Israel Is Trying to Stop Taking Our MoneyThe wolf at the door, part four: notes from the Israeli frontierBefore getting into part four, a quick word to those of you who have stayed with me through this series. I know that six essays examining Israel, its security problems, its history, and its relationship with the United States are not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. This has turned into a deeper examination than I originally anticipated, and I appreciate your patience with it. There are two more installments after this one, and then I promise we will move on to other subjects.But having spent time in Israel, Judea and Samaria, and along the Gaza border, I wanted to follow the questions wherever they led rather than reduce what I saw to another argument about whether one is “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel.” The answers have often been more complicated than I expected. This installment is about one of those complications: the widespread belief that Israel wants, needs, and intends to remain dependent on American military aid.It may be that Israel increasingly wants exactly the opposite.*The short version, for readers who do not spend their days on Capitol Hill.*In May 2024, the United States paused a weapons shipment to Israel in an effort to change an Israeli military decision.That is what leverage is for. And it worked exactly the way leverage works.It also taught Israel something that will not easily be forgotten: American military aid has an off switch, and an American president can throw it.Israel is now negotiating its way out of that arrangement.The current U.S.-Israel military assistance agreement expires in 2028. Rather than simply asking Washington for another decade of checks, Israel is proposing something quite different: gradually reduce American grant aid and replace at least part of it with joint investment in weapons research, development, and production.Both countries put money in. Both countries get something out.That may sound like a technical change in defense procurement.It isn’t.It is a transfer of power.Aid carries conditions. Congress can attach them. Administrations can interpret them. Committees can investigate them. Presidents can delay weapons already approved in order to influence what Israel does next.A jointly funded weapons program, particularly one containing substantial Israeli money, sits on different legal and political ground. The old tools of leverage may not disappear entirely, but they become considerably harder to use.Four terms will carry you through the rest of this essay.Foreign Military Financing, or FMF, is the main American military aid program for Israel. Despite the way it is usually described, this is not simply Washington handing Israel a check. Most of the money must be used to purchase American defense products, from American companies, employing American workers.The Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, is the ten-year political agreement that establishes the framework and anticipated level of assistance. It is not a treaty. It does not bind Congress. Congress still has to appropriate the money.The Leahy Lawsrestrict American assistance to foreign security-force units when there is credible information implicating them in gross violations of human rights. The important word here isassistance. How those restrictions would apply to jointly developed and jointly financed programs is considerably less straightforward, and that distinction may become enormously important.Qualitative Military Edge, or QME, is the requirement embedded in American law that Israel maintain the ability to defend itself against credible military threats from neighboring states and coalitions while possessing superior military capabilities. QME does not disappear if Israel takes less American aid.Now we can get to the argument.Washington spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars building a system that did two things at once. It strengthened Israel militarily while giving the United States extraordinary influence over how that strength could be supplied and, when Washington chose, constrained.Then Washington demonstrated the constraint.And Israel noticed.In April 2024, the Biden administration began reviewing proposed transfers of particular weapons to Israel. By early May, it had paused a shipment containing 1,800 2,000-pound bombs and 1,700 500-pound bombs. Thousands of JDAM guidance kits were also caught up in the broader debate over transfers.Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed the bomb shipment pause before Senate appropriators on May 8.That same day, President Biden made the policy explicit. If Israel launched the major Rafah operation his administration opposed, he told CNN, the United States would not supply certain weapons Israel might use in that operation.There is no need to speculate about Washington’s purpose. The United States wanted Israel to make a different military decision, so the administration used Israel’s dependence on the American weapons pipeline as leverage.Whether you believe Biden was right or wrong to do that is almost beside the point. Because Israel learned something much larger than the immediate lesson of Rafah. It learned that a weapons supply chain controlled by another country is not merely a supply chain. It is a veto waiting to be exercised.The most important consequence of the 2024 weapons pause, therefore, may not have been what happened in Rafah at all.It may be what happens in 2028.Israel is now negotiating the agreement that will replace the current MOU, and the structure being discussed points toward a very different relationship: less dependence on American grants, more Israeli financing, more joint development and production, and eventually much greater Israeli freedom to build what it needs without asking Washington for permission.For sixty years, American military assistance to Israel bought the United States something far more valuable than gratitude. It bought leverage.In the spring of 2024, Washington used it.Israel’s response is to make sure Washington cannot use that kind of leverage against it again.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareThe Instrument, PreciselySince 1999, the U.S.-Israel military relationship has been organized around ten-year Memoranda of Understanding. Clinton’s was worth $21.3 billion, George W. Bush’s $30 billion, and the current agreement, signed by Susan Rice and Jacob Nagel on September 14, 2016, provides for $38 billion across fiscal years 2019 through 2028. Of that, $33 billion is Foreign Military Financing and $5 billion is for cooperative missile defense, roughly $3.3 billion and $500 million per year, respectively (Congressional Research Service 2026b). Those are the numbers everyone quotes, but three features of the arrangement matter considerably more than the headline number.First, an MOU is not a treaty. It requires no Senate ratification, appropriates no money, and does not legally bind a future president or Congress. It is an executive commitment that Congress has historically chosen to honor, and the money still has to be appropriated each year. Israel can therefore plan around ten years of American assistance, but Washington retains the machinery to delay it, condition it, withhold it, or simply stop providing it.Second, Israel gave up something significant in exchange for that predictability. In a side letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that Israel would return any money Congress appropriated above the agreed MOU levels for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Israel also agreed not to lobby Congress for additional military assistance during the MOU period except in the event of a regional conflict, and even then only with the administration’s prior consent (Washington Institute 2016). The restriction was not theoretical. In September 2017, Senators Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio wrote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson objecting after Congress appropriated an additional $75 million and the administration moved to enforce the agreement. Congress wanted to give Israel more money, and under the agreement Israel had negotiated with the executive branch, Israel had effectively promised not to take it.Third, the portion of American aid that once directly supported Israel’s own defense industry is disappearing. Historically, Israel enjoyed an unusual privilege known as Off-Shore Procurement, which allowed it to convert roughly a quarter of its AmericanForeign Military Financing (FMF) into shekels and spend that money with Israeli defense companies. The 2016 MOU phases that privilege out entirely, reaching zero in fiscal year 2028 (Congressional Research Service 2026a).That changes what the familiar phrase “$3.3 billion in aid to Israel” actually means. By the end of the current agreement, essentially all American FMF provided to Israel must be spent purchasing American defense goods and services. American taxpayers provide the money, Israel uses it to purchase qualifying military equipment, American defense companies receive the orders, American factories build the weapons, and American workers are paid to produce them. Israel gets the military equipment, certainly, but much of the money itself never really leaves the American defense-industrial economy.Put those pieces together, and the arrangement looks rather different from the political slogan. By 2028, the system is designed to provide Israel with American military assistance that is spent almost entirely inside the American defense-industrial base, under a ten-year political commitment that legally binds neither Congress nor the president, while Israel itself is constrained in seeking assistance beyond the negotiated amount. Call it foreign aid if you like, but economically much of it functions as a directed procurement program for American weapons manufacturers. Strategically, it purchases something considerably more valuable for Washington: influence over an ally whose military depends heavily on an American-controlled supply chain.That influence remained largely theoretical as long as Washington and Jerusalem agreed on what Israel should do. In May 2024, they did not. The Biden administration demonstrated that the supply chain could also be used as an instrument of American policy, and Israel discovered that the price of American military assistance was not simply the conditions written into an MOU. The price was dependence on a weapons pipeline another government ultimately controlled.Israel is now calculating whether that price is still worth paying.How It ComparesThe scale question is where most public discussion goes wrong, usually in both directions. Israel is routinely described as the largest recipient of American foreign aid, which is true historically, but that statement tells you surprisingly little about either the size of the current flow or Israel’s dependence on it.Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of American foreign assistance since the Second World War. From 1951 through 2022, the United States provided roughly $318 billion in inflation-adjusted assistance, about $225 billion of it military (USAFacts 2023). But that is the accumulated total across more than seventy years. Under the current MOU, the normal annual commitment is $3.8 billion, consisting of $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for cooperative missile defense.FY2024 was an exceptional year because of the war that followed October 7. Israel received approximately $6.8 billion in U.S. foreign assistance, temporarily pushing the annual figure far above the normal MOU level. By FY2025, disbursements had fallen back to roughly $3.3 billion. Ukraine, by comparison, received about $6.7 billion in FY2025, making it the largest recipient of American foreign assistance that year, with Israel second.The comparison becomes more striking when the entire period since Russia’s 2022 invasion is considered. Congress has appropriated roughly $174 billion to $183 billion for the Ukraine response, depending on which programs and regional expenditures are included in the calculation. Direct American military assistance committed to Ukraine has exceeded $65 billion. Israel also received substantial emergency military assistance following October 7, but the scale and speed of the Ukrainian effort were of a different order. In only a few years, Washington committed military assistance to Ukraine equivalent to decades of Israel’s normal annual FMF allocation.Other major recipients provide some perspective. Egypt has received approximately $1.3 billion a year in FMF for decades as part of the security architecture that followed the Camp David accords. Jordan receives several hundred million dollars annually in military assistance within a broader American assistance package of roughly $1.5 billion to $1.75 billion. These are significant sums, but simply ranking countries by dollars obscures the more important question.The number that matters is the size of American assistance relative to the recipient country’s own ability to finance its defense. American FMF currently represents roughly 15 to 16 percent of Israel’s defense spending, depending on the year and which expenditures are included (Congressional Research Service 2026b). Israel pays for the large majority of its own military, maintains a sophisticated domestic defense industry, exports advanced weapons systems, and possesses the economic capacity to replace at least some American assistance with its own spending.Ukraine has occupied a fundamentally different position. Since 2022, American and allied assistance has not merely supplemented an otherwise self-sufficient Ukrainian defense budget. It has supplied a substantial portion of the weapons, ammunition, air defense, intelligence support, and financial capacity required to sustain the war. When American assistance stalled during the congressional appropriations fight of 2023 and 2024, Ukraine could not simply replace the missing supply from domestic production. Ammunition was rationed and shortages appeared at the front.Israel watched that happen.Then, in May 2024, Washington demonstrated that the same basic mechanism could be used against Israel. The circumstances were different and Israel was far less dependent, but the lesson was impossible to miss. If another government controls an important part of your weapons supply, that government possesses leverage over the decisions you make with those weapons.This is why the raw dollar figure is such a poor measure of dependency. Israel may be the largest cumulative recipient of American foreign assistance in modern history, but the United States finances only a minority share of Israel’s defense establishment. More importantly, Israel has the industrial base, technological capacity, and national wealth to reduce that share further.Ukraine demonstrated what extreme wartime dependence on foreign military supply looks like. Israel appears to have drawn the obvious conclusion: do not wait until you are in the middle of a war to discover who controls your ammunition.The choke pointsThe vulnerability is structural, not partisan, and the Israeli analysis I heard treats it that way.Three separate actors can interrupt the flow. The executive can slow-walk obligation, notification, or delivery. Appropriators can attach conditions or decline to fund. And the coalition politics of either party can shift within a single cycle, which the Arab Center notes is already making routine appropriation more uncomfortable for members (Arab Center Washington DC 2026).Congress appropriated $3.5 billion in FMF in the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act and then spent months disputing whether the executive was obligating and notifying it (Congressional Research Service 2024). The money was voted. Delivery was a separate question, decided elsewhere.From Aid to Joint VentureThe Israeli position going into the FY2029 negotiation is considerably more interesting than most of the coverage suggests, because Israel is not asking for more American money. It is discussing how to need less of it.Netanyahu has publicly argued that Israel has reached the point where it should begin phasing out American military aid, and has even raised the possibility of forgoing assistance already committed for FY2027 and FY2028. In January, he argued that Israel’s economy could reach $1 trillion within a decade and that the country’s growing defense industry could support the transition (American Jewish Committee 2026). Israel is also reportedly seeking a much longer framework, potentially twenty years and extending to 2048, centered not on annual grants but on joint research and development, defense technology, artificial intelligence, and Israeli participation in Golden Dome (Congressional Research Service 2026a; Quincy Institute 2026).The right way to understand this is not as an aid reduction. It is a change in the business model.FMF is fundamentally a donor-recipient arrangement. The United States appropriates the money, Israel receives the purchasing authority, and most of that money is then spent with American defense manufacturers. Because Washington supplies the money and controls the program through which it moves, Washington also retains considerable control over the terms.What Israel is proposing would move the relationship toward co-investment. Both countries would contribute capital and technology to programs in which both have a direct interest. The important negotiations would increasingly concern intellectual property, production rights, cost sharing, technology transfer, export rights, and where the resulting systems are manufactured. The relationship would move away from grant administration and toward joint program management.This is not an entirely new model. Pieces of it already exist inside the U.S.-Israel defense relationship. Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow have all involved combinations of American funding, Israeli technology, cooperative development, and American production. RTX, through Raytheon, has long participated in Iron Dome production with Israel’s Rafael, and the two companies have expanded American manufacturing capacity for the system. What Israel is proposing, in effect, is to take a model previously used for selected weapons programs and make something much closer to it the foundation of the relationship.For Washington, the practical consequences are substantial. Cost sharing begins to replace grants. Intellectual property and production rights become as important as the size of the appropriation. The question shifts from how much money Congress will give Israel each year to how much each country will invest, what each contributes, what gets built, where it gets built, and who owns the technology that emerges.None of this would eliminate American leverage. The United States would still control American technology, export licenses, components manufactured in the United States, and whatever money Congress continued to appropriate. But it would change the nature of that leverage. With FMF, Washington can impose a cost on Israel by withholding something Washington is giving it. In a genuinely co-funded program, withholding cooperation can impose costs on both countries because American money, American companies, American technology, and American military requirements are tied to the same project.That is a very different negotiating position.Israel is not proposing to end its defense relationship with the United States. Quite the opposite. It is proposing to make the relationship more transactional while making the dependency smaller.The distinction matters because the exchange runs in