middle school currently has only ~35% staff as core teachers, while ~65% are ancillary.
These programs are expensive. In 2020, school districts spent nearly $39 billion on special education services—averaging over $13,000 per student (on top of the baseline ~$19,000 per student). If every state spent like the highest-spending ones, total special ed costs would reach $180 billion a year. This added burden isn’t trivial, leaving the other 85% to share increasingly strained resources: overcrowded classrooms; fewer offerings in gifted, vocational, and core subjects. We cannot serve anyone well by exhausting the system.
Autism has long shown a stark male predominance: roughly 3 or 4 boys diagnosed for every girl.
ADHD follows a similar trend, with boys diagnosed at a 2.5 to 1 ratio. These disparities were noted as early as Leo Kanner’s 1943 paper, well before today’s educational culture took hold. The biological sex differences remain; but the extent to which they are ( potentially mis-) interpreted and acted upon has shifted.
Christina Hoff Sommers’ The War Against Boys argues that modern schools, increasingly feminized and focused on chat, collegiality, and conformity, may mismatch boys’ neurodevelopmental traits — often more intense, trial-and-error, and less socially oriented — leading to over-diagnosis of conditions like autism and ADHD when boys’ behaviors deviate from these expectations.
Boys exhibit greater variance in IQ and behavioral traits, producing more outliers — geniuses, risk-takers, as well as those with neurodevelopmental challenges — while girls cluster closer to the mean, potentially making boys’ differences more noticeable and pathologized in structured settings.
The “boy-averse” decline of recess and advent of zero-tolerance policies in schools exacerbates this mismatch.
This persistent male predominance has sparked a counter-movement, especially among feminist scholars, who argue that autism in girls is under-recognized. They propose that girls “camouflage” their symptoms—adeptly mimicking social cues to blend in—though this leads to a curious contradiction: if autism impairs social reciprocity, how can one convincingly fake it? As the old joke goes, “sincerity—once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Mind you, some of these same scholars in peddling “sex contextualism” essentially dispute binary sex, undercutting their argument(s).
Male and female brains diverge from birth, a pattern seen across the animal kingdom — male mosquitoes prioritize mate-seeking, females blood-feeding — reflecting distinct evolutionary prerogatives. Simon Baron-Cohen’s “extreme male brain theory” suggests autism reflects an extreme male-typical profile, where “systemizing outstrips empathizing”.
Yet it’s important to recognize that autism is not strictly deficit-based. It’s also associated with positive traits such as pattern recognition and attention to detail. Moreover, long-term outcomes vary widely, with some autistic individuals’ achieving independence, relationships, employment, and relative happiness.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is highly prevalent in high-income countries, but in sub-Saharan Africa, with nearly 1 billion people, it’s rarely diagnosed…
“A review of the global prevalence of autism did not identify any data from sub-Saharan Africa, even though this region has a population of nearly 1 billion, 40% of whom are children younger than 14 years.”
… and rarely discussed. Google-searches for “autism” in Kenya, Congo, Zimbabwe are near zero and static these last few measurable decades.
Limited psychiatric infrastructure and a focus on urgent issues like HIV, malaria, and food insecurity overshadow ASD. Autism is a “first-world problem,” amplified by wealthier nations’ resources, omphaloskeptic tendencies, and broad diagnostic criteria.
Africa’s ASD absence may be underdiagnosis rather than lower incidence. Anthropologist Richard Grinker, who has studied autism cross-culturally, argues that autism exists everywhere—but is recognized only where diagnostic tools, institutional priorities, and cultural interpretations align. Over 90% of studies come from Europe, the Americas, and the Western Pacific. Entire regions like Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean are effectively data voids, despite the (presumed) global nature of the disorder.
China, with over 1.4 billion people, remains strikingly absent from global autism discourse, with a self-proclaimed rate of only one-third ours. The condition is labeled 自闭症 (“self-enclosure disorder”) or 孤独症 (“lonely disorder”), but these are not seen as quirks or mere differences—they imply dysfunction, weakness, and detachment from societal duty. Diagnosed children are sometimes called 来自星星的孩子—“children from the stars”—but this poetic phrase belies the harsh stigma families face. Chinese society sees autism as a mark of shame or failure; to be downplayed, not spotlighted.
Comparing same-wealth/ same-health societies could reveal if cultural or economic factors drive these trends. Cross-cultural-, cross-national- will be more difficult, given the absence of baseline data, terms, and agreements of importance.
Several societal and biological factors may contribute to autism rates, either directly or indirectly. The trend toward older parental age is significant. Advanced paternal and maternal age is associated with increased risks of genetic mutations and conditions like gestational diabetes, which may elevate autism risk. Older sperm and eggs accumulate DNA damage, potentially affecting neurodevelopment. Studies suggest a 10% increased autism risk per decade of parental age.
Smaller family sizes and fewer siblings may also play a role. Children with fewer siblings experience reduced socialization opportunities, potentially exacerbating autistic traits. Bruno Bettelheim’s “lonely child” hypothesis suggested that social withdrawal stemmed from emotional deprivation: cold “refrigerator parents” implies social difficulties. His theory aligns with this study: “Having Siblings is Associated with Better Social Functioning in Autism Spectrum Disorder”.
Modern parenting, with its intensified focus on (fewer) children fosters scrutiny for any potential developmental delays. Additionally, the increase in divorce rates over the past decades has led to more single-parent households, which can impact (and stress) early childhood development.
Environmental factors like fluoride, aluminum, glyphosate, and Wi-Fi have been proposed as contributors, but evidence is sparse and often anecdotal. Fluoride in water has been present throughout the decades (1950s-1980s) when autism rates remained low; if it were a smoking gun, the surge in diagnoses wouldn’t have waited until the 1990s– although fluoride exposure exceeding 2x the upper limit may correlate with minor IQ reductions. Glyphosate, a herbicide, and Wi-Fi radiation lack robust data’s tying them to ASD.
Thimerosal, an organomercury preservative, was largely removed from childhood vaccines by the early 2000s—thus largely cleared as a suspect in autism’s rise. By contrast, the current adjuvant, aluminum (as insoluble phosphate-, or hydroxide-salts), plays a different biological role: not as preservative but as immune stimulant — designed to provoke local inflammation and enhance antigen presentation by the immune system.
It is present in small amounts and typically cleared from the body quickly, but animal studies raise concerns: one found it can cause chronic inflammation at the injection site and gradually migrate to the brain, while another showed it can persist in the brain for months, potentially leading to inflammation. Lyons-Weiler (2018) suggests that autism may involve impaired cellular detoxification, with aluminum and other toxins’ exacerbating genetic predispositions through immune activation and gene-environment interactions. His chart compares aluminum exposure from vaccines over a child’s first 800 days under different plans.
A 2022 study also linked aluminum in vaccines to asthma in some kids, calling for more research. While the CDC finds no clear adjuvant/autism link, Lyons-Weiler’s work pushes for studying how aluminum and other toxins might affect kids differently based on their genes.
The pineal gland, sometimes implicated in autism theories via melatonin dysregulation, shows no direct causal connection. Higher-dose ultrasound during pregnancy has been studied for potential neurodevelopmental effects, with no clear link to autism. Ultrasound remains a standard prenatal tool due to its safety at recommended levels. Prenatal acetaminophen -use is not associated with autism risk. Escher, ncsautism.org’s research philanthropist, advocates for exploring non-genetic inheritance, where pre-conception environmental exposures like anesthetics or Depakote may cause epigenetic changes in parental germ cells, leading to transcriptional errors in offspring.
Vaccines, particularly the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, have fueled autism speculation since Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study and 1999 follow-up,
retracted in 2010 for ethical and methodological flaws.
In a recent interview, Wakefield states he had disclosed external funding to his university. Conversely, pharmaceutical-funded studies may escape similar scrutiny. Dr. Wakefield warned that the original 1960s’ MMR safety studies were “conducted (without adequate informed consent) on vulnerable populations, such as children in mental institutions“, a claim not unfounded.
