BREAKING: First-Ever Study Links Vaccines to the Explosion of Alpha-Gal Syndrome

byNicolas Hulscher, MPHAlpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS) is a potentially dangerous meat allergy that can suddenly make people react to beef, pork, lamb, dairy, gelatin, and other products made from mammals. Reactions can range from hives and severe stomach symptoms to life-threatening anaphylaxis, often appearing several hours after eating. And the condition is rising at an extraordinary rate: among adults being tested for alpha-gal antibodies, positive results increased roughly 100-fold between 2013 and 2024. A separate 2026 CDC study found alpha-gal antibodies in 24% of adults across five high-burden states.To investigate what may be driving this surge, we conducted one of the most comprehensive reviews of Alpha-Gal Syndrome to date. Our new 104-reference paper, “Risk Factors, Pathogenesis, and Management of Alpha-Gal Syndrome,” is a major collaboration between researchers from the McCullough Foundation and The Wellness Company. It examines the causes, mechanisms, prevention, and treatment of AGS and raises a major overlooked question: could vaccine-derived alpha-gal be contributing to this explosion?The Vaccine ConnectionFor years, tick bites have largely been assumed to explain Alpha-Gal Syndrome. But that explanation leaves several major questions unanswered. Tens of millions of Americans are bitten by ticks, yet only a minority become sensitized and only a fraction of those individuals develop clinical disease. Even the amount of alpha-gal actually delivered by a feeding tick hasnever been measured.At the same time, more than90% of U.S. children are exposed to alpha-gal-bearing mammalian gelatin through routine vaccination. A child completing the two-dose MMR and varicella schedules receives approximately54 mg of mammalian gelatin by injection before school entry.Eating mammalian products normally trains the gut to tolerate alpha-gal. Injection bypasses that pathway and introduces the material directly into immune compartments capable of promoting sensitization.Two Possible PathwaysOur paper proposes two non-exclusive mechanisms.DIRECT:In susceptible individuals, repeated injection of alpha-gal-bearing mammalian material could directly promote alpha-gal-specific IgE sensitization.PRIME-BOOST:Vaccination could insteadPRIME the immune system, expanding or redirecting the existing alpha-gal-specific immune-memory pool. A later tick bite could thenBOOSTthat response to clinically significant IgE levels.This second model could help explain one of the central mysteries of AGS: why so many people are bitten by ticks, yet only some develop the allergy. Vaccination would not need to replace the tick as a trigger. It could potentially determine who is already immunologically primed when the tick bite occurs.The Japanese EvidenceSome of the most striking human evidence comes from Japan. Children historically received gelatin-containing, aluminum-adjuvanted DTaP vaccines and were subsequently found to develop anti-gelatin IgE and severe allergic reactions to later gelatin-containing vaccines.Among44 children with life-threatening vaccine anaphylaxis, 41 carried anti-gelatin IgE. None of 54 affected children had received gelatin-free DTaP, compared with 29% of 101 unaffected controls. After gelatin was removed from the implicated formulations, reports of anaphylaxis declined markedly.There is another important clue. The induced IgE reacted with gelatin from cows, mice, and kangaroos but largely not fish, a pattern that closely follows the species distribution of alpha-gal. Alpha-gal has also been directly detected in bovine gelatin but not fish gelatin. Our paper therefore considers it probable, although not formally proven, that a substantial portion of this vaccine-induced anti-gelatin IgE was directed against alpha-gal.Animal Experiments Show the Mechanism Is PossibleThe experimental evidence is equally important. In alpha-gal-deficient mice, researchers injected an alpha-gal-bearing protein together with avaccine-grade aluminum adjuvant. The animals developed alpha-gal-specific IgE and anaphylaxis.The experiment identified three key ingredients: theroute of exposure, a protein carrier, and an adjuvant. Whether clinically used vaccine formulations can produce alpha-gal sensitization in humans at real-world exposure levels remains unknown because that experiment has never been performed.The Obvious Human Experiment Has Never Been DoneDespite decades of research into Alpha-Gal Syndrome,no study has prospectively measured alpha-gal-specific antibodies before and after gelatin-containing vaccination.The experiment is remarkably straightforward: measure alpha-gal antibodies before vaccination, repeat the measurements afterward, and determine whether vaccination causes seroconversion or a meaningful rise in antibody levels. Human studies already show that vaccine gelatin can induce IgE sensitization, animal studies show that injected alpha-gal can induce alpha-gal-specific IgE, and gelatin-containing vaccines can trigger immune activation in patients who already have AGS. The missing step is directly connecting these findings in humans.Much More Than a Vaccine PaperAcross104 references, our paper examines the rapidly changing epidemiology of AGS, tick biology, dietary and medical exposures, oral tolerance, genetic susceptibility, immune mechanisms, prevention, pharmaceutical treatments, botanical mast-cell stabilization, and potential approaches to desensitization.We also lay out25 specific, falsifiable experimentsdesigned to resolve the field’s major unanswered questions. These include testing archived Japanese sera for alpha-gal-specific IgE, measuring antibodies before and after vaccination, comparing vaccinated and genuinely vaccine-naive individuals with equivalent tick exposure, directly quantifying alpha-gal in vaccine materials and tick saliva, and conducting controlled trials of promising therapies.One particularly striking treatment signal comes from auricular acupuncture. In the largest reported series,121 of 126 patients (96%) reported remission of AGS symptoms. Among patients with a prior history of diagnosed anaphylaxis and available follow-up, 27 of 29 reported no subsequent symptoms. There were no adverse events.Where This Leaves UsTaken together, the evidence identifiesvaccine-derived alpha-gal as a serious and urgently testable risk factor for Alpha-Gal Syndromethat has been largely overlooked.More than 90% of children receive alpha-gal-bearing mammalian material by injection. Injected alpha-gal can produce IgE sensitization experimentally. Vaccine gelatin has induced de novo IgE sensitization in humans. Gelatin-containing vaccines can trigger reactions in people with established AGS. And the Japanese experience provides a striking historical example of vaccine-associated gelatin sensitization followed by severe allergic reactions.With suspected AGS rising roughly100-fold in a decade, this potential risk factor now demands direct investigation.Alpha-gal antibodies should be measured before and after vaccination, alpha-gal should be quantified directly in vaccine lots and tick saliva, and vaccinated individuals should be compared with genuinely vaccine-naive individuals under equivalent tick exposure.Alpha-Gal Syndrome has been known for 18 YEARS, yet no scientific paper bothered to investigate whether alpha-gal containing vaccines could be contributing until now.Nicolas Hulscher, MPHEpidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough FoundationSupport our mission:mcculloughfnd.orgPlease consider following both theMcCullough Foundationandmy personal accountonX(formerly Twitter) for further content.FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™) is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Summary: More than 90% of U.S. children are injected with alpha-gal-bearing mammalian gelatin before school entry, raising the possibility of direct sensitization or immune priming before a later tick bite.