both directions. Israel wants access to American technology, manufacturing capacity, and the enormous scale of the American defense industry. But the United States also wants Israeli technology, battlefield experience, research, innovation, and weapons systems that Israel has become exceptionally good at developing. The proposed relationship recognizes that reality. Instead of one country writing the check and the other receiving it, both countries bring something valuable to the table, both invest, and both have something to lose if the relationship is disrupted.That does not eliminate American leverage. It does something more important. It makes the leverage mutual.The Mechanism Nobody is Discussing in PublicThe Congressional Research Service describes the most consequential part of the proposed change in characteristically dry language. If the next agreement phases down Foreign Military Financing and replaces it with jointly funded Defense Department programs, the money does not simply move between accounts. The rules and congressional oversight move with it.FMF is foreign assistance, putting much of the relationship under the State Department and congressional foreign affairs committees, where conditions on aid are traditionally attached and enforced. Joint defense programs fall increasingly under the armed services committees and defense appropriators, whose focus is procurement, weapons development, military readiness, and whether the program works.The legal consequences may be even more important. CRS notes that, under the executive branch’s interpretation, Leahy restrictions may not apply to certain transactions financed entirely with the purchasing country’s own money (Congressional Research Service 2026a). If Israel pays with Israeli funds, or jointly develops a system with the United States rather than receiving an American grant to purchase it, some of the existing human-rights conditions may no longer attach in the same way.In Washington budget language, this is partly a shift from the150 account, which covers international affairs and foreign assistance, toward the050 account, which covers national defense. Congress does not lose its authority. It can still impose restrictions, and American export controls and arms-transfer laws remain. But the existing machinery of conditionality was built around foreign assistance. Change the funding structure and some of those legal hooks change with it.Whether you see that as Israel securing greater freedom of action or shedding legitimate American restraint depends on your view of Israel. But the mechanism is the same. Israel is trying to replace a relationship in which Washington supplies the money and therefore writes many of the conditions with one in which both countries invest and both expect to benefit.The argument in Washington is about how much aid Israel should receive. The more consequential question may be whether the next agreement is “aid” at all.The Constraint Israel Cannot Wish AwayThe rhetoric of Israeli self-reliance runs ahead of the balance sheet, and CRS has identified the problem. Israel and the United States have agreed to tens of billions of dollars in arms sales since October 2023, much of it financed through cash-flow financing, which allows Israel to commit future FMF payments against contracts signed today. Some of those payment schedules extend beyond the current MOU.That means Israel cannot simply reach 2028, refuse another MOU, and walk away. Without continued FMF or some replacement arrangement, Israel would have to pay existing obligations with national funds, arrange alternative financing, renegotiate contracts, or terminate them, potentially creating liabilities for both governments (Congressional Research Service 2026b). That gives Washington considerable leverage over the transition. Israel may want out of the existing aid structure, but it first has to unwind obligations built around it.Nor does paying with Israeli money remove Washington from the relationship. The Qualitative Military Edge requirement remains in law, requiring the administration to consider Israel’s military advantage when approving certain arms sales to other Middle Eastern countries. The Arms Export Control Act also continues to subject major American weapons sales to congressional notification and review regardless of who pays for them.So the proposed transition does not eliminate American leverage. It narrows it. Washington would still control the sale and export of American weapons and technology. What Israel is trying to eliminate is the additional leverage that comes from Washington also supplying the money used to buy them.Israel can stop depending on the American check. It cannot keep buying American weapons and stop depending on American permission.What Washington trades awayThis cuts against both standard positions, which may explain why neither camp talks about it very much.If you regard American conditionality as an essential brake on Israeli governments, the same problem runs in reverse. Israel is trying to reduce the power of that brake, and the 2024 weapons pause is part of the reason why. Using leverage does more than influence the immediate decision. It reminds the other party that the leverage exists and gives it a reason to reduce its exposure to it.There is also an American industrial consequence. FMF has functioned for decades as a subsidy to American defense manufacturers, paid through a foreign aid program. As Israel’s ability to spend FMF domestically disappears, nearly all of the $3.3 billion annual grant returns to American companies. Replace that system with greater Israeli self-financing and domestic production, and some of those American orders disappear with it. That argument will matter in areas where weapons are made, such as Fort Worth and Camden, long before most Americans notice it, because defense contracts mean factories, jobs, and congressional districts.The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has proposed one plausible middle ground: a Strategic Partnership Agreement under which Israel commits to sustained defense spending of roughly 4.5 to 5 percent of GDP and a specified level of American procurement in exchange for a longer and more predictable framework (Foundation for Defense of Democracies 2025). It would preserve much of the industrial and strategic relationship while gradually retiring the donor-recipient model.Something along those lines may be where this ends. Washington keeps a major defense customer and strategic partner. Israel keeps access to the American defense industry. What disappears, or at least diminishes, is the part both sides are increasingly uncomfortable admitting exists: dependency.The Cost of Using LeverageA relationship built partly on dependence remains stable only while both sides believe the arrangement is worth preserving. Once the dependent party concludes that the dependency itself has become a strategic risk, it begins looking for a way out.That is what changed in May 2024. Before the weapons pause, Israeli planners could reasonably treat American resupply as a dependable feature of the strategic environment. Afterward, they could not. Washington had demonstrated that weapons already in the American pipeline could be withheld in an attempt to change an Israeli military decision. No subsequent assurance can erase the fact that it happened.The United States spent decades and roughly $318 billion building a defense relationship that gave Washington considerable influence over Israeli decision-making. In 2024, it exercised that influence in a way that gave Israel a powerful reason to reduce it. Whether withholding those weapons was justified is a separate question. The larger question is whether influencing one Israeli operation in Rafah was worth changing Israel’s calculation about a military relationship both countries expect to continue for decades.I doubt anyone in Washington consciously made that trade. The administration was trying to affect an immediate decision in an immediate war. But governments rarely get to choose only the immediate consequences of the tools they use. Israel learned that American military assistance could be withheld when Washington and Jerusalem disagreed over how Israel should fight a war.Now it is trying to make sure that the next time they disagree, Washington has less to withhold.RWM/JGMMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.ReferencesAl Majalla. 2025. “Israel and Ukraine Top US Foreign Aid Recipient List.” London.American Jewish Committee. 2026.What Every American Should Know About U.S. Aid to Israel. New York.Arab Center Washington DC. 2026. “Section 224: US-Israel Defense Integration Beyond Military Aid.” Washington, DC.Congressional Research Service. 2024.U.S. Review of an Arms Sale to Israel: Issues for Congress. IN12359. Washington, DC.Congressional Research Service. 2026a.Possible Changes in U.S. Military Aid to Israel: Considerations for Congress. IN12695. Washington, DC, June 4.Congressional Research Service. 2026b.U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023. RL33222. Washington, DC.Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 2025.Beyond the U.S.-Israel MOU: The Case for a Strategic Partnership Agreement. Washington, DC, December 19.Jerusalem Post. 2026. “The Sixth Eye: Reframing US Security Assistance to Israel.” July 2.Kiel Institute for the World Economy. 2026.Ukraine Support Tracker. Kiel.Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 2026.The Disappearing Aid Check: The Future of US-Israel Defense Support. Washington, DC, June 5.United States and Israel. 2016.Memorandum of Understanding on U.S. Security Assistance. Washington, DC, September 14.USAFacts. 2023.How Much Aid Does the US Give to Israel?Seattle.Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2016.Israel’s New MOU: The Money and the Message. Washington, DC.