In 1969, (VACCINES‘ author) Dr. Stanley Plotkin published a rubella vaccine trial explicitly involving mentally retarded and orphaned children as test subjects. Yet when deposed in 2018, Plotkin, with full recall of his 1959 Congo fieldwork’s town-names, couldn’t remember testing on the mentally handicapped; while later conceding “that’s what I did”. His selective non-memory is striking.
The eternal claim that vaccines were “thoroughly studied” must be judged against these vanishingly small and ethically murky early trials. Separately, a million Congolese received vaccines, but autism is essentially never identified in such a setting.
Wakefield, rather than asserting MMR definitively caused autism, proposed separating measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines for individual testing to isolate potential risks–
— a reasonable scientific hypothesis stifled by his vilification (arguably, disproportionate).
Measles has a well-documented history of (rare) neurologic complications,including acute encephalitis. Rubella, although known for congenital neurologic effects, has not been similarly implicated in postnatal issues.
Two major Danish cohort studies — one in 2002 and a follow-up in 2019 — each enrolling the entire Danish child population found no link between MMR vaccination and autism. Nonetheless, public distrust persists, amplified by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) — which initially shielded manufacturers from liability and subsequently forged an expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule (from targeting 7 diseases with 8–10 doses in 1986 to 16 diseases with approximately 47–55 doses by age 18 in 2025).
Once a vaccine’s on the CDC’s list, it’s a free pass — no marketing needed, just profit, raising suspicions about untested risks. That cozy setup makes sensible suspecting Big Pharma’s erring on the side of profit (vs. public safety), e.g. with hepatitis B shots for babies who are decades removed from the skills or interest for that illness’ modes of transmission (sexual, IV). Big Public Health follows along for the (regulatory capture) ride (as seen when the CDC’s ACIP rapidly endorsed Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine in 2006 despite up to 64% of members’ having potential conflicts of interest).
Why rush MMR at 12–15 months—when neurogenesis, synaptogenesis, and myelination are still underway, and the brain (theoretically) more susceptible to immune stress? If the highest measles risk lies in infancy—and if maternal antibodies cover (most of) that period, what’s really lost by waiting until age 3 or 4, aside from pediatric calendar convenience? With autism far more common in boys, and rubella primarily a concern for pregnancy, a delayed or sex-differentiated schedule seems not just reasonable—but overdue.
Autism likely starts in the womb, tied to embryologic neurodevelopment, as shown in developmental timelines where neurogenesis and gliogenesis peak prenatally,
so pinning it on vaccines given after birth assumes a sudden postnatal shift. Some argue vaccines, particularly MMR’s measles component and aluminum, may trigger brain inflammation during critical windows like synaptogenesis(0–5 years) and myelination (up to 20 years), potentially raising autism-risk via cytokines, autoantibodies, and/or brain enlargement in those prone to immune overactivation.
The vaccine-autism debate centers on “regression”—toddlers’ suddenly losing language, eye contact, or motor skills, often after a fever, illness, or immunization. Are there solid cases of kids’ thriving, then crashing into autism at 6 months or 2 years after a shot? Two studies in 2018 gave different assessments. One claimed “about 22% of ASD kids experience “regression”, typically at 21 months, with autism (but not with milder PDD-NOS or Asperger’s); whereas Ozonoff (2018) followed high-risk infants and found declining social engagement in ~3/4 of children who developed autism.
The notion that autism is entirely predetermined by prenatal neurodevelopment overlooks postnatal brain plasticity, particularly during critical periods like toddlerhood. Schizophrenia, which often emerges in late adolescence, illustrates how dysregulated synaptic pruning — a process refining neural connections — can alter brain function, potentially triggered by environmental factors like infections or toxins.
One striking clue: 3–5% of children experience febrile seizures, and a Swedish study found that 40% of such cases preceded an autism diagnosis. This points to a broader mechanism of cytokine-driven neuroinflammation, where immune overactivation damages the developing brain.
“Regression” challenges the idea that autism is always present from birth. If true, early detection might change a child’s trajectory. Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker wonders if “declining trajectories… may be more the rule than the exception,” and urges that even vaccines, long taboo as a suspect, be put “on the table” for rigorous investigation. Mr. Tucker has had longitudinal observation of childhood autism (his nephew Joel’s; recounted in Like a Crown: Adventures in Autism).
As HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. urged that all hypotheses—however inconvenient—be tested rigorously. That remains the clearest path through the fog surrounding autism’s true origins.
Whether or not vaccines contribute to autism, one thing is clear: we may be overusing them. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) shielded manufacturers from liability, treating universal vaccination as a societal good; ostensibly to avoid a “tragedy of the commons”: depriving the many because of the civilly litigated side effects of a few. But removing accountability while mandating use created a dangerous asymmetry: liability-free, government-endorsed, and increasingly profitable.
In the 1960s, parents held chickenpox and measles parties to build natural immunity. Today, we vaccinate for diseases that have largely vanished—like polio and rubella—raising the question: are we vaccinating out of necessity or inertia?
The low autism rates reported among Amish and Orthodox Jewish communities may stem from their vaccine avoidance, although Autism Matrix’ Gil Eyal asserts that there are “plenty of autism cases among Orthodox Jews in more integrated communities” (a point that is not necessarily dispositive, if “integrated” coincides with vaccine compliance); however when studied, autism appears far less frequently among Ultra-Orthodox Jews (and Israeli Arabs); half and one third (respectively) the general Israeli population’s rate.
Explanations vary: cultural filters; less psychiatric contact; younger parental age; adherence to traditional, less cognitively complex tasks; avoidance of modern influences— and of course, fewer vaccine-exposures.
Vaccine skepticism is often met with fierce condemnation. Andrew Wakefield’s exile and the COVID-era silencing of dissent show how quickly the label “anti-vaxxer” is weaponized. Yet the COVID-19 vaccine push for children—despite their minimal risk from the virus—exposed a troubling indifference to real harms like myocarditis.
I’ve given thousands of vaccines as a physician and taken many myself. But not every shot fits every person. A yellow fever vaccine makes sense in West Africa, not Nebraska. Context matters. Tailoring vaccines to individual risk isn’t “anti-vaccine” any more than abjuring a ski parka at the beach is “anti-clothing.”
Understanding autism’s rise requires broader comparisons—between vaccine-heavy societies and those with lighter or delayed immunization schedules, especially within similarly developed nations. Cultural norms, diagnostic thresholds, and environmental exposures all interact. Without this wider lens, we risk mistaking institutional trends for biological truths.
If we had a time machine to 1950s New York, we’d find no concept of ADHD and a much narrower definition of autism (of course, labeled differently); often confined to psychiatric institutions. Society then, for all its faults, was in many ways more orderly: lower rates of street crime, drug use, and public disorder. Deinstitutionalization’s “humane” ideal traded structured care for societal chaos: freeing people from asylums while believing community integration would fill the gap. The “magic air” of the streets failed to heal deep mental health issues. Homelessness has experienced a ~1500% increase, coincident with the autism epidemic.
Similar “good intentions” (via 1960s’ reform-minded Rockefeller University) sowed narcotic abuse as Methadone Maintenance Ignited America’s Opioid Crisis, with a similar rise: late 20th-, early 21st- century.
Four seemingly unrelated trends –opioid addiction; autism diagnosis; homelessness; and children of divorce — have each dramatically risen in the wake of deinstitutionalization, the collapse of stigma, and the move toward visibility over concealment.
Correlation is not causation—but when four trendlines rise in lockstep, we ought to ask why. This isn’t to say autism’s rise has a single cause—or that it can be traced neatly to deinstitutionalization, diagnostic expansion, or any one trend. Other forces may be at play: epigenetic stresses passed quietly through generations; the fragmentation of family life; the atomized isolation of childhood; rising exposure to psychoactive substances; environmental or medical factors: anesthesia, vaccine adjuvants, synthetic foods, endocrine disruptors, advanced age of conception.