What Were Morens & His Co-Conspirators Doing?

Both political parties and the media are doing a splendid job of NOT examining what exactly Fauci’s senior NIAID advisor, David Morens, and his co-conspirators Peter Daszak and Gerald Keusch were trying to accomplish.The short answer is DAMAGE CONTROL. The stated rationale, reported in the media, is that Daszak really and truly believed that his ongoing grant gravy train,Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,was a form of legitimate academic inquiry and should therefore be reinstated after the Trump administration suspended it.This strategy was part of Daszak’s gambit to pretend that the Gain-of-Function work performed in accordance with his grant’s stated research objective had NOT resulted in the production of SARS-CoV-2, even though it obviously had.Keusch is an emeritus Boston University professor, and I suspect he is one of Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel’s cronies. From 2009–2024 Professor Keusch wasAssociate Director of Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory (NEIDL). Boston University is situated directly across the Charles River from Moderna’s office in Cambridge, and both men are top gurus in the Pandemic Preparedness/ Vaccine racket.We are told that Peter Daszak, Gerald Keusch, and David Morens corresponded primarily to coordinate responses to the suspension of EcoHealth Alliance’s NIH grant for bat coronavirus research (which included work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology), to share non-public information about NIH deliberations and FOIA requests,to advise on messaging and strategy regarding COVID-19 origins, and to facilitate back-channel communications aimed at restoring funding and managing political and public scrutiny.The stated rationale for using Morens’s personal Gmail account (rather than his official NIH email) was to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and keep the records beyond the reach of government searches and public disclosure.Morens repeatedly stated that his NIH email was “FOIA’d constantly,” that he preferred Gmail for sensitive matters, and that he would delete material he did not want appearing in the press.He instructed Daszak, Keusch, and others to use only his Gmail, warned against copying government addresses, claimed techniques (learned from NIH FOIA and IT staff) to make emails “disappear,” and described arrangements for relaying information to Fauci via private channels or in person to avoid creating searchable records. Daszak explicitly agreed to switch to Gmail “from now on” after receiving such guidance.Court documents related to Morens’s later guilty plea to conspiracy charges describe an agreement among the parties to hide these exchanges for precisely this reason, as they anticipated FOIA scrutiny ofCOVID origins, the EcoHealth grant, and related NIH activities.As one who is frequently accused of being a “Conspiracy Theorist,” I suspect that this sort of conspiracy probably happens hundreds of times per day in the federal government, which is now little more than a glorified racketeering syndicate.The truly astonishing feature of this conspiracy is that it’s core element— the massive organized crime of creating a bioweapon that was unleashed on mankind and then concealing its origin—sits like a bull elephant in an Afternoon Tea Salon . Morens is taking the heat for mishandling federal records while NO ONE is being prosecuted for the actual crime.Livin’ in America!Subscribe nowShare

Summary: Analyzing what Fauci’s senior advisor was trying to accomplish with Peter Daszak and Gerald Keusch


“When Plunder Becomes a Way of Life”

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.-Frédéric Bastiat’sThe Law, 1850.I’m getting a few independent media invitations to talk about my recent essay,NIAID’s David Morens Pleads Guilty to Concealing Records of Coronavirus Gain-of-Function Research GrantBecause most people who work in the media are still somewhat stuck in the “Left vs. Right” and “Republican vs. Democrat” concept of public affairs, they struggle to see that the entire US government is now a glorified racketeering syndicate. The “Pandemic Preparedness” and “Biodefense” Industries are perfect racketeering vehicles. Even when the syndicate’s breathtaking crimes—such as creating and concealing the origin of SARS-CoV-2—are exposed, the capos such as Fauci and Bancel get away with it, while a lower ranking bagman such as David Morens takes the rap for a mickey-mouse fraud charge. The real substance of the crime is thereby ignored.The final proof that the US government is a racketeering syndicate is the staggering amount of money the syndicate has borrowed and disbursed to an array of special interests over the last 26 years. Total US debt in 2000 stood at $5.674trillion. Today it crossed the$40trillion mark.To be sure, what enables the syndicate to flourish and plunder is the public remaining ignorant, distracted, and brainwashednotto see what is going on. In order to understand how the syndicate works, it is useful to have a basic grounding in history and civics.On a recent trip to Washington D.C. for a MAHA event, my faithful and talented filmmaker friend, Brian Olson, suggested that I take a crack at communicating why plunder has become a way of life in Washington D.C.Reviewing the final cut today, I realize that at the time I gave the talk, I failed to appreciate just how much Dr. William Thornton’s original design for the US Capitol building was altered after the British burned it in 1814.  The rebuilt edifice was far more Roman imperial in style than Thornton’s original.The British assault on Washington D.C. on August 24, 1814 was the last time our nation’s capital was occupied by foreign soldiers. The arrival of a violent thunderstorm and tornado the following day doused the fires and prompted the British soldiers to withdraw. In July 1864, a detachment of the Confederate army attacked the outskirts of the city but was repulsed.Apart from my error in realizing how much the current Capitol is an alteration of Thornton’s original design, my impromptu talk about our government’s repudiation (or betrayal) of our Founders’ vision is accurate.If you enjoy this video, please signal your approval by liking this post and sharing it with your friends. I would like to make more content about history, philosophy, and art as a relief to reporting the abominable behavior of our trashy ruling class.Subscribe nowShare

Summary: The “Pandemic Preparedness” and “Biodefense” industries are perfect examples of how the US government has become a glorified racketeering syndicate.