BREAKING: Gates Foundation Funds First-Ever Creation of 16 Synthetic Viruses Using AI

byNicolas Hulscher, MPHFor the first time ever, scientists have used artificial intelligence to design complete viral genomes that were physically synthesized and turned into 16 new functional viruses capable of replicating. The work waspublished in Science, one of the world’s most prominent scientific journals. Disturbingly, the study’s senior author, Brian L. Hie, who conceived, designed, and supervised the research disclosed funding from the Gates Foundation.This was not a computer simulation. Researchers generated hundreds of AI-designed viral genomes, physically manufactured the DNA, assembled the genomes, introduced them into susceptibleE. coli, and recovered 16 functional bacteriophages that successfully propagated. The viruses infected bacteria, suppressed bacterial growth, produced progeny, and were grown into working viral stocks. The study represents the first generative design of complete genomes that were synthesized and experimentally shown to function as viable viruses.The scientists used Evo 1 and Evo 2, genomic large language models that operate essentially like LLMs for DNA. Instead of predicting the next word in a sentence, they predict the next nucleotide—A, C, G, or T. In other words, scientists are now using the same basic generative-AI paradigm behind systems such as ChatGPT to write entire viral genetic blueprints. Those digital sequences can then be converted into physical DNA and ultimately into functioning biological entities.The resulting viruses were not simply carbon copies of a known phage. The successful AI-designed genomes contained67 to 392 nucleotide changes relative to their closest known natural relatives, and 13 contained mutations that could not be identified in known natural sequences.These particular viruses were bacteriophages that infect bacteria, not humans, and human-infecting viruses were excluded from the relevant training data. That fact does not make the underlying capability harmless. The dangerous precedent is the demonstration that an AI model can generate a complete viral genome, that genome can be commercially synthesized, and the resulting genetic material can produce a virus capable of replication. The barrier separating digital AI output from an operational biological agent has now been crossed.The Gates Foundation funding attached to the senior scientist behind this project raises major concerns given that they alsofunded permanent quantum-dot microneedle patch “vaccines”that function as biological vaccine passports.Moreover, the Gates Foundationpreviouslygave $9.5 million to UW-Madisonand principal investigator Yoshihiro Kawaoka tomodify H5N1 viruses to preferentially recognize human-type receptorsand transmit efficiently in mammals.Bioterrorists no longer need to imagine a future in which AI can design pathogens from genetic code — the foundational capability has now been revealed in a major scientific journal. AI viral genome design technology should be halted before it falls into the hands of bioterrorists or other criminal actors.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.