The shift from structure to permissiveness, from “no” to “why not?,” has had a thousand ripple effects, many of them invisible until they spike upward in data. Charlie Chaplin noted that, “Life is a tragedy in close-up and a comedy in long-shot.” Perhaps the opposite applies here: up close, these shifts felt like progress—modernization, liberation, inclusion. But stepping back, the pattern may reveal something darker. And only with that distance can we start to ask whether we need to rebuild guardrails, reinvest in structure, or rethink what we’ve normalized.
Are we over-labeling traits that once went unnoticed? In football, an ‘ADHD’ kid might shine on defense, while a ‘mildly autistic’ lineman excels through preparation, showing context shapes strengths.
Different contexts highlight different strengths, not deficits—and that extends beyond the field. Today, nearly 40% of young people identify as sexually divergent, and almost 20% claim neurodivergence, suggesting a shift from biology to social identity as diagnostic labels proliferate. The line between genuine disorder and mere difference blurs, especially when the language of activism and resistance reframes personal traits as identity markers.
Yet, as the football players demonstrate, cohesion and teamwork come from learning the same playbook, even if offense and defense see the game from opposite angles. In a world where distinctions multiply and identities fragment, we risk losing sight of shared goals—risking not only our unity but our continuity, as social trends pull us further from our genetic roots and toward abstracted, self-imposed divisions.
This tension plays out vividly in autism’s schisms. Eyal revealed “high-functioning” self-advocates reject stigma and dependence; while severely autistics’ parents face lifelong challenges. RFK Jr.’s claim that some autistic individuals may never work sparked backlash from the former but resonated with the latter:
People with profound autism “will require lifetime, round-the-clock care,” said Profound Autism Alliance’s Judith Ursitti.
Eyal urges unity, highlighting how self-advocates have reshaped our understanding of even severe autism. First, by showing that behind outward symptoms there may be an active mind seeking connection, they’ve helped normalize the idea that communication can take many forms. Second, their influence has encouraged shifts in practice—toward adapting communication methods to the individual, through tools like picture exchange systems or adapted iPads, rather than forcing conventional norms.
Cohesion, like a football team’s, demands a shared playbook. The offensive lineman and defensive back, though worlds apart in style, win by aligning on the same goal. Autism’s spectrum—geniuses to those needing lifelong care—needs similar alignment, lest we disease-ify differences or ignore genuine need.
Autism — unlike purely genetic conditions like Rett syndrome, or purely congenital ones like rubella syndrome — almost certainly lacks a singular cause. Its “spectrum” practically guarantees a patchwork of origins: genetic, congenital, epigenetic (via toxins, infections, vaccines, medical interventions), and societal. Teasing apart these threads demands sharper classification of clinical signs.
Rubella syndrome proves that a virus can disrupt neurologic development in utero; thus, dismissing vaccines as possible postnatal contributors is not far-fetched — only later-stage. Inspired by Wakefield’s perspective, we should explore delaying vaccines like MMR, typically given at 12–15 months, to reduce potential immune challenges during early neurodevelopment, or adjusting schedules based on sex—e.g., prioritizing rubella vaccination for girls due to its pregnancy risks, while delaying it for boys given autism’s male predominance. Yet most of autism’s dramatic rise seems fueled not by biology alone, but by diagnostic bloat, societal change, and profit-driven incentives. Special education, clinical services, and even pharmaceutical interests thrive on expanded labels.
Vaccines, to date, lack proven causality — but the vitriolic and vengeful expulsion of Dr. Andrew Wakefield should serve as warning. Skeptics of Fauci.ism’s rigid pro-vaccine orthodoxy during COVID-19 were likewise demonized, only to see many concerns later grudgingly validated. Was the ferocity against Wakefield evidence of scientific certainty — or fear that his questions hit too close to home?
Regression into autism, once dismissed as rare or anecdotal, deserves serious scrutiny. Schizophrenia research acknowledges environmental contributors; autism, too, may involve postnatal immune injuries — whether from infection, febrile seizures, or even vaccination-triggered cascades (cytokine neuroinflammation; post-vaccine encephalitis?).
The old image of autism meant institutionalization. Today, by contrast, diagnosis often sweeps in average or superior IQs, think: Anthony Hopkins, Tim Burton, Elon Musk and Dan Aykroyd — raising the question: are we pathologizing giftedness? The Amish and Orthodox Jews show strikingly lower rates, hinting that both culture and vaccination patterns might matter, though our very observation risks distorting their realities.
Meanwhile, our attention-fractured world — taxing work, working taxes, drugs, video games, speed-dating — pathologizes traits once crucial for survival: focus, perseverance, loyalty to a small tribe. In a saner, older world, such traits found natural outlets; today, they’re flagged for “intervention.”
First World versus Third World: Would they trade HIV or malaria for our dizzying array of mental health labels? Respectively, yes — and no (perhaps); but our challenges, though subtler, are real. We must push for transparent, hypothesis-driven research — cross-temporal and cross-cultural — to ensure we don’t over-label while meeting real needs, much like a detective’s unraveling a complex case, to uncover the full truth behind autism’s rise.
The New York Times closed its review quoting psychologist Catherine Lord: “Whatever it is, it’s not vaccines”.
This logic echoes a personal anecdote: before traveling to Italy, I mentioned gas cost “$8 a gallon,” only to be corrected — by someone who didn’t know the real price. When I asked, “If you don’t know what it is, how can you know what it isn’t?” The answer came: “It can’t be $8/gal., because they don’t use gallons or dollars.” Technically true, yet completely missing the larger point.
As Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes famously advised:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Autism’s spectrum — multifocal, multicausal — demands we explore everypossibility, not dismiss avenues out of convenience, cowardice, or commerce.
Dr. Randall Bock graduated from Yale University with a BS in chemistry and physics; University of Rochester, with an MD.
He has also investigated the mysterious ‘quiet’ subsequent to 2016 Brazil’s Zika-Microcephaly pandemic and panic, ultimately writing “Overturning Zika.”
Follow Dr. Bock on X; YouTube; Randybock.com; Brownstone; Instagram; Substack; America Out Loud PULSE radio (including his episode discussing this article)
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS JUN 6 |
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.
As I wrote about California’s reparations efforts a couple of years back and put out a warning – reparations are coming. First, California and then the movement is spreading to other blue states, as they follow suit.
Here is an update:
Funding for Reparations Initiatives in California: The 2024-2025 state budget allocates up to $12 million for reparations-related efforts. Some of this money will be used to establish an agency to oversee future (direct) reparations.
Here is the thing about creating new bureaucracies – once they are set up, they become leviathans.
Expect big tax increases in Californian’s future.
True Story:
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
-Barack Obama, reflecting on his Middle East Drone operations
For those living under a rock, who haven’t been following the break-up of Elon and Musk – the summary posts in the two images below pretty much sum up everything…
This whole X thread by Ron Coleman is pretty darn funny!
This is gloriously funny, commonsense advice – for everyone.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 30 |
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.
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public, so feel free to share or crosspost! Any help is appreciated.
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.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MSMAY 29 |
Grok generated MRI image of a vaccine-induced myopericarditis-damaged heart
Polls are beginning to show the impact of the recent roll out of the MAHA commission report and the hearings on COVID genetic product-induced myopericarditis that were held by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Ron Johnson.
Breaking: Thursday, May 29, 2025 (Rasmussen Reports)
In the wake of recent warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), about half of Americans think – vaccines against the COVID-19 virus may have caused heart problems for some patients.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of American Adults believe it’s likely that the COVID-19 vaccine has caused inflammation in the hearts of many vaccinated Americans, including 29% who think it is Very Likely. Twenty-eight percent (28%) don’t consider it likely that COVID-19 vaccine caused many cases of heart inflammation, and 21% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Earlier this month, the FDA ordered makers of COVID-19 vaccines to expand their warnings about the risk of heart side effects — which doctors call myocarditis (an inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart). Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans, 39% of Democrats and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party believe it’s at least somewhat likely that many have suffered heart inflammation caused by COVID-19 vaccine.