277 Million Reasons to Consider Your Plate Carefully and Be Ready

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHWhen there is an effective solution, many times that is an inflection point for understanding the enormity of the problem.  We found that out with micronized Ivermectin-Mebendazole from The Wellness Company.🦠 The Hidden Burden: Foodborne ParasitesWe tend to think of food poisoning as a bad shrimp cocktail or undercooked chicken — a few miserable hours, maybe a day, then back to normal. TheNewsweekpiece covering a newLancet Global Healthstudy shatters that comfortable assumption. We’re talking about277 million illnesses annuallylinked to potentially foodborne invasive parasites, with roughly171 milliondirectly attributable to what people eat. These aren’t stomach bugs that come and go. These are parasites that set up shop in your organs, your brain, your heart — and stay there.📊 The Scale of the ProblemThe study examined 14 parasitic diseases across two decades (2000–2021), and the numbers are staggering. An estimated4.89 million foodborne DALYs(disability-adjusted life-years) were associated with these infections. The biggest contributors wereTaenia solium— the pork tapeworm that can causeneurocysticercosis, where larval cysts lodge in the brain triggering epilepsy — andClonorchis sinensis, the Chinese liver fluke acquired from raw or undercooked freshwater fish.Professor Lucy Robertson, the study’s lead author, put it bluntly: “Food poisoning is not only bacteria.”Public health messaging has drilled bacterial contamination into everyone’s head —Salmonella,E. coli,Listeria. But parasites? They’re treated like a tropical curiosity, something that happens elsewhere. Yet the Americas carried the highest burden in this study, largely driven byChagas disease, which most people associate with kissing bugs, not their dinner plate. Robertson notes that foodborne Chagas transmission actually producesmore severedisease than the vector-borne route.🔴 The Wakeup Call Nobody Asked ForHere’s what should make public health authorities uncomfortable: the overall burden of parasitic diseases was enormous between 2000 and 2021, andClonorchis sinensisincreased on the trend line. Robertson called it unexpected and said it “should be a wakeup call for relevant authorities.”Testing will identify the serious infections that will require treatment other than IVM-Meb or Bactrim.If you are developing new abdominal symptoms, consider the usual suspects: changes in food production and distribution, more international travel, and — critically — the growing appetite for raw or undercooked foods. Sushi bars, ceviche, rare steak, raw milk.🧬 What Prevention Actually RequiresThe article correctly emphasizes that prevention isn’t simple. You can’t just tell people to cook their food thoroughly and call it a day. Many of these parasites arezoonotic— they cycle between animals, the environment, and humans. That means a “One Health” approach is essential: veterinary surveillance of animal hosts, control of infection in livestock, safe water systems, proper waste disposal, and food-safety infrastructure that actually works.Most doctors in developed countries aren’t trained to think about parasitic infection when a patient walks in with seizures or heart failure. That diagnostic delay means more suffering, more transmission, and worse outcomes.From the list of parasites in this paper Ascaris and Trichinella are treatable with IVM-Meb.  However in the United States their is a more responsive range of organisms:It’s important to remember that the current outbreak this summer in the United states is from Cyclospora a protozoa, where the treatment is TMP-SMX in the Emergency Medical Kit from The Wellness Company.🧠 What the Article Gets Right — and What’s MissingTheNewsweekpiece does a solid job translating the study’s findings into accessible language, and it avoids the trap of sensationalism. Authors are both quoted directly, and the key statistics are presented clearly.What’s missing — and this is a limitation of the format, not necessarily the reporting — is any real scrutiny ofwhyparasitic disease surveillance remains so neglected.  The pharmaceutical industry has little incentive to develop novel antiparasitics when the patients who need them can’t pay premium prices.There’s also the uncomfortable reality that global food supply chains have made these diseases everyone’s problem. That ahi tuna steak in Manhattan could be carrying something that originated in a Southeast Asia. The boundaries that once contained these parasites are gone.Thanks for reading FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™)! This post is public so feel free to share it.SharePlease subscribe toFOCAL POINTSas a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.AlterAImay be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHChief Scientific Officer, The Wellness Companywww.twc.health/focalpoints📝 ReferencesRobertson, L. J., et al. (2026). “Burden of foodborne invasive parasitic diseases, 2000–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.”The Lancet Global Health.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X26001440Dewan, A. (2026, August). “Millions of Illnesses Linked to Foodborne Parasites, New Study Warns.”Newsweek.https://www.newsweek.com/millions-illnesses-linked-foodborne-parasites-new-study-warns-12332674

Summary: Foodborne parasites are causing more illness than most people realize — and the problem isn't going away


Melanoma: Forty-Four Billion Dollars, No Numbers

M A L O N E . N E W SForty-Four Billion Dollars, No DataModerna and Merck say their personalized mRNA cancer therapy worked in a large melanoma trial. They have not yet shown anyone the data. The distance between those two facts is the story.By Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, and Jill Glasspool Malone, PhDOn the morning of August 19, Merck and Moderna issued a press release. It said that a large clinical trial of a personalized mRNA product, given alongside Merck’s cancer drug Keytruda, had succeeded in patients whose melanoma had been surgically removed (Merck and Moderna 2026a).By the closing bell, Moderna’s stock had risen 177 percent. The company’s market value went from about $25 billion to about $69 billion in one trading session. Trading volume ran roughly nineteen times its three-month average (Motley Fool 2026). Merck gained more than 12 percent (CNBC 2026). Headlines around the world announced that an mRNA cancer vaccine had finally worked.We should be plain about our interest before going further. One of us designed and implemented the core messenger RNA construct that remains in use today. He also developed the benchtop version of the manufacturing process the industry later scaled, and wrote the initial patent disclosures in the late 1980s covering the use of RNA as a drug and its application to vaccination. That is the documented basis for the claim to original inventorship of this platform. It rests on the patent record and its filing dates.It has never included a claim to have invented the COVID vaccines, or to have worked alone. Read what follows as the assessment of people who would like this technology to succeed, and who also read the fine print.The press release contains no numbers.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareWhat the product isSome vocabulary first, because the coverage has been sloppy with it.Every tumor carries mutations. Those mutations produce slightly altered proteins that the patient’s own healthy cells do not make. Immunologists call these altered proteins neoantigens, meaning new antigens. In principle, they are flags the immune system could learn to recognize.The Merck and Moderna product, now named intismeran autogene, works from that idea. A surgeon removes the tumor. A laboratory sequences it and identifies mutations unique to that patient. Software picks up to 34 of them. A custom mRNA molecule is then synthesized that instructs the patient’s cells to manufacture those specific flagged proteins, wrapped in the same fatty particles used in the COVID shots (Merck and Moderna 2026a).The patient receives nine injections over about six months. That is the Moderna component alone. Counted alongside the Keytruda infusions, the earlier trial asked patients for twenty-seven administrations across a year, and the current one asks for eighteen (Weber et al. 2024; Merck and Moderna 2026a). Claims circulating online that Moderna's product is itself an eighteen- or twenty-seven-injection course are wrong. Those totals include Merck's antibody drug, which has been in use since 2014 and is given intravenously.Keytruda does something different. It releases a brake that tumors use to switch off immune cells that would otherwise attack them. The theory of the combination is that one drug supplies the target and the other removes the restraint.Moderna no longer calls this a vaccine. The company calls it an individualized neoantigen therapy, and that is the honest description (Boston Globe 2026). Nobody is preventing melanoma with this. It is given to people who already had the disease cut out, to reduce the chance that it returns. Physicians call that adjuvant treatment. Most of the press has gone on using the word vaccine anyway, and that word is doing work in this debate that the underlying science does not support.What the announcement actually saidThe trial is called INTerpath-001. It enrolled 1,137 patients whose melanoma had been completely removed. Two-thirds received the personalized injections plus Keytruda. One third received Keytruda alone. Treatment ran about a year (Merck and Moderna 2026a).The companies report that the combination beat Keytruda alone on two measures. The first is recurrence-free survival, meaning how long patients go before the cancer comes back or they die. The second is distant metastasis-free survival, meaning how long before the cancer appears somewhere far from the original site.Now consider what the release does not contain. There is no hazard ratio, which is the standard measure of how much a treatment reduces risk. There is no confidence interval, which tells a reader how precise that estimate is. There is no p-value. There is no count of how many patients in each group actually relapsed. There are no survival curves. There is no breakdown by disease stage. The phrase used is “statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” which is a claim about numbers rather than the numbers themselves.The release is not short on language, only on data. Professor Georgina Long of Melanoma Institute Australia, the trial’s principal investigator, called the result “a landmark moment for adjuvant melanoma treatment” (AJMC 2026). Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s chief executive, described the findings as “a pivotal moment for the field of cancer research” (Merck and Moderna 2026a).Both statements may prove correct. Neither can be checked by anyone outside the sponsor, because the release supplies no figure against which to test them.A pharmaceutical company telling you its result was clinically meaningful, without showing you the result, is an advertisement. It may happen to be true. It may also fail to survive independent expert scrutiny.Two further details in the release deserve attention. The result comes from a planned interim look, taken before the trial finished. Trials reported at the first moment they cross a statistical threshold tend to overstate the size of the benefit compared with the final tally. That is a known property of the method, not an accusation.Interim looks are legitimate, and they exist for a sound reason.If a treatment is plainly working, it becomes hard to justify keeping the comparison group from it.But they are not free. Each look spends part of a fixed error budget, so whatever remains for the final analysis must clear a stricter bar, and trials are enlarged in advance to absorb the cost. The companies have not said how many looks were planned, how much of the budget this one consumed, or which threshold it crossed. Without those three figures, a reader outside the sponsor cannot judge how strong the result was. Only that it was strong enough to announce.Note also what did not happen. The trial did not stop.It continues to measure whether anyone lives longer. What ended early was the wait for a headline.Overall survival, the measure of whether patients live longer, is not yet available. The release states plainly that the study continues in order to assess it (Merck and Moderna 2026a).If you own MRNA or MRK, or watched Monday's move and wondered whether to chase it, the section you just read is the entire public factual basis for a 177 percent single-day gain. Everything below is what it didn't include.The 157-patient trial this whole program rests on, and the confidence interval in its first published result that touched the line of no effect. The 53 percent survival improvement now circulating in the financial press, and why the study’s own authors labeled that number exploratory and not statistically valid. The comparison drug has been in trials since 2015 without anyone yet demonstrating that a single patient lived longer, which is the regulatory foundation this approval will be built on. Bank of America’s own admission that its team spoke with management before writing the note that moved the models, while retail investors got a press release with no effect size. JPMorgan’s arithmetic showing the melanoma result was worth roughly 3 percent of Moderna’s valuation, against a stock that doubled and then gave back 20 percent the next morning.And the eight specific numbers to look for when the data are finally presented, which is when the market will find out whether Monday was information or enthusiasm.We do not give investment advice, and we do not take pharmaceutical money or advertising. What we do is read the primary literature and report what it says, which is the same job the sell side does for its clients and does not do for you. Paid subscribers are why the work exists.Free subscribers receive our public essays. Paid subscribers receive everything.The rest of this essay is for paid subscribers.Monday’s 177 percent move rested entirely on the section you just read. No hazard ratio, no confidence interval, no patient counts. Below the line: the 157-patient trial underneath the whole program, the survival figure the financial press is misreporting, the analysts who got a call from management while you got a press release, and the eight numbers that will decide whether that move holds when the data are actually presented. No pharmaceutical money. No advertising. No investment advice. Just the primary literature, read carefully.Read more