The Blood Test That Finds Cancer Before It Finds You

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHCancer cases are rising and almost all of us know someone with a new and advanced cancer.  This is happening for two reasons:  1) the baby boomers born 1948-1964 are coming of age for cancer diagnoses, 2) the COVID-19 pandemic where both the infection and vaccination may be driving “turbo-cancers.”  How can we get ahead of this?🩸 Multi-Cancer Early Detection: The Blood Test RevolutionCancer screening has been stuck in the Stone Age for decades — poke, prod, irradiate, and hope you catch something before it’s too late. MCED tests change that equation entirely. A single blood draw, analyzing cell-free DNA shed by tumors, can now screen for over 50 cancers simultaneously. Two companies dominate this emerging market:GRAIL(Galleri) andExact Sciences(Cancerguard).Subscribe nowRead more

Summary: As Diagnoses Surge, Multi-Cancer Early Detection Offers Something We Haven't Had in Decades — Hope


Every Panic Has a Profiteer

Author’s Note: The author of our weeklyMcCullough Foundationnewsletter—an exceptionally talented writer and documentary filmmaker named Brian Olson — surprised me this morning by devoting an entire newsletter to my new book,Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessionsin which he highlighted how the book’s core thesis aligns with our mission at the McCullough Foundation. I found it very gratifying to read his interpretation of the book, which is precisely how I intended it to be interpreted. The only thing I would change (upon further reflection) is his title. I would say that “Every panic has a profiteer”—a bit more precise than “Every panic has an owner.”Every panic has an owner.John Leake’s new book asks a simple question about every crisis of the last twenty-five years: who would be out of business the moment the crisis gets solved?The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. — H. L. Mencken, the book's epigraphIn 1999 the United States was strong, unified and confident. Budget surpluses. A booming market. The biggest scandal in the country was an affair. John Leake’s new book is about what happened next — and it argues that what happened was not a run of bad luck.Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessionsis out now from Skyhorse. Twenty-four chapters, from a murder in Moscow in 1869 to the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.What a mind virus actually isLeake gives it a definition precise enough to test, and it is the most useful thing in the book. A mind virus is a psychological operation with three properties: a purported threat to national security or public health and safety is fabricated or grossly exaggerated; the effectiveness of the championed solution cannot be measured, tested or falsified; and the interested parties need to maintain crisis in order to remain in business.The metaphor of an irrational belief being introduced to the populace like a contagion is not his. It is Churchill's, describing how Imperial Germany transported Lenin from Switzerland back into Russia in 1917:in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city — and it worked with amazing accuracy."An idea, introduced deliberately, by people who expected to benefit, that went on to kill twenty million.It is no coincidence that mind viruses have emerged with increasing frequency during a period of runaway federal debt, with no constraints on creating and transferring trillions of public money to "crisis response" interest groups. Just look at the federal spending on the biggest "crises" that have afflicted the US in recent years — the War on Terror, the 2008 Financial Crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.So it's easy to criticize, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science." — Anthony Fauci, CBSFace the Nation, 28 November 2021You know it’s a mind virus — the product of a massive psychological operation — when you’re not allowed to question what we’re being told. If criticism of Anthony Fauci is criticism of science, then no criticism can ever be valid, and none of his statements are testable or falsifiable — that is, the two primary criteria of the scientific method. That is not a slip of the tongue. It is the mechanism, stated out loud, on camera — and four of Leake’s twenty-four chapters are about what government-propagated mind viruses cost We the People.Twenty-four chapters, one coherent thesis.The table of contents is the thesis. Read it in order and the shape is hard to miss:•War, the Father of All Mind Viruses · The Scientific-Technological Elite · Islamic Terror · Bioterrorism · Crisis and Bailout Capitalism•Racism · Russia · The Great Pipeline Opera Ends with a Bang · Climate Change · The Climate-Industrial Complex•The Coronavirus Disease of 2019 · There’s No Business Like Pandemic Business · In COVID-19 Vaccines We Trust•The US Proxy War Against Russia in Ukraine · Transgender · Iran · The Devil and the Great UndoingEach one is the same machine wearing a different face. As the trailer puts it: the face changes, the script never does.Why this lands hereTwo of the twenty-four chapters are about medicine, and they directly align with the Foundation’s work—the COVID-19 vaccine and the diabolical enterprise of transgender “medicine” for minors and men masquerading as women to dominate women’s sports.The book also goes to the heart of the McCullough® Foundation’s mission of safeguarding our constitutional protections from government agencies that invoke the specter of mortal dangers as a pretext for abridging free speech, freedom of association, and bodily autonomy. Dr. McCullough has spent four years on the first of those questions and has the citations to show for it. Leake devoted an entire book to elucidate how these medical mind viruses are connected to every other mind virus characterized in the book.Subscribe nowShare