May 16th, 2025
A new survey from the Center for Excellence in Polling shows overwhelming and bipartisan support for policies that advance efforts to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). Results show that voters, regardless of party affiliation, express support for a range of MAHA policies, including transparency and accountability in the food and pharmaceutical industries, healthier options and more transparency in school lunches, and more accountability for federal health care bureaucrats.
The MAHA movement has become a driving force in American politics and at the highest levels of the federal and state governments. Creating a healthier America starts by holding food and drug companies and government bureaucrats accountable by demanding greater transparency, along with reforms to welfare programs that promote health and preserve resources for the truly needy. Voters are clamoring for reform, and the results of this poll show that MAHA policies are both overwhelmingly popular and bipartisan. Policymakers—Democrats and Republicans—in both federal and state governments have a rare opportunity to shape domestic policy in a way that would satisfy the preferences of nearly every American, and they should not let the opportunity go to waste.
As the federal government moves toward promoting a healthier American lifestyle, voters see school lunch programs as the logical place to start. Americans are nearly unanimous in their support for requiring schools to provide fresh fruits and vegetables with every lunch served in the school; indeed, 95 percent of voters say they support this requirement. Meanwhile, in a nod to federalism, 81 percent of voters say that states should be allowed to enact school lunch nutrition standards that are stricter than federal standards, giving states greater control to implement public policy that aligns with the preferences of voters in the state.
Nearly nine in 10 voters (88%) also support greater transparency in school lunch programs. In a rare instance of bipartisan agreement, Republicans (90%) and Democratic voters (89%), along with 86 percent of Independents, are in lockstep on requiring schools to provide parents with a full list of ingredients and nutrition facts for the meals served at the school. Such a move would provide parents with greater information about the foods their children consume at school and provide them meaningful opportunities to hold the schools accountable when they stray from providing healthy meals for children.
Transparency is vital to government accountability, and voters reject the idea of government researchers burying studies that were funded with taxpayer dollars. With near unanimity (95%), voters agree that all government-funded health studies should be made publicly available,even if those studies have negative results. Moreover, voters demand that government agencies and the bureaucrats who work in them be free from any appearance of bias or impropriety arising from financial ties. More than nine in 10 (93%) of voters say that government agencies should be required to disclose financial ties with drug companies and food manufacturers. Meanwhile, nearly as many voters—87 percent—agree that it should be illegal for all government health officials to own stock in companies they regulate.
Let’s go back in time to before the 2024 election. Many Republicans were afraid of voting manipulation. There had been at least two credible assassination attempts against the candidate Donald Trump. Knowing he would face a bruising battle for reelection, Senator Ron Johnson had considered not running for another term, but decided to meet the challenge mainly because of his empathy for those injured by the COVID-19 gene therapy-based products (mRNA and adenovirus vectored).
Lots happened in the closing weeks, including the merger of two campaigns – the Trump/MAGA charging bull coming from the right, and the Kennedy/MAHA insurrection coming from the left. Strange bedfellows who formed what had seemed an improbable alliance forged in the crucible of a spectacular televised assassination attempt.
Truly a historic event, which split a key Democrat party constituency and moved it into the Republican column: MAHA Moms. Much more than merely “suburban housewives”, per Grok, “MAHA Moms” are typically mothers from a broad range of racial, regional, and sociological demographics who advocate for healthier lifestyles, focusing on cleaner food, reduced exposure to toxins, and skepticism toward mainstream medical practices like vaccines. They are often described as “crunchy moms” who prioritize organic, unprocessed foods and natural living, sometimes overlapping with conservative or “medical freedom” ideologies. Many are active on social media, using hashtags like #MAHA or #MAHAMoms to push for food industry reform and share wellness tips. Some MAHA Moms are also momfluencers, promoting “non-toxic” products or alternative health practices, though some positions characterized as “anti-vaccine” and distrustful of medical institutions have drawn criticism from ‘fake news” media for spreading misinformation.
After a stunning election and mandate to govern from the center right, I had the opportunity to speak with the re-elected Senator Johnson as well as many with close contacts to the new leadership of HHS under Secretary Kennedy. In my substack essay endorsing President Trump I had acknowledged that I was not aligned with his position on the genetic vaccine products, but believed that, on balance, he was by far the superior Presidential candidate. But I wanted to understand what would likely transpire regarding these gene therapy-based products that I had called to be withdrawn from the market years before.
| Why I have Endorsed President Trump |
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS·AUGUST 28, 2024 |
 |
| The time of choosing is coming soon. |
| Read full story |
Although many within the MAHA and Medical Freedom movements were advocating for immediate legislative action to force the removal of these products from the market, Senator Johnson discussed that he strongly believed that it would be necessary first to build national consensus in support of such action. That attempts to move legislatively without broad voter support would be a fools errand. He spoke about the coming opportunity to ascend to become chairperson of the Senate DHS permanent subcommittee on investigations, at which time he would have the power of the subpoena and could force disclosure of previously redacted or withheld information from the HHS bureaucracy concerning the hazards associated with these products. The Senator’s proposed strategy revolved around what he anticipated would be staged disclosure of key government documents and correspondences that would prove to (and move) US Citizens to support legislative reversal of the laws and policies that gave rise to the COVIDcrisis lies and travesties, and what he refers to as the COVID cartel.
Last week’s hearings by the Senate DHS permanent subcommittee on investigations concerning “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines” were stunning. The strongest indicator of impact that I witnessed while sitting in the audience was the three lobbyists sitting in front of me, whom I am quite sure had no idea who I was. They started out sniggering at Senator Johnson’s opening statement, but as the meeting progressed, they became more and more agitated and distraught. I overheard the senior member calling some colleague outside the conference room, and he was clearly quite upset by the testimony. This is winning, and the Senator clearly understands the politics of all of this, as demonstrated by the recent Rasmussen Reports polling that was just disclosed today.
As to my HHS contacts, what I had been told was that the team would deploy a strategy closely paralleling that of Senator Johnson. Staged deployment of large blocks of well-vetted and substantiated new information concerning the key topics associated with the MAHA agenda, with the intent of overwhelming the ability of “fake news” media to spin and distract from the underlying inconvenient truths. You can think of this as a “Twitter Files” strategy. The intent being to break through the firewall of propaganda and censorship that will be arrayed against the assembled disruptive team and new ideas. Hoping that truth and data will have sufficient power to convince the general citizenry. Hence the massive truth bomb of the MAHA Commission report. Which is the lead in to the second poll cited above- documenting that “American Voters Strongly Support MAHA Policies, Backing Crosses Party Lines.” This is what winning looks like in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king. Many in the MAHA, sponsored and spontaneous, are quite willing and able to build outrage, anger, clicks, likes and follows by shouting that things are not perfect, and Bobby et al are not moving fast enough. But from where I sit on my little homestead in the foothills below the Shenandoah National Park, all of this looks like winning at warp speed.
Bobby is staying true to his ideals, and to the ideals of the MAHA movement that has caught fire with key cross-partisan segments of the American electorate. I think we are on the verge of a major political realignment. Populist movements are always challenged by how to translate their ideals into effective political action and long-term change. Frankly, I have been skeptical that this strange bedfellow alliance of MAHA and MAGA could translate all of the layers of hope and passion into sustainable policy. But with leaders like Secretary Kennedy, Senator Johnson, and President Trump, it is looking a lot like this dream just might come true, at least in the near term.
On the horizon, the multifaceted threat to fundamental truth and reality known as Artificial Intelligence will sweep across all of this and profoundly restructure society, business, and government. Some see that impending period of accelerating change as a threat. I see it as an opportunity. I love disruptive change. Kennedy, Trump, Johnson, Gabbard, and so many others are agents of change, and from the resulting disruption of industries and existing networks of power and control will emerge new opportunities for those with the skills and agility to recognize the opportunities.
Don’t let the nattering nabobs of negativity distract you. This is what winning looks like, and it is glorious. Focus instead on what you can do to adapt to this change, to innovate, and together help create a decentralized “new world order”.