Summary: Bottom line on the Merck/Moderna immunotherapy product press release


Friday Funnies: Just One More Thing!

The British Home Officehas apparently concluded that asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom require a tutorial on what should be universal morality.This week, the government released“Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK: A guide for asylum seekers,”accompanied by a series of illustrated posters explaining some of the finer points of British life.Women are equal to men. Women may work, study and travel without a man’s permission. You may not hit or control your wife. Sex requires consent, including within marriage. Children under 16 cannot consent to sex. Do not follow strangers. Do not block their path. Do not make sexual comments. Do not whistle or make kissing noises at women. Do not photograph people in private situations without permission.There are even separate government posters devoted to“Age of consent,” “Consent,” “Child abuse,” “Domestic abuse,” “Gender equality,” “Harassment,”and“Photography and filming.”These are not memes created by some foreign bot account on X. They are official Home Office materials, published by His Majesty’s Government on August 19, 2026.Which raises the rather obvious question that polite society will presumably regard as impolite:Why did the British government believe these particular instructions needed to be written down?Governments generally do not spend taxpayer money designing illustrated educational campaigns reminding newcomers not to rape women, abuse children, beat their wives or sexually harass strangers unless someone, somewhere, has concluded that there is a reason to do so.Over the last decades, Britons have experienced very large migration flows from profoundly different cultures, which might produce “problems” of assimilation. These were routinely dismissed as xenophobic, racist or simply “far right.”For years,organized groups of men,disproportionately British Pakistani in several of the towns at the center of the scandal, groomed, trafficked and raped vulnerable girls in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Telford. Authorities had repeated warnings, yet victims were ignored, blamed or treated as troublesome teenagers. Subsequent (conservative) official inquiries documented catastrophic failures by police, councils and social services, including reluctance in some institutions to confront the ethnicity of perpetrators for fear of being called racist or inflaming community tensions.In Rotherham alone, the official inquiry estimated that approximately1,400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. Britain learned, at an appalling cost to thousands of girls, that refusing to discuss cultural differences does not make those differences disappear.Yet after decades of scandals across numerous English towns, the government’s own 2025 national audit concluded that the data were still so inadequate that Britain could not reliably say how many children had been victimized by grooming gangs nationwide.So, guess what mainstream media and the liberal parliament had to say about that?Apparently the Home Office, while not actually addressing the issue of rape gangs head on, has now decided that spelling out a few expectations might be prudent.Progress, I suppose? Not!How about actually arresting and deporting immigrants who break the law?Real progress, as Britain’s Conservative Party and Reform UK have both campaigned on, would mean dramatically reducing the enormous influx of migrants into a country roughly the size of Alabama, but withabout 11 times as many people packed into essentially the same land area.One might imagine that population density, housing, infrastructure and assimilation would eventually enter the conversation. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards for jolly old England.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.JGM

Summary: Is there a modicum of self-awareness “creeping” into UK politics?


Taking On Leviathan: Todd Callender in Conversation with John Leake

Along with Aaron Siri, Todd Callender is one of the few attorneys in this nation infested with them that took on US government COVID-19 tyranny. I just asked GROK to create an image of him jousting with Leviathan, and I think the result is pretty cool.Please join my livestream conversation with Todd today (August. 21) at 11:00 Central Time by clicking on the image below and joining the call. And please share this post with your friends!Subscribe nowShare

Summary: Join my livestream conversation today at 11:00 CT with the valiant Colorado attorney who challenged the US government’s vaccine mandates for US service personnel.