Summary: John Leake's new book asks a simple question about every crisis of the last twenty-five years: who would be out of business the moment the crisis gets solved?


Charlie Kirk Autopsy Report: Findings Presented at Preliminary Hearing

The official narrative is that the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner performed an autopsy in the early hours of September 11. The resulting report (a multi-page document admitted as State’s Exhibit 11) was introduced over defense hearsay and confrontation objections under Utah’s preliminary-hearing rules allowing reliable hearsay for medical/autopsy records.It was not published or broadcast in open court due to the sensitive personal medical content and Utah law restricting public release of such reports. Utah State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Hull testified to its core conclusions: the manner of death was homicide and the immediate cause was a gunshot wound of the neck. Bullet fragments (a deformed/damaged jacket fragment and lead fragments) were recovered from the body and later examined by the ATF.Publicly discussed details drawn from the report via the hearing record, related court filings/memoranda, and subsequent references describe a complex penetrating wound track consistent with a .30-caliber (matching .30-06) rifle projectile.The entrance was on the anterior left side of the neck.The projectile (or its fragments) sequentially perforated the left strap (infrahyoid) muscles, the left common carotid artery, and the left internal and external jugular veins.It thenobliteratedthe left side of the C2 through C7 vertebrae and transected the cervical spinal cord, with a significant portion of the cord traumatically absent.The projectile fragmented within the neck; no clean exit wound was identified, consistent with the recovery of retained fragments and eyewitness accounts from security personnel who checked for an exit during transport.Associated injuries reflected both the direct path and secondary effects of a high-velocity rifle round (temporary cavitation, tissue disruption, and hemorrhage tracking).These included multiple disruptions of the thyroid, cricoid, and tracheal cartilages; bilateral apical and posterior intercostal hemorrhages; pulmonary apical hemorrhages/hematomas; hemopericardium (blood in the pericardial sac around the heart); bilateral hemothorax (blood in both pleural cavities); and limited subarachnoid hemorrhage involving the region of the cerebellar vermis and parietal areas of the brain.Secondary hemorrhage into the chest and around the heart, along with airway cartilage damage, compounded the unsurvivable trauma. The absence of a through-and-through exit is unsurprising with a rifle bullet striking dense vertebral bone, leading to fragmentation and energy dissipation within the tissues.According to the police and prosecutor, the shot was fired from the roof of the Losee student center, which is about 80 feet above and 426 feet away from Charlie’s position on stage. If this was indeed the case, the bullet struck Charlie in the neck at a downward angle of about10.65degrees.Very tough to say from eyeballing the neck wound on the video footage, but to me, it appears to be well below his mandible (lower jaw).What strikes me as odd about this finding is that the kinetic energy of the alleged .30-06 bullet—around 2,500 foot pounds at 142 yards—was transferred up his cervical spine, obliterating “the left side of theC2 through C7vertebrae and transected the cervical spinal cord, with a significant portion of the cord traumatically absent, down into his thorax to damage to his heart and lungs, and up into cranium to damage his brain.I have read several autopsy reports describing gunshot wounds, and all have described awound trackof destroyed tissue from the bullet and shockwave. I have seen descriptions of a complex wound path caused by the bullet deflecting off of bone, changing the path direction by several degrees.However, it seems very strange to me that in the case of Charlie Kirk, the bullet wasstoppedby the cervical vertebra it struck,and all its energy was transferred vertically up and down the spineinstead of punching through the vertebra.The density of dense cortical bone is about 1.8 to 2.0 g/cm³, while the density ofLeadis much higher at approximately 11.34 g/cm³, making lead roughly 5.5 to 6 times denser than human bone.I am by no means a rifle nut, but when I was in my teens and twenties, I did a lot of shooting with a .30-06, and I have never seen or heard of a shot to a large animal such as a deer, antelope, or wild pig behaving in this manner.I am also familiar with military medical literature from World War I and II in which  small-arms rifle fire (.30 caliber standard rounds like the US .30-06 or German 7.92×57mm) causing overall fatality rates estimated between 20% and 50%.A prominent injury that comes to mind was that sustained by the German soldier and writer, Ernst Juenger in 1918. He was shot by a British Enfield .303 in the chest and the bullet passed entirely through his right lung.To be sure, Juenger struck many as indestructible. Even past the age of 100., he still smoked Dunhill cigarettes and drank a bottle of champagne with most dinners. He credited his longevity to taking cold baths every day—that is, water out of the cold tap even during the dead of winter. A friend with a family connection invited me to join him in visiting the ancient soldier, writer, and entomologist in 1997, but we weren’t swift enough to get on with it, and Juenger died on February 17, 1998.I wonder how many injuries like Kirk’s—i.e., a .30 caliber gunshot to neck that did not exit, but transferred all energy up and down the spine—were documented by army medics in any of the warring powers.I wonder if anyone knows of a documented case in the forensic literature of a .30 caliber gunshot wound to a human neck that produced the same or similar injury pattern?Subscribe nowShare

Summary: Is there any other documented case in the forensic literature of a .30 caliber gunshot wound to the neck causing a similar injury pattern?