Disruption is king. Long live the disruption.
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 28 |
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:
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.
Here is the link: Bot farms invade social media to hijack popular sentiment
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.
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.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 25∙PREVIEW |
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 16 |
Marcus Raskin was a progressive activist, who co-founded the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a far- left think tank advocating for social justice, peace, and economic equality. His work criticized capitalism, militarism, and the “national security state.” He believed that the government could be overthrown by taking over the administrative state. He developed a theory of “social reconstruction” as an alternative to traditional revolution. His approach rejected violent Marxist revolutionary models, advocating instead for a peaceful, decentralized process to transform society away from democracy and capitalism.
Whether or not the FBI has records of him being a suspected communist – the optics are bad enough.
We now know that Raskin’s left-of-left politics, whether labeled as socialist or communist, came directly from his father.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Please feel free to share this post or cross-post –
You’re currently a free subscriber to Malone News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 12 |
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:
| FDA Fails to Address DNA Adulteration Concerns |
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS·DECEMBER 15, 2023 |
 |
| Read full story |
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”
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.
For more on this, please see the following:
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.
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.
Once again quoting the timeless wisdom of the Rolling Stones:
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.
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.
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:
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.
We, the people, deserve answers.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 5 |
On March 09 and 10, 2022, Malone.news published two primary source articles focused on the Ukraine Biolabs. These articles provided direct evidence that the United States Government was funding biological research laboratories in Ukraine. The first of these articles raised the question of whether military action by the Russian Federation to destroy these facilities would be justified, with an analogy drawn to the question of what would be the likely actions of the US Military if it were determined that analogous biological infectious disease research laboratories funded by a global competitor (such as China) were to be discovered in Northern Mexico.
After these articles were published, I was contacted by an active Air Force LTC-rank officer who had direct visibility/intelligence on the early events of the Ukraine conflict that the bombing and destruction via air of those laboratories, attributed by US Corporate media to Russian air force action, was performed by the US Air Force. The implication is that the USG either actively destroyed evidence or acted to prevent the armed forces of the Russian Federation from acquiring information and resources (potentially including biological specimens) from those laboratories.
There is no denying that an active PsyWar propaganda campaign has been deployed to obscure the early events associated with the Ukraine war intentionally. The focus of this propaganda has been to delegitimize the justifications for the invasion of Ukraine offered by the Russian Federation. Any and all in NATO countries who questioned that propaganda campaign were labeled as Russian agents and actively targeted for delegitimization and censorship.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while a Democratic candidate for the 2024 presidential election, commented on the existence of U.S. biolabs in Ukraine and their connection to biological weapons research. He stated that these biolabs are developing bioweapons using advanced genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR, which were not available to previous generations.
Kennedy also mentioned that the U.S. has been making bioweapons at places like Wuhan, China, and Ukraine, and that soe of the research was moved to the Wuhan laboratory, which is suspected to be the origin point for the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. has long dismissed claims about the biological research laboratories in Ukraine as “Russian propaganda,” until senior State Department official Victoria Nuland unexpectedly confirmed their existence at a 2022 Senate hearing under questioning by Senator Marco Rubio. However, the Pentagon continues to insist that the research is neither illegal nor intended for military purposes.
Following is a comment from a scientist that is deeply embedded in DoD “Biological Countermeasures” planning and operations. The Trump Administration recently appointed this person to a Special Government Employee position, where he will apparently be supporting the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness, and is rumored to be posted to BARDA (Biodefense Advanced Research and Development Administration).
“As for the Ukranian labs, you should look at the actual DoD agreement and other associated open source materials. The Ukranian labs put out published reports on a variety of public health and agricultural threats, including Swine Fever from China and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) are some of the more recent ones, as well as public health messaging on topical items that you can watch on youtube. Unannounced inspections of these laboratories by DoD personnel are allowed.
These labs fulfill a vital mission in global surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. Similar to US APHIS program, State public health labs, etc. Most work is low biosafety (BSL 2) although some places have Class III cabinets for things like CCHF. I think one place has a small hood line.
There are no micronizers, spray dryers, aerosol test chambers, particle size counters, etc. needed for biowarfare research and aerosol stabilization testing.
All the mainstream media pundits that suddenly became overnight COVID experts have now suddenly become overnight national foreign policy experts. It is aggravating to watch them cloud the issue and add fuel to the current Russian Chinese propaganda. Plus, it’s a huge waste of everyone’s time having to correct their BS.
Outside of some small seed stock cultures in liquid nitrogen or held in -70 cryofreezers, the Ukranians have nothing in these public health or agriculture labs that the Russians do not already have in their own still very active and sophisticated BW program that nobody talks about.”
In recent comments by Tulsi Gabbard, current US Director of National Intelligence, she cites the PsyWar attacks she received consequent to merely speaking the verifiable truths which Malone.news documented on March 09 and 10, 2022. In light of these comments by DNI Gabbard, it is worth reviewing sections of those prior reports.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard (Megyn Kelly Interview
“The reason why this is so important is not just what happened in the past, it’s because this gain of function research is happening in labs around the world. I got attacked, and I think you saw this we’ve probably talked about in your show before when I warned against us funded bio labs in Ukraine when the Russia, Ukraine war kicked off for this very reason. Who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs and, if released could create another covid like pandemic. And for that, I was called a Russian asset. You’re trumpeting Putin’s talking points, all of this nonsense simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that by the way, are still on US Embassy Ukraine’s website today about how the US has funded these biolabs in Ukraine. But my point is, in order to prevent another covid-like pandemic or another major health incident that could affect us in the world, we have to end this gain of function research and provide the evidence that shows exactly why and how it’s in our best interest the American people’s best interest to bring about an end to it.”
| All Along the Watchtower |
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS·MARCH 9, 2022 |
 |
| “There must be some way out of here” |
| Read full story |
I never really allowed myself to confront the possibility that we might not be the good guys, the white hats. Until I experienced what we have all been through over the last two years. A government (or really multiple governments) that clearly believes that it is justified in disregarding fundamental principles of bioethics and the common rule. And like many others, once I saw that, it was like having backed into a light switch and suddenly the entire room was lit up, and I could never un-see what was revealed. Are we always the good guys? Or is this just more interchangeable Spy vs Spy, where ethics and roles and fungible and “situational”. A world in which there are no good guys, no white hats. Just a matter of media spin, perspective, and realpolitik. The world as envisioned by Henry Kissinger and Klaus Schwab.
And by the way, “biodefense” is big business. Yet more weapons of war.
Most of us that are not deep into the mass formation process at this point can see the coordinated pivot from legacy media pushing the COVID fear-porn to the same outlets pushing the “Putin crazy bad man – Zelenskyy good man” theme. But almost as soon as the shooting war started, a more nuanced and complex counter-narrative cropped up.
- That is the deep ties between children of key Democratic party leaders and Ukrainian petroleum industry interests.
- And the USA-sponsored bioweapon research facilities located throughout Ukraine, including along the Russian border.
- And the legitimate Russian concerns about NATO efforts to geopolitically encircle Russia.
- And the issue of whether Zelenskyy is really just a western puppet, rather than being the populist leader that has been pitched to us.
- And the surreptitious hand of World Economic Foundation meddling in all of this.
Things started looking a lot more complicated that just “Putin crazy bad man – Zelenskyy good man”.
Biological warfare agents are potent, cheap, easy to manufacture (particularly compared to thermonuclear devices), readily deployed, and have changed the tide of history on many occasions. Back to the “Indian” wars, where smallpox was basically weaponized from time to time against indigenous peoples in North America. And probably all the way back through recorded history.
So now we have the emerging rich documentation of US sponsored bio labs scattered across what had increasingly become the US client state called Ukraine.