BREAKING: Two New Studies Raise Alarm Over Potential COVID-19 “Vaccine” Contamination of the Blood Supply

byNicolas Hulscher, MPHA newly published two-part scientific study raises major alarms about an issue that has received remarkably little scrutiny:What happens when blood from COVID-19-vaccinated donors is transfused into another person?Blood banks routinely screen donations for recognized infectious threats. Yet the current blood supply is not routinely screened for vaccine-derived mRNA, spike protein, plasmid DNA, amyloid, fibrin-microclot complexes, or other relevant vaccine-associated constituents.Our newly published two-part series investigates this blind spot from two complementary directions. The two studies were authored by James A. Thorp, MD; Claire Rogers, MSPAS, PA-C; R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD; M. Nathaniel Mead, PhD; Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (myself); Kirstin Cosgrove, CCRA; Sierra Hamm, RN; David Speicher, PhD; and Steven Hatfill, MD, M Med.Part I: Serious Post-Transfusion Complications in Nine Unvaccinated PatientsPotential Implications of COVID-19 Vaccination for Blood Donation: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review—Part I of IIPart Ipresents a retrospective, hypothesis-generating case series ofnine individuals who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently experienced serious medical events after receiving blood transfusions.Reported complications includedthromboembolic disease, progressive clotting disorders, myocarditis, pericardial disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation, multi-organ system failure, and death.We concluded that these cases, together with the existing literature, raise sufficient concern to warrant direct investigation of whether biologically active vaccine-derived constituents may be present in donated blood:This study suggests that blood donated by COVID-19-vaccinated individuals may contain biologically active vaccine-derived constituents that could cause adverse clinical outcomes. The case reports and cited studies identify questions that warrant further investigation. All the pathogenic components of the COVID-19 vaccine or byproducts from it, have been found in several studies to be circulating in the blood of vaccinated donors. Healthcare providers must honor the ethical principles of patient autonomy and non-maleficence and support patients’ requests for autologous and directed designated donor blood. Screening blood donations for the presence of spike protein, amyloid, fibrin-microclot complexes, vaccine-derived mRNA, and plasmid DNA using quantitative assays and PCR-based methods should be considered for further evaluation by relevant public health and regulatory authorities, including the CDC and FDA.Part II: Extraordinary Blood, Clotting, and Neurological Safety SignalsPotential Implications of COVID-19 Vaccination for Blood Donation: Part II—Analysis of VAERS and Review of the LiteraturePart IIexpands the investigation to the CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, analyzing reports fromJanuary 1, 1990 through June 26, 2026and comparing COVID-19 vaccines with influenza vaccines, DPT-containing vaccines, and all non-COVID vaccines combined.The analysis identified statistically significant safety signals across every investigated endpoint, including reported rate ratios reaching:Hemorrhage: up to 101-foldHemorrhage in pregnancy: up to 108-foldBlood transfusion: up to 62-foldPost-transfusion complications: up to 30-foldHypercoagulable biomarkers: up to 452-foldThrombotic events: up to 1,221-foldParkinson’s disease: up to 282-foldCreutzfeldt-Jakob disease: up to 1,333-foldPrion disease: 60-foldThese signals are particularly important because they overlap with many of the same clinical patterns observed in Part I, includingthrombosis, hemorrhage, DIC, and multi-organ dysfunction.Part I identifies a series of serious post-transfusion events that demand investigation. Part II identifies striking pharmacovigilance signals involving many of the same biological systems, particularly clotting, hemorrhage, transfusion complications, and multi-organ dysfunction.To preserve global blood-supply integrity, regulatory frameworks should move rapidly to implement direct quantitative spike-protein screening and high-sensitivity digital PCR testing for vaccine-derived genetic material across donor networks, while also investigating whether these constituents remain biologically active after donation, storage, processing, and transfusion.Nicolas Hulscher, MPHEpidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough FoundationSupport our mission:mcculloughfnd.orgPlease consider following both theMcCullough Foundationandmy personal accountonX(formerly Twitter) for further content.Subscribe now

Summary: We report nine unvaccinated blood transfusion recipients who experienced serious complications including blood clots, heart damage, multi-organ failure, and death.


Reducing the Burden of Childhood Vaccines

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHPlease enjoy this news clip where I review the topsy topsy-turvy story of Trump and RFK trying to get MAHA vaccine reform and lower the burden of vaccines faced by our children.  In many states, the shots are effectively mandatory to attend school with little chance of exemption.The impetus for trimming the ACIP vaccine schedule comes from theMcCullough Foundation Report:  Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder.Until more research is done, the most immediate step to curb the rise of autism is to reduced childhood vaccination, particularly combination products.  Courtesy, John Fredericks, Outside the Beltway.Thanks for reading FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™)! This post is public so feel free to share it.Share📝Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.AlterAImay be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHPresident, McCullough Foundation