Unanswered Questions: Chris Johnson, Football, and ALS after COVID-19 Vaccination

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHAugust marked the return of NFL football.  On the very first Thursday night preseason game, former NFL superstar running back Chris Johnson was honored by the male TV announcers getting drenched in buckets of ice water marking a “cold plunge challenge.”  I was shocked to learn he is similar 38 former pre pandemic players and to patients I have examined who have developed rapidly progressiveamyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)after COVID-19 vaccination.The Sudden Decline of an Elite AthleteChris Johnson wasn’t just a running back — he wasCJ2K, the man who shattered the 2,000-yard rushing mark in 2009 and left defenders grasping at air with a blend of speed and acceleration that the NFL had rarely seen. Six straight seasons over 1,000 yards. A 4.24 40-yard dash. The kind of physical specimen that makes you question whether some humans are built from different blueprints entirely.That’s what makes what happened next so jarring.In December 2022, Johnson stood alongside fellow former Titans as a public face of the Tennessee Department of Health’s“Gear Up” campaign, urging communities to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. It was a straightforward public health partnership — former local heroes lending their credibility to a vaccination push. Johnson, by all appearances, was a healthy man in his late 30s doing what he believed was civic duty.  There is no record of Johnson contracting SARS-CoV-2.Subscribe nowRead more

Summary: A 4.24 forty, a COVID shot, and a body ravaged by neurodegeneration in a few short years


Those Who Distrust Government on Domestic Policy But Trust it in War

I’m getting a lot of feedback on my new book,Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions, that strikes me as somewhat paradoxical.Several readers have told me that they were with me 100% in my characterization of how the US government and its mainstream media lackeys incite fear of various domestic bogeymen to manipulate the American people.However, when it comes to my characterization of US government conduct and propaganda in the matter of waging foreign wars, I’m told (in somewhat angry terms) that I have completely lost the reader.I suppose this mental posture can be stated as follows:I do NOT trust the US government and its special interest pals when it comes to big domestic issues, but I DO trust the government’s when it comes to waging war on the Russians and Iranians.To put this idea in elemental terms:I do NOT trust the government when it comes to my domestic interests and concerns, but I DO trust the government when it comes to killing foreigners.This strikes me as a strange and paradoxical mental state. As our Founding Fathers—and especially Madison—repeatedly pointed out, it is precisely in the matter of waging war on foreign powers that “We the People” should be themostcautious, critical, and vigilant in our relationship with our government.On the other hand, as I lay out inChapter 3: War, the Father of Mind Viruses,the archaic human brain is primed with the greatest capacity for fear and loathing of dangerous foreign tribes. Throughout history, politicians have always invoked this fear as a mechanism of manipulating the people and distracting them from their servitude and exploitation by their own ruling elites. As Madison put it at the Constitutional Convention debate on June 29, 1787:Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.I often think of Goya’s nightmarish paintings depicting the “Disasters of War” in the wake of Napoleon’s invasion of Spain in 1808. I find this one of Spanish men tied up and shot by a French firing squad especially poignant.Goya was in the same deeply troubled state of mind when he painted his horrifying “Saturn Devouring his Son”—a meditation on how power-hungry old men destroy the young.I suppose it is impossible for mankind to resist the siren song of war. Every now and then we get a politician like Ron Paul or his son Rand Paul who lashes himself to the mast of reason, but they are rare.Subscribe nowShare

Summary: "Leake's new book is great on the bogeymen of COVID-19, racism, transgender, and climate change, but he really loses me when it comes to Ukraine and Iran."