If you want to dip your toe into that topic, dive down that rabbit hole, please see the following:
“EXCLUSIVE: Deleted Web Pages Show Obama Led an Effort To Build a Ukraine-Based BioLab Handling ‘Especially Dangerous Pathogens’” <This link has been deleted from the primary source, The National Pulse, and is not available on the Wayback Machine. It can be found here at Def-Con News and other republishers>
“BREAKING: Biden official says US working with Ukraine to prevent bio research facilities from falling into Russian hands” <note that Victoria Newland largly evades and rephrases the question>
“US Embassy Quietly Deletes All Ukraine Bioweapons Lab Documents Online – Media Blackout” <note the comment “These labs are purportedly co-run by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s EcoHealth Alliance. According to reports, Russia is currently engaged in securing these labs and gathering evidence.”>
“China urges U.S. to release details of bio-labs in Ukraine” <here is the money quote in this one – “only the United States has for 20 years blocked the building of the Biological Weapons Convention verification protocol, and refused to accept inspections of biological facilities within and outside its borders, further aggravating the concerns of the international community, the spokesperson said.”>
“Russia Negotiator Charges It Now Has Evidence of ‘Biological Weapons Components’ in Ukraine That Show ‘Good Reason’ for Invasion” <website deleted, see the Wayback Machine archived version>
Quoting from this last article:
America’s Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP) established Ukraine as its major partner:
“The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases. The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.”
Interestingly, the BTRP has a direct connection the EcoHealth Alliance. That’s the same EcoHealth Alliance connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci.
It doesn’t take much to add all of this up. Ukraine is at the forefront of the US Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program that essentially is another form of a Wuhan lab, which means the US DoD is researching bioweapons right across the border from Russia. Putin may be brutal, but given what came out of Wuhan, these bioweapon research facilities in the Ukraine appear to be an existential danger to Russia. Why would he want to take a chance with an increasingly brazen NATO on his doorsteps and the threat of bioweapons?
None of the above justifies the Russian army’s brutality in its attacks on Ukraine, but the US DoD’s games in far off places having been causing more problems than they solve and if the game here was to get a one up on Russia, then it is America’s willingness to play with fire that is the real trigger for this war.
NATO has done a good job over the years painting itself as the “defender of freedom” against an autocratic Russia. However, given the brutality showed across the world connected to COVID-19 restrictions, coupled with the fact that it was the USA’s own government (albeit only a clandestine part of it) that had a direct hand in developing the COVID-19 pathogen, it is increasingly getting harder to tell the difference between the two sides.
Returning to my commentary:
Here’s the point. Once upon a time, the US engaged in thermonuclear war brinksmanship with the USSR because of Russian missiles being placed on Cuban soil. The weapons of war have evolved. Bioweapons technologies have matured. What would the USA do if Russia was transforming Mexico into a client state and had placed biowarfare research laboratories along our southern border. Would we invade? I strongly suspect so.
Are “we” the good guys or the bad guys here?
Or is this just more Spy vs Spy, with a strong dose of fearporn administered to the general populace by the legacy media to insure that we “think” and behave as the Overlords desire us to.
a) Kharkiv Diagnostic Laboratory, Kharkiv Oblast Laboratory Center, Pomirky region, Kharkiv- Fact Sheet
e) Kherson Diagnostic Laboratory Kherson Oblast Laboratory Center 3 Uvarova Str., Kherson- Fact Sheet
h) Lviv Diagnostic Laboratory, Lviv Oblast Laboratory Center 27, Krupyarskaya Str. Lviv- Fact Sheet
j) Electronic Integrated Disease Surveillance System (EIDSS)
k) Pathogen Asset Control System (PACS)
m) Institute of Veterinary Medicine of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences- Fact Sheet
=============================================
So here is my “assuming best intention” current “working hypothesis” concerning this hot mess:
USA DoD/DTRA partnered with the government of Ukraine to (at a minimum) support collection, storage and monitoring of infectious biological agents and toxins by researchers in Ukraine, and there seems to have been some component of personnel training and facilities engineering involved with this.
US State Department via the Embassy in Ukraine announced this DoD/DTRA effort in a transparent manner via a readily available web page.
If I were working as an analyst for the Russian government, paid to perform and enable risk assessment, I would be skeptical that the US DoD/DTRA effort was limited to just collecting and archiving biological samples, and I would have to conclude that there is significant risk that these facilities were involved in (at a minimum) “dual purpose” research. “Dual purpose” is a euphemism for “could be used to develop defensive capabilities or could be used to develop offensive capabilities”.
Clearly, whether in sincerity or for propaganda purposes (time will tell if they provide the documentation and receipts), the Russian government is stating that the activities of these laboratories included bioweapon research which was coordinated with US DoD/DTRA.
Prior to invasion of Ukraine, the government of Russia signaled that the presence of these DTRA-sponsored “biolabs” in this region was perceived as a threat to Russian national security and biosecurity. Again, if I were a Russian analyst, I would likely conclude that these laboratories represent a threat to national security.
Based on information available to me, the US Government does not seem to have made any attempt to assure the government of Russia that these laboratories were performing benign activities. One action which might have mitigated Russian concerns would have been to allow unannounced inspections, much as US and NATO have insisted on in the case of foreign nuclear enrichment or reactor programs.
In my professional opinion, based on the language employed by Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, I believe that there is a significant risk that the Russian government has obtained documents or other evidence that (at a minimum) one or more of these laboratories have had biological materials the existence of which is likely to prove embarrassing to the United States. The language used appears to my ear to imply that there are biological materials the existence of which could damage US strategic and tactical geopolitical interests.
It is likely that the “chain of custody” or veracity of any evidence which the Russian government may present to support their case will not be clean, and that there will be a strong effort by western media and information sources (social media, tech) to delegitimize any communication by Russia (as a government) and by any persons (Russian or otherwise) who present or attempt to discuss such communication. Including myself. It is highly likely that management of any information concerning this topic is already being globally handled by the Trusted News Initiative organization, and that obtaining or discussing unfiltered and unprocessed “raw” information will soon not be possible.
In other words, in my opinion, this is another topic that we will never be able to get to the bottom of, and we will never be able to discern something akin to objective “truth”. Best we can hope for is some sort of approximation of truth that is sort of like a kalidescope image viewed in a hall of mirrors.
In my opinion, the partnership relationship between DoD/DTRA (as historically structured) and the current government of Ukraine (which has functionally become a client state of the USA) was ill advised. At a minimum- this relationship has provided some semblance of political cover for military actions which the government of Russia believes are in its strategic interests, and which are of such importance that the Russian government was willing to take significant geopolitical and financial risk.
At a minimum, congressional testimony on this topic by a relevant US official representing DoD/DTRA should include a detailed description of the nature and capabilities of each of the facilities which have been funded, and a summary of the activities taking place therein. DoD inspection reports should be disclosed both to congressional investigators and the general public, with redaction if necessary for sensitive information. This would go a long way to dispelling concerns which the US public and global community may have, might help to reduce tensions, and at a minimum might mitigate the blowback which may damage the reputation of DoD/DTRA and the USG if not managed appropriately and intelligently.
Given the lack of faith engendered with the US public and global community after the demonstration of coordinated public health-related propaganda activities during the last two years (clearly involving USG-legacy media-social media-big tech coordination), mounting yet another propaganda campaign attempting to discredit all information and discussion of this topic is unlikely to be effective, and may boomerang. In my opinion.
Finally, the (mis)management of this whole mess personally reminds me of the mismanagement of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I have no opinion or insight regarding whether the shooting war and subsequent cascade of tragic events could have been avoided, given the multiple geopolitical factors which provide motivators for Russian aggression in this context at this time. But focusing on the specifics of the biological laboratories in question, assuming that the intent and activities associated with the DoD/DTRA- Ukranian “cooperation/collaboration” (my term and quotes) was as benign as my deep state colleague asserts, the risk that the purpose and intent of these facilities would be misinterpreted by the government of Russia should have been assumed, and risks stemming from such misinterpretation should have been anticipated and mitigated.
Assessing whether or not there was adequate planning, risk evaluation, and risk mitigation for the obvious potential for Russian concerns and reaction, particularly given the historic tendency of the Kremlin to be a bit (understandably) paranoid, is absolutely a topic that merits investigation by Senate and House of Representative committees. I hope that this is something that both political parties can agree on.