Summary: Most expedient approach to curb the rise in autism spectrum disorder


Ground News and the Factuality Scam

There is a relatively new player in the news business that I have been watching with considerable interest. Ground News was founded in 2018 by former NASA engineer Harleen Kaur and Sukh Singh around what, on its face, is an excellent idea: stop allowing an algorithm to decide which version of the news you are permitted to see.That is a much bigger problem than most people realize. Google News presents itself as an aggregator, but aggregation is itself an editorial act. Someone, or more accurately an algorithm designed and tuned by someone, determines which publications appear at the top of the page, and which are buried twenty stories down, and which effectively disappear. An analysis released by AllSides found that73 percent of the articles appearing on Google News in its 2025 audit came from publications it classified as being on the political Left. Just 1 percent came from the Right.Apple News was somewhat better, but hardly balanced: 50 percent from the Left and 2 percent from the Right. Yahoo is just as bad.The old newspaper editor deciding what belonged above the fold has largely been replaced by an algorithm deciding what belongs on your screen. The technology changed. The gatekeeping did not - in fact, it became much, much worse and more homogeneous across billions of Google, Apple, and Yahoo accounts.We learned how consequential that gatekeeping could become during COVID. Anyone who seriously challenged the official pandemic response, the vaccines or vaccine mandates risked being branded a purveyor of “misinformation.” The mainstream press overwhelmingly participated in that process, while conservative and independent media were far more willing to publish dissenting views. Google News and Apple News then aggregated an information ecosystem already heavily weighted toward one side of that debate, magnifying the effect.We experienced this personally.Robert was repeatedly attacked in the mainstream press for his role in the development of mRNA vaccine technology. The dispute was not some unknowable question of opinion. There are patents, patent disclosures, contemporaneous laboratory records, publications and primary-source documents. Yet major publications repeatedly framed him as falsely claiming to have invented mRNA vaccine technology.The New York Times sent a reporter to our farm for two days. We offered primary documentation concerning Robert’s work, which she refused to review. The resulting article nevertheless became another vehicle for attacking his credibility and disputing his role in the technology. Similar treatments appeared in The Atlantic and the Washington Post. Those articles then became sources for subsequent articles, fact checks, and Wikipedia entries. The secondary reporting gradually displaced the primary historical record.That experience matters because it demonstrates something fundamental about the modern information system. Once a major publication establishes a characterization, other publications cite it. Fact checkers cite those publications. Wikipedia cites the fact-checkers and publications. Search engines elevate the resulting pages. Eventually the sheer number of citations creates the appearance of independent corroboration, although much of the information may ultimately trace back to the same handful of original false or misleading claims.During COVID, this problem became institutionalized. A network of government agencies, public-health officials, academic “misinformation” researchers, NGOs and social-media companies developed specifically to identify, track and counter claims about COVID and the vaccines.One of the most important was Stanford'sVirality Project, which brought together the Stanford Internet Observatory and other organizations to monitor vaccine narratives in real time and exchange information with public-health officials, government agencies and social-media platforms.The CDC simultaneously published guidance for identifying and countering vaccine “misinformation,” while the Virality Project openly recommended greater government coordination and public-private collaboration with the social-media companies. The fundamental problem was that this machinery was operating while the science itself was still evolving. Questions about vaccine efficacy, transmission, natural immunity, adverse events, and mandates could therefore be classified as “misinformation” according to the official consensus of the moment, even when some of those questioning approved narratives were subsequently vindicated, or the topics proved far more complicated than officials had acknowledged.The government did not need to establish an official Ministry of Truth. It already had something uncomfortably close to one in CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. During the COVID era, the federal government developed an extensive system for monitoring what it called misinformation and disinformation, communicating with social-media companies and working alongside academic and nonprofit organizations engaged in the same mission. CISA became an important part of that broader government-private information-control infrastructure, while the Virality Project and others monitored vaccine narratives and maintained relationships with government agencies and technology platforms. The result was an extraordinary arrangement: government officials could identify information they considered false or misleading, outside organizations could track and flag it, and private technology companies could suppress, label or remove it. No formal Orwellian Ministry of Truth was required. Much of the machinery already existed, distributed across government agencies, universities, NGOs and Silicon Valley, with CISA sitting inside that ecosystem.After COVID-19, the fact-checking infrastructure did not disappear. It simply morphed again. What had begun, in part, as an apparatus designed to detect foreign election interference expanded into policing domestic election “misinformation,” then COVID and vaccine “disinformation,” and has now become institutionalized within the broader information ecosystem, including news aggregators and media-rating systems. The emergency may have ended, but the machinery built to police information during the emergency remains. In some ways, these organizations have become empty vessels waiting to be filled by the next national or global crisis, when government once again declares an urgent need to control “misinformation” for the public good. The subject changes. The infrastructure remains.But there is the fact-checking issue and, of course, the bias of big aggregators toward publishing only stories from the left on their front pages.  Effectively eliminating conservative voices.Ground Newsappears, at first, to offer an ingenious solution to precisely this problem. Instead of hiding the political orientation of the sources it aggregates, Ground makes that information part of the product. It groups reporting on the same event and shows readers how publications on the Left, Right, and Center cover it. Its “Blindspot” feature identifies stories receiving extensive coverage on one side of the political spectrum while being largely ignored by the other. Instead of pretending editorial bias doesn’t exist, Ground News exposes it and lets readers make their own judgments.The idea has caught on. Ground News says it now processes nearly 60,000 articles every day from more than 50,000 news sources worldwide. Its Android app alone has been downloaded more than a million times. It offers browser extensions, newsletters, and paid subscription products, and has established itself as a serious alternative to Google News, Apple News, and other major aggregators.There is much to like about its philosophy. Ground News says its mission is to help readers “break free from algorithms,” escape political echo chambers and discover reporting they otherwise might never encounter. The company is not owned by Google or a legacy media conglomerate. It says it is primarily supported by subscribers and a small group of individual investors. Its slogan is“See every side of every news story.”That is precisely why I started using it.For the basic purpose of seeing how different parts of the political spectrum cover the same event, I still think it is an excellent concept. If the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post are describing an event one way while Fox, the Daily Wire, and Washington Examiner are describing it another, I want to see both. More importantly, if one side of the media ecosystem has collectively decided that a story is not worth covering at all, I want to know that too.But Ground News has incorporated something very different into this otherwise admirable attempt at transparency.Ground News tells its readers which news sources are factual.A couple of examples to illustrate the point:Alongside political bias, Ground News displays what it calls a“Factuality” rating. Publications are classified as Very High, High, Mixed, Low or Very Low factuality. Presented alongside news coverage, the obvious implication is that this tells readers something about the story's factual reliability.It does not.In its ratings of factuality, Ground News has not determined whether the article in front of you is factual. It has not checked the sources in that article. It has not verified the quotations, examined the primary documents, checked the statistics, or determined whether the headline accurately represents the evidence.If you dig deep into their Ground News Methodology page, which doesn’t come up automatically in their news section, they acknowledge this explicitly in their own methodology:“Scores apply to each publication as a whole, not to their individual articles.”This changes the meaning of the rating. It is not a rating of the individual news story, but of the outlet itselfA publication-level reputation score and an article-level determination of factual accuracy are two entirely different things. Yet the publication-wide judgment is displayed alongside individual stories under the extraordinarily authoritative label“Factuality.” Most readers would think that the actual article had been fact-checked, but it has not.Ground News has therefore solved one form of media bias while importing another directly into the solution. This is disingenuous at best.Worse, Ground News doesn’t actually make these factuality determinations itself. The rating is derived from outside media-rating organizations, principallyAd Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check. Ground’s own FAQ states that its staff does not participate in evaluating the Bias or Factuality ratings. It outsources those judgments and then incorporates them into the product.That would be less troubling if the outside ratings were objective measurements of whether publications publish true information.They aren’t.The problem becomes clearer when we look at what these organizations actually measure. Neither Ad Fontes nor Media Bias/Fact Check restricts itself to determining whether statements published by a news organization are factually true. Ad Fontes incorporates such things as language, headlines, expression, context, the distinction between opinion and straight reporting, and comparison with coverage from other news organizations. Media Bias/Fact Check incorporates sourcing, omissions, one-sidedness, adherence to what it considers established scientific evidence, and the judgments of outside fact-checking organizations. These may all be legitimate subjects for media criticism, but they are not synonymous with factual accuracy.More troubling is what happens when those methodologies are applied across the political spectrum. We took a preliminary sample of prominent left- and right-leaning publications and compared their current Ad Fontes reliability ratings using ChatGPT. The results were remarkably consistent. The left-wing publications in our sample averaged35.54 for reliability, while the conservative publications averaged30.74, a difference of nearly five points.One obvious explanation might be that we simply selected more extreme publications on the Right. But according to Ad Fontes’ own political-bias scores, the opposite was true. The left-wing publications in our sample averaged12.84 points from the political center, compared with12.37 points for the conservative publications. In other words, the two groups were almost identically ideological by Ad Fontes’ own measurement, with the Left actually slightly farther from center.Some individual comparisons are even more revealing:The last comparison is particularly difficult to explain as a simple consequence of political extremity. Ad Fontes considersJacobin farther to the Left than The Federalist is to the Right, yet Jacobin receives a reliability score more than10 points higher.We then tested the entire sample statistically rather than relying upon individual examples. After controlling for each publication’s absolute ideological distance from the political center, right-leaning publications were associated with an approximately5.2-point lower Ad Fontes reliability scorein this sample. The result was statistically significant. We can’t prove that Ad Fontes deliberately discriminates against conservative media, but it sure looks that way. And it does establish that the disparity exists in the publications we examined and cannot be explained simply by the conservative outlets being more ideologically extreme.Media Bias/Fact Check showed the same general pattern in our smaller comparison. Five prominent left-wing publications averaged2.72on its factuality scale, while five conservative publications averaged5.50(a higher score showing lower factuality). On the MBFC scale, lower scores indicate greater factual reliability, so once again the conservative publications received substantially worse ratings.That matters enormously when Ground News takes these publication-wide assessments on individual news stories and presents the resulting classification to readers as“Factuality.”Ground News is not beginning with a politically neutral measurement of whether the article in front of you is true. It is importing a rating system that incorporates subjective judgments extending far beyond factual accuracy and which, in our preliminary examination, produces substantially different outcomes for comparable publications on the political Left and Right.The result is a Factuality system tilted against conservative media before Ground News ever displays the first article. Ground News imports that bias, converts it into a simple label for individual news stories, and presents the result to readers as an objective measure of factual reliability.Consequently, Ground News takes those publication-level judgments and attaches their consequences to individual journalism.An article published by a conservative outlet can be completely accurate and rigorously sourced. Every quotation can be correct. Every statistic can be sourced. It can link directly to government documents, court records, or scientific papers. Nobody at Ground News needs to find a single factual error in it.The reader can still encounter that story beneath the designation“Low Factuality.”The judgment is without evidence.This is where the system begins to resemble what Nancy Pelosi once famously described as the “wrap-up smear.” The traditional version is straightforward. An allegation is introduced, usually in an unheard-of outlet, and often it is a “pay-for-play” hit piece - say, by the opposing politician, super PAC, or an industry under scrutiny. The press reports the allegation. Another newspaper republishes the allegation, citing the more recent news outlet as the source. Again, this can be a “pay-for-play” strategy. Then the existence of the press coverage is cited as evidence that the original allegation must have substance. The accusation is laundered through various news sources and eventually is determined by mainstream media to be “fact” - without any additional evidence whatsoever, just an accusation by some small-time media outlet. Finally, the newly minted “fact” makes its way to the AI Overview that Google now places above traditional search results and to Wikipedia.We have experienced that process firsthand as well.On a single podcast in the year 2022 or thereabouts, Robert discussed evidence suggesting that, in rare cases, mRNA COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an acquired immune deficiency or immunosuppressive syndrome. The distinction is fundamental.Acquired immune deficiency describes a condition. It does not mean HIV infection or HIV-associated AIDS.Robert’s scientific training included early work in laboratories studying retroviruses and immunodeficiency during the period when AIDS itself was first being characterized. This was not an obscure distinction for him.But the distinction rapidly disappeared in the retelling. His comments were transformed into the far more sensational claim that“Robert Malone says the COVID vaccine causes AIDS,”carrying the obvious implication of HIV/AIDS. That characterization moved from publication to publication, with later accounts citing earlier accounts until the media’s description of what Robert had supposedly said became more authoritative than what he actually said.Eventually it arrived at Wikipedia, where Robert is described as having claimed that COVID vaccines were “causing a form of AIDS,” supported by citations to secondary reporting, not the original podcast (long gone from social media). It is a documented fact that these products are associated with immunoglobulin class switching, which represents a form of acquired immunodeficiency.  The reporting establishes the characterization, and that characterization is then cited as evidence that it is true. The implication of this in his permanent record on Wiki either makes him look like a fool or a fraud, neither of which is true.That is the wrap-up smear in action.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareGround News is now industrializing the wrap-up smear.Ground News is now industrializing the wrap-up smear. Conservative news organizations are repeatedly downgraded by fact checkers and media-rating companies until being conservative itself becomes associated with being less factual. Ground News then imports that biased reputational judgment and places it next to every article it publishes.The wrong publication is all that it takes to get a low factuality score on an article.  And that low factuality can be based on whether a news organization is conservative. How f*cked up is that?This produces an extraordinary paradox. Ground News was created, in part, to free readers from an information ecosystem in which algorithms and establishment media organizations decide which sources they should see. Yet its Factuality system allows outside fact-checking organizations, known to be statistically biased against conservative media outlets, to prejudge which of those newly visible sources readers should trust.That distinction becomes particularly consequential since conservative publications systematically begin with lower reputational scores. Ground News may display more conservative journalism than Google News, while simultaneously presenting that journalism beneath warning labels that tell readers the publications producing it are less factual.The consequence is that when a narrative written from a conservative or libertarian point of view has finally made it into at least one major aggregator, the Ground News organization has already told the reader how much to trust it before the reader has examined a single piece of evidence. That isn’t an assessment of the factuality of journalism. It is an assessment (made by biased sources) of the reputation of the journalist’s publisher.Ground News is perfectly entitled to provide such ratings. Readers may even find them useful. But they should be labeled accurately. Call themPublisher Reputation,Source Reliability, orThird-Party Media Outlet Rating.Do not imply that these ratings reflect the factuality of the news in front of the reader. Because Ground News itself acknowledges in the fine print that it has made no such determination.Deceitful is a strong word, but if the shoe fits…JGM/RWMIndependent journalism matters precisely because the institutions that once decided what you were allowed toseeare increasingly deciding what you are supposed tobelieve. The systems described in this article do not require censorship. They work by assigning credibility in advance, elevating approved sources while quietly warning readers away from those that challenge the prevailing narrative.Researching these systems takes time. It means reading the methodologies, checking the underlying ratings, comparing outlets, running the numbers and following the citations back to their original sources rather than simply repeating what another journalist has written.That is what your subscriptions make possible.Subscribe nowIf you value journalism that questions the gatekeepers rather than asking their permission, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It keeps this publication independent and allows us to continue doing the research that increasingly falls outside the boundaries of what establishment media considers acceptable to investigate.And perhaps most importantly, it meansno fact checker, media-rating company, government agency, advertiser or algorithm gets to decide what we are allowed to write.