But let’s please stop the propaganda/media war response to every crisis.This increasingly strikes me as very immature, and a horrible way to run a country. Grow up, own your mistakes, and stop trying to obfuscate them with a barrage of flying feces. The USA is supposed to be the dominant political, military, and economic power in the world at this point. So act like it. This reminds me of a young child that keeps seeking to blame everything bad that happens on someone or something else. Just stop it.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 5 |
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.
By: Jeffrey Tucker, published in Brownstone
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 in U.S. News & World Report and Infectious 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.
Moderna itself announced the reward last July.
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.
This was just before the Trump inauguration.
If you go to HHS now, what you find is a dead web page.
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?
 Malone News cross-posted a post from The DisInformation Chronicle |
| Robert W Malone MD, MSMay 4 · Malone News |
| 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. |
| MAY 4 |
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.
Baric obviously has concerns about what went on in Wuhan. When a group of virologists wrote a February 2020 essay for Emerging Microbes & Infections titled, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2” Baric made some secret changes to the text.
“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.
Even more alarming: one of Fauci’s trusted advisors, David Morens, was caught in emails also coordinating with several academics and Daszak to get EcoHealth Alliance’ grant renewed. When Fauci testified afterwards during a congressional hearing, he claimed to barely know Morens, which is patently untrue.
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.
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS MAY 4 |
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.
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share or crosspost! Any help is appreciated.
[Ułomki; całość zjadły pluskwy internetowe. md]
Robert W Malone MD, MS Apr 27, 2025
[DEM – Democratic Party. md]
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS APR 26 |
“What bureaucrats and power elites always want is for the opposition to shut up and go away, to obey orders, to accept their assigned tasks.” —Murray N. Rothbard
We won’t shut up or go away.
Bureaucracy is both a weapon and a weakness for the modern state. While bureaucracy regulates, spies on, and controls almost every aspect of our lives, it is impeded by its own incompetence and waste. That’s why Mises said, in his book of the same name, “The ultimate basis of an all-around bureaucratic system is violence,” and “Of course, the bulk of the bureaucrats were rather mediocre men.”
Maybe we should be thankful for bureaucratic inefficiency because without it we’d suffer more bureaucratic violence.
Join the Mises Institute this April in Phoenix, Arizona, to expose the danger and waste of bureaucracy. Speakers include Dr. Robert Malone, discussing his provocative book PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order and the role of psychological operations in bureaucratic control; Tom Woods, exposing the madness of covid-era “public health” authorities, which he documented in his book Diary of a Psychosis; and Tom DiLorenzo roasting the corruption and hypocrisy of our federal bureaucracy.
============================
=============================
Dla Polaków, mikro słownik tamtejszego slangu współczesnego:
[Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. MAGA: Make America Great Again. MAHA: Make America Healthy Again MD
==========================================
Robert W. Malone, MD, MS
There are fundamental fault lines between MAHA and MAGA, and in many ways they resolve into pro-regulatory big government initiatives versus promotion of deregulation/small government.
It is worth noting that the MAHA movement exists outside of Kennedy and the government, and encompasses many societal issues outside of the focus of the Trump administration. For instance, homesteading, medical and personal sovereignty, and personal responsibility for healthcare choices may all be outside of the MAHA whole-of-government approach. For this discussion, I am primarily concerned with the MAHA directives within the government. But MAHA is much bigger than that.
MAHA has emerged mainly from the left and, out of frustration due to the Democrat party corruption and rejection, has embraced the center-right. In turn, MAHA has been enthusiastically endorsed by MAGA and center-right populists, including many formerly associated with the Tea Party movement.
The arc of the Presidential campaign of RFK Jr. closely adheres to this narrative. Bobby started out seeking the Democratic party nomination as representing “Kennedy Democrats,” and announced a platform proposing a return to his legendary father and uncle’s pre-Carter, pre-Ronald Reagan “New Deal” positions. But the Democrat party of today bears little resemblance to that of his father and uncle’s time, and the changes in National political thought on both left and right wrought by Reagan, Carter, and then the succession of the military-industrial corporatist Bushes and Clinton(s)-Obama-Biden on the left. To no one’s surprise, apparently other than Bobby and his team, today’s Democrat party made it abundantly clear that there was no room for this Kennedy in the tent. So he decided to make a run as an independent, and Nicole Shanahan stepped up to bankroll and prop up the drive to get Bobby on the ballot in all 50 states – which was amazingly successful to the credit of all concerned. However, it was clear that, once again, an independent run would primarily function as a spoiler, in this case for the campaign of Donald J. Trump. After much advice, consideration, deep self-examination, and the disappointment of many of his supporters, RFK Jr. famously decided to pivot to endorsing and joining the candidacy of the once and future President Trump. The pivotal moment was RFK jr.’s empathetic phone call to DJT after the assassination attempt, which still reeks of a deep state operation much like what happened to Bobby’s uncle and father. And RFK Jr. did so in a spectacular manner, with a ringing endorsement speech that will live in history.
So, MAHA largely originates from the left, but the appeal crosses all party lines. Who does not want to be more healthy?
The initial MAHA mandate is to demonstrate measurable improvements in the health of US citizens within 12-18 months, with a particular focus on chronic disease and children’s health. One aspect of this effort will involve re-focusing the HHS on health promotion and de-emphasizing disease-specific treatment.
At its core, MAHA is predominantly pro-regulation. The logic is that we must use regulatory authority to improve transparency and eliminate that which leads to unhealthy outcomes. Examples include drugs with side effects that, when considered in whole, do not have a strongly favorable risk/benefit ratio. And glyphosate (Roundup) contamination of our grain and soybeans.
However, there is also a deregulatory aspect to the MAHA movement. For example, is unpasteurized milk really a health risk, and what health promotion properties are associated with unpasteurized milk? Similarly, the move towards backyard poultry and eating locally slaughtered grass fed beef. Or reexamination of the widespread US policy of fluoridating municipal water supplies. And there is also an investigational research aspect, for example, what are the drivers behind the explosion of autism, obesity, and other childhood chronic diseases.
To date, the MAHA movement has primarily focused on things that big government can do to promote improved health of US Citizens. Removing known toxins from food. Investigating autism causes. Questioning the pediatric vaccine schedule and revising the CDC VAERS vaccine adverse event reporting system so that truly informed decisions can be made concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccine products.
But behind that is the potential for the MAHA initiative, if institutionalized and bureaucratized, to morph into another overbearing set of nanny state mandates. To make the point, I often use the example of the person who loves McDonald’s Hamburgers consumed with Sugary Coca-Cola. You know who I am talking about. Should the State mandate that such a person not eat these things, despite the clear-cut health risks? Should the State outlaw cigars? And what about regulating foods? Where should MAHA draw the line? What principles should be applied to guide these decisions? What is the proper role of small government as it relates to food and drug regulation?
This really involves the boundaries between individual sovereignty, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism, and the utilitarian/socialist logic of modern “Public Health”. The modern “public health” enterprise seeks the greatest good for the greatest number and is driven by narrow analysis of large data sets to identify, regulate, promote or mandate specific “health care” interventions such as vaccines- while often disregarding other related issues including long term, unanticipated or difficult to predict consequences.
A “public health” enterprise that seeks to achieve optimization of collective health outcomes rather than optimizing health opportunities coupled to respect for individual autonomy (choice). A “public health” enterprise that has repeatedly used top-down management via government, insurer, and health management organizations to require and deploy pre-approved treatment protocols rather than individually optimized health management and promotion, reflecting each patient’s complexities. One size fits all, and do what you are told. An expansionist Public Health enterprise and bureaucracy that has come to fully embrace Socialism and Socialist logic. Enforcing a “one size fits all” “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” at the expense of individual liberty of thought and deed via a centralized global “command economy”-based bureaucracy now routinely alluded to as the “One World Order” by the European Union.