Summary: How Biased Media Ratings Make Conservative News Look Unreliable


The Man Who Hid the Pandemic: How Fauci's Senior Advisor Laundered the Origins Story

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHWhen asked on national television about the fate of Dr David Morens, the disheveled former NIAID official, the thought of conspiracy and conspirators came up.  Dr. David Morens was78 years oldat the time of his indictment and guilty plea.  He is scheduled to be sentenced November 12, 2026.His title wasSenior Advisor to the Director of NIAID— specifically, he served as a senior advisor inNIAID’s Office of the Directorfrom2006 through 2022, working directly under Dr. Anthony Fauci for the bulk of that period.  Thus Dr Anthony Fauci is undoubtedly the top co-conspirator.Morens admitted to a conspiracy to defraud the government by hiding records about SARS-CoV-2 origins — and the court filings name two unindicted co-conspirators whose identities are now effectively public.🕵 The Known Co-ConspiratorsPeter Daszak (Co-Conspirator 1)— President of theEcoHealth Alliance, the New York nonprofit that held the “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” grant and funneled a subaward directly to theWuhan Institute of Virology.  Daszak’s role was to shuttle the lab protocols from Dr Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Daszak's relationship with WIV stretches back to2003–2004, when he and EcoHealth's Jonathan Epstein began collaborating withShi Zhenglion bat coronaviruses. Daszak himself first met Shi around2006. That's two decades of institutional partnership, with18 joint papersbetween them on SARS-related bat coronaviruses.  Daszak acknowledged to Congress: that he still had roughly15,000 samples sitting in freezers in Wuhan, many unanalyzed. That's not the profile of a casual collaborator making a few site visits — that's a deeply embedded operational partner with physical materials stored at the lab.Co-Conspirator 2— Described in filings as a physician, scientist, and professor at an academic institution receiving federal grants. The name hasn’t been unsealed, but the description fits a narrow circle of gain-of-function researchers who collaborated with both EcoHealth and NIAID on bat coronavirus work.  Dr GeraldKeusch is an emeritus Boston University professor, and a top suspect. From 2009–2024 Professor Keusch wasAssociate Director of Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory (NEIDL).🔍 Who Else Belongs on the Suspect ListBeyond Fauci and the two named conspirators, the filings reference anunidentified Senior NIAID Official 1who received “back-channel” information through Morens’s personal Gmail. That official appears to be Fauci himself, but the structure of the scheme implies a broader network:Dr. Ralph Baric— The UNC coronavirus researcher whose gain-of-function chimeric virus work underpinned the EcoHealth-WIV research pipeline. His lab’s methodology is the scientific backbone of the very grant in question.The “FOIA lady”— Morens boasted about being coached on how to hide records, indicating an NIAID records officer or FOIA compliance staffer actively teaching evasion techniques. That person is a co-conspirator in spirit if not yet in name.NIAID grants management officials— Someone had to shepherd the effort to “influence NIH to fund Company #1” from the inside. The indictment mentions edits to letters addressed to NIH leadership, which means sympathetic staff were circulating drafts.💡 The Larger PatternWhat’s telling is that Morens acceptedwine and offers of Michelin-starred mealsin exchange for writing a “scientific commentary advocating natural origins” — published in a prominent medical journal. That’s the quiet mechanism by which the official narrative gets laundered: a favor here, a gift there, and suddenly a “peer-reviewed” article exists to wave away inconvenient questions.The plea confirms the public-health establishment’s real fear was never a virus — it was a paper trail. They were less worried about containing a pathogen than about containing information. When the man who briefed NIAID leadership, who relayed information to the White House and Congress, pleads guilty to hiding records about the pandemic’s origins, the “nothing to see here” era is officially over.FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™) is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.📝Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.AlterAImay be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHPresident, McCullough FoundationFOCAL POINTS has partnered withAlterAIto defend your medical freedom. Subscribe toAlterAItoday and get a discount on unbiased and accurate AI!

Summary: A guilty plea for Dr David Morens exposes the quiet machinery that buried the lab-leak question — and the co-conspirators are still walking free.


Dr McCullough Lands on the Pompa Podcast

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHPlease enjoy this full-length, in-studio broadcast from the Dr Pompa Podcast studio on the pandemic and our modern-day great controversies.Dr. Pompa Podcastis hosted by cellular healing specialist and health speaker Dr. Daniel Pompa. The show focuses on root-cause healing, detoxification, cellular inflammation, fasting, and interviews with health and faith leaders. You can listen to episodes directly on theDr. Daniel Pompa Official Siteor major platforms likeSpotify. [1,2,3,4,5]  With this stance, I confirmed that Pompa wisely declined COVID-19 vaccination.FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™) is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.📝Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.AlterAImay be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHPresident, McCullough Foundation

Summary: Carpeting with truth bombs


How Badly the New York Times Misleads

I subscribe to theNew York Timesand read it most days so that I can understand how its misinformed readers view the world. However, somehow I missed the following Opinion piece from last March.The author is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, and I have a hard time believing her assertion that she was simply misled about the origin of SARS-CoV-2.Almost certainly, she knew that “conspiracy theorists” like me and countless others had solid grounds for dismissing the fraudulent paperThe proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2by Andersen, Rambaut, et al., which STILL hasn’t been retracted fromNature Medicine.Because Dr. Peter McCullough — who has been right about everything since he published his Opinion pieceThe great gamble of COVID-19 vaccine developmentinThe HillonAug. 17, 2020— was labelled a “dangerous spreader of misinformation” in 2020, most of the bien pensant New York Times reading crowd was conditioned to dismiss out of hand his papers and Senate testimony.Likewise, I have many old friends and even family members who proudly obtain their information from theNew York Timesand would therefore never read our Substack newsletter.Professor Tufekci was not simply misled; she chose to go along with the lie because the truth did not comport with her position and her identity.Two yearsbeforeshe wrote her Opinion piece about being misled—thereby adding yet another element to this great charade— I published a three-part series titledThe Great SARS-CoV-2 Charadein which I painstakingly presented the documentary evidence of this greatest organized crime in history. The activities and publications of the key players that created the illegal bio-weapon and then concealed its origin are documented for all to see. I remain astonished that all of them aren’t already in prison.Subscribe nowShare

Summary: The NYT Opinion piece “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives” is a shining example of why America’s “newspaper of record” cannot be trusted.


Sunday Strip: Flock You

A message from the other side of the aisle.When they tell you what they are going to do, believe them.I can understand someone thinking that this woman is crazy and a suitable place for her is a mental institution.What I cannot understand is the growing chorus of women determined to turn the murder of three children into yet another indictment of the “patriarchy,” inadequate husbands and bad fathers.Lindsay Clancy strangled Cora, Dawson and Callan. Their father came home to a nightmare and lost all three of his children, yet somehow he, men generally, and society itself are being judged as guilty by this cohort of liberal (mostly white), radicalized Nazi-feministas.Mental illness may explain what she did and may ultimately determine her criminal responsibility. But transforming the killer into the principal victim, the murdered children into scenery, and their grieving father into a convenient symbol of male failure is not compassion. It is disgusting.Metaphorically, this is what the government tried to do to the COVID-19 dissidents during Biden’s COVID reign.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareThe Ungrateful DeadJGMThese memes just don’t drop off trees. Being funny takes us a fair about of work! Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: Orwell called. He wants his cameras back.