Consider seat belt mandates. Like many big government initiatives that stand at the top of slippery slopes, there is a general consensus that it is right and proper for government to mandate seat belts be installed in cars. But is it right to legally require their use when driving? Next comes motorcycle helmets. Same issues, but slightly less clear. Cigarette smoking? In all three cases, the argument is made that irresponsible health behaviors by individuals cost all of society due to increased health care and insurance costs (including publicly subsidized costs), and loss of person-years. The same logic then can be applied all the way down to whether the State should mandate your dietary choices, which is why I use the McDonald’s hamburger example. Should we “allow” citizens to experiment with nutraceuticals and health supplements that are not officially endorsed by the FDA?
And there we go, right straight to nanny state medical fascism. But seatbelts save lives. Air traffic controllers save lives (most of the time, with some recent exceptions). You get my point.
If MAHA is to transition from merely a populist uprising and set of immediate grievances to a new, transformed and sustainable set of public health enterprise policies, we need to take some time to think about and define acceptable limits on the role of the State in promoting, advancing and in some cases mandating limits on infringement of individual sovereignty and autonomy.
Immediate short term interventions are absolutely necessary, and I applaud the use of both the bully pulpit as well as executive orders. But if MAHA is to become more than just a populist uprising, and to result in sustainable long term policy changes, it is also important to take the time required to examine, define, and develop public support for the boundaries between the proper role of a Constitutional Republic – based federal government, the constitutional role of individual States (which are constitutionally responsible for regulating the practice of medicine), and both the sovereign rights of the individual and the global right to truly informed consent to medical interventions.
To drive home this final point, as a component of his commitment to no longer “walk on eggshells”, the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has recently stated that the COVID genetic “vaccines” were experimental medical products, and that the “vaccine mandates” were illegal. These mandated experimental products were associated with severe adverse events including myocarditis, stroke, and death, and the US bureaucracy actively suppressed the ability of those who were either forced or willingly accepted these products to obtain informed consent. These actions were violations of the Nuremberg accords, and there must be accountability and consequences.
| MAARTEN FORNEROD APR 24 |
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.
[Umieszczam dopiero w Poniedziałek Wielkiej Nocy,
bo wczoraj było za wielkie ŚWIĘTO md]
| ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS APR 20 |
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:
[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.
Today is a day to celebrate, to rejoice in family, friends and life.
May peace and God be with you.
| RANDALL BOCK APR 19 |
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs’ 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) has 188 States Parties— and nine outside the BWC: four states in limbo (Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, Syria) and five non-signatories (Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Kiribati). This document didn’t prevent Iran and Iraq’s lobbing bioweapons at each other in the 1980s; Russia’s targeted political bio-agent poisonings; nor Syria’s chemically attacking its own, 2010s. Control’s an illusion—treaties don’t kill intent or capability.
History agrees. Look at U.S. narcotics from 1920 to 1965: prohibition didn’t eliminate drugs, but it kept use low. Then we medicalized addiction, rebranded users as patients, and demand exploded. A vast opiate-hunger’s incentivizing Fentanyl-smuggling is our reward.
Grand schemes don’t fix root causes; they backfire. The War on Poverty threw cash at need, but people adapted—gaming the system became the game. Gun control? Gangs still shoot. The BWC’s another noble façade, a paper wall against a world that laughs at rules.
Rewind to the Cold War. In a bipolar world—U.S. vs. Soviets—the BWC had more bite. Fear of the U.S. kept many in line, while Soviet alignment shielded others. Ken Alibek, a top Soviet bioweapons scientist who defected in 1992, revealed how vast their program really was: two systems—one he helped dismantle, the other, run by Russia’s Ministry of Defense, left intact.
He warned that Russia never stopped, instead diving into genetic manipulation—signaled by Putin in the early 2000s and echoed in recent accusations against Ukraine. Treaties mean nothing when capabilities persist. Today, we’re overextended and strapped for cash while rogue states catch up fast. AI and open info-sharing—GitHub, arXiv—flatten the playing field. Compliance is obsolete; it’s whack-a-mole without a referee.
This is exactly the concern echoed in a 2023 future-planning study by the U.S. Marine Corps. It identified cutting-edge biological applications—genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and CRISPR gene editing—as some of the most disruptive and dangerous dual-use technologies on the horizon. CRISPR, in particular, is a game-changer: cheap, precise, and accessible. It allows live genomic editing in bacteria, viruses, fungi, plants—even humans. Synthetic biology pushes further still, with the first fully artificial bacterial genome created in 2019. What once took years in military labs can now be built from a desktop and a DNA printer. With synthetic life on the table, biological weapons become modular, programmable, and disturbingly democratized.
China, according to U.S. intelligence assessments, continues to blur the line between civilian biotech and military ambition. Presentations from Chinese military medical institutions reportedly explore, identify, and test numerous toxins with potential dual-use applications. The United States has explicitly accused China of failing to distance itself from weaponizable biotech. Add North Korea, Iran, and an unrepentant Russia to the mix, and the idea of a globally enforceable ban begins to look delusional.
Syria refused to ratify and already has a history of chemical and biological attacks. Israel, a non-signatory, faces existential threats. Signing the BWC while Syria shrugs would be like locking your door while the arsonist roams free—especially after October 7, 2023’s literal playing out of that analogy. Iran signed, but taqiyya invites deception; its nuclear program tells the story. China signed too—but Wuhan’s SARS redux speaks louder. It’s bait-and-switch: we chase signatures, they chase capability.
Worse, we’ve outsourced biodefense to partners like China and Ukraine via groups like EcoHealth Alliance. We poured USAID cash into countries we assumed would play fair. While we debated gain-of-function semantics, China mastered the technique—and may lead this tech race, as happened with cars. Ford and GM entered China thinking they’d struck gold. Beijing reverse-engineered their playbooks, undercut them, and waved goodbye with a smirk. That happened in public—why expect anything different in secret labs?
Grand strategies fail when execution is uneven. ASPR and BARDA embody this: bloated bureaucracies that slow U.S. biodefense while adversaries push forward. Since 1972, the BWC has banned lethal bioweapons research—hamstringing our ability to develop countermeasures. Our adversaries don’t care. Think SALT, or the Paris Accords: we step back, they sprint ahead. Now we settle for treaty-compliant “non-lethal” viruses that disable, not kill — half-measures in a (war-)game designed to be lost.
The UN? Useless. Morally bankrupt. It churns out resolutions against Israel—a functioning democracy—while brutal regimes that imprison dissidents and crush minorities skate by. USAID mirrors that hypocrisy: we fund, they pretend to reform, the UN looks the other way.
Alibek’s take on COVID-19 resonates—our containment model is too slow, too rigid. But where does this leave us? No treaty at all? The BWC tasks signatory states with self-enforcement – undoubtedly akin to O.J. Simpson’s vowing to find Nicole’s killer.
Ditch the treaty? It’s difficult to recommend that, but certainly we should have vigilance and skepticism that many others have already done it, despite external façades.
The good news? We’re not stuck in the “old days” of rigid vaccine stockpiles—prevention’s the play, not proliferation. mRNA tech can churn out vaccines fast—COVID proved it—but the rollout flopped, awkwardly timed after SARS-CoV-2 peaked, peddling an antiquated jab for a virus that’d already left the stage, risks with dwindling benefits. Still, with CRISPR, synthetic biology, and genetic tricks, we could mix-and-match smarter: a diffuse nationwide network for just-in-time vaccine and therapeutic production, tailored to active, severe threats—not blanket shots for ghosts.
Stockpiles still matter—but not for vaccines. Think treatments—ivermectin, once sneered at by the CDC
—antivirals, antibodies, anything to blunt the edge while we scale up.
Apr 18, 2025
[Nie zgadłeś? No to masz: C6H12O6 to jest glukoza… ]
The weather is getting above 80 degrees today – we have a farrier coming, a trip tothe dump planned, lots of planting in the raised vegetable gardens to do, and we plan to go out and do some “foal wrangling.”
This photo was taken a few years back:
I hope your day is as productive and great as I plan mine to be!