BREAKING--Gulf Coast's Flesh-Eating Bacteria Crisis Spirals Out of Control

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHMany followers readFocal Pointsevery day because we not only provide you late breaking news that could impact your life, but we also provide solutions.🦠 Vibrio Vulnificus Outbreak Report — Gulf Coast, August 2026📊 Current SituationA significant uptick inVibrio vulnificusinfections — the so-called “flesh-eating bacteria” — is unfolding across the Gulf Coast, withLouisiana and Floridareporting the most alarming numbers so far in 2026.Louisianahas confirmed9 cases and 5 deathsyear-to-date, with all nine patients requiring hospitalization. Every single case involved wound exposure to seawater, and all patients had underlying health conditions. This represents a dramatic deviation from the state’s 10-year average of roughly 7 cases and 1 fatality per year.Floridahas logged14 cases and 2 deathsacross 10 counties, with Palm Beach and Marion Counties each recording a fatality. Florida’s 2024 numbers — 82 cases and 19 deaths — were heavily driven by Hurricane Helene’s floodwaters pushing brackish water into populated areas, and while 2026 hasn’t yet approached those levels, the season runs through October.Alabamareported its first case in April, andConnecticutconfirmed an infection from out-of-state oysters as early as February — a reminder that contaminated shellfish travel far beyond the Gulf.V. vulnificuswas even detected this spring in coastal waters off Long Island, New York, reflecting a northward creep as ocean temperatures rise.🧫 Pathogen ProfileVibrio vulnificusis a gram-negative bacterium that thrives inwarm, brackish water— the mix of fresh and salt water found in bays, estuaries, and much of the Gulf coastline. It’s not contagious person-to-person, but it doesn’t need to be. Two routes of infection dominate:Wound exposure— An open cut, scrape, surgical wound, or even a new piercing contacts contaminated seawater, for example from sharp shells. The bacteria can triggernecrotizing fasciitis, destroying soft tissue with terrifying speed.Consumption— Raw or undercooked shellfish, particularly oysters, deliver the bacteria directly into the GI tract, where it can rapidly progress to fulminant sepsis.The CFR (case fatality rate) hovers around20% — one in five infected people die, sometimeswithin 24–48 hoursof symptom onset. For those who survive, the cost is often extreme: limb amputation, massive tissue debridement, and prolonged ICU stays. The bacteria doesn’t “eat” flesh in the literal sense — it releases toxins that kill tissue and trigger a runaway inflammatory response — but the clinical effect is indistinguishable from the horror-movie nickname.⚠ Risk Factors & DemographicsLDH and Florida DOH both emphasize thatunderlying conditions dramatically amplify risk:DiabetesLiver disease(especially cirrhosis or hepatitis)HIV/AIDSor other immunocompromised statesCanceror active chemotherapyThalassemiaand other hemoglobin disordersImmune-suppressing medications(steroids, biologics, transplant drugs)Medications that reduce stomach acid(PPIs, H2 blockers) — less gastric acid means more bacteria survive ingestionHealthy individuals with robust immune systems can still contractVibriobut rarely progress to the fulminant, life-threatening form if treated early at the first sign of infection.🌡 Environmental DriversTwo factors are expanding the threat:Rising sea surface temperaturesextend the seasonal window (May–October is now the floor, not the ceiling) and push viableVibriohabitat further north. Detection in Long Island waters would have been unthinkable two decades ago.Hurricane floodingcreates massive brackish standing-water zones where bacteria proliferate and human contact increases. Florida’s 2024 post-Helene spike (82 cases) is the template for what happens when storm surge meets warm coastal waters.🧪 Symptoms & Clinical CourseThe hallmark isspeed. A small cut exposed at the beach on Saturday can mean the ICU by Sunday and the morgue by Monday. Time-to-treatment is everything.🛡 Prevention (Conventional Guidance)Stay out of brackish/salt water with any open wound — cuts, scrapes, surgical incisions, tattoos, piercingsCover unavoidable wounds withwaterproofbandages before water contactWash wounds immediately and thoroughly with soap and clean water after exposureCook shellfish thoroughly — boil shucked oysters ≥3 minutes, fry at 375°F ≥10 minutesWear protective footwear and gloves in coastal waters and when handling shellfishKeep raw seafood and its juices strictly separated from cooked food💊 Treatment & Rational ReadinessStandard hospital treatment for advancedVibrio vulnificusinvolvesaggressive IV antibiotics(typically a combination of a third-generation cephalosporin like ceftazidime plus doxycycline, or a fluoroquinolone),surgical debridementof necrotic tissue, and intensive supportive care — fluids, pressors, and often amputation. The key isearly intervention. Delay kills.Here’s the uncomfortable reality the public health apparatus won’t say plainly: in a genuine emergency — on a remote beach vacation, all-day fishing trip, a hurricane knocks out infrastructure, you’re hours from the nearest functioning ER, or the hospital is overwhelmed — having the right tools on hand can give you at least a headstart on treatment.This is whereThe Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency Kitenters the picture. The kit includesprescription-only medications— among them ciprofloxacin and doxycycline, both have activity againstVibriospecies. It’s not a substitute for ICU-level care in the immunocompromised, and nobody should pretend otherwise, but it represents exactly the kind ofearly-intervention capabilitythat can stabilize a situation while you get to definitive care — or handle it outright if the infection is caught at the first sign of a wound turning angry.The kit ships with a step-by-step guidebook, covers 30+ common illnesses, and is prescribed by a licensed U.S. provider after a brief medical intake.  The cost undercuts a single ER visit by roughly an order of magnitude.  We call itRational Readiness, and the name fits: this isn’t doomsday cosplay, it’s acknowledging that the system buckles under pressure and that personal preparedness fills the gap institutional medicine leaves wide open.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 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📚 ReferencesLouisiana Department of Health,Vibrio vulnificus Update, August 6, 2026Florida Department of Health,Vibrio Vulnificus Infections— confirmed case and death tables through August 1, 2026CBS News,Flesh-eating bacteria has killed 5 in Louisiana this year, officials say, Faris Tanyos, August 6, 2026Fox Weather,Flesh-eating bacteria tracker 2026: Cases in Florida, Alabama and Connecticut, July 27, 2026Fox News,Beachgoers warned after deadly ‘flesh-eating’ bacteria kills 5 in Southern state, August 7, 2026The Wellness Company,Medical Emergency Kitproduct page and medical kit information pages, accessed August 2026

Summary: Five dead in Louisiana, two in Florida — and the worst months are still ahead. Here's what they're not telling you about surviving Vibrio.


The Rifle in the Photo Alleged to Be the Charlie Kirk Murder Weapon

As the anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk approaches, I have heard a lot of podcasters expressing a bit of confusion about the characteristics of the rifle that was allegedly found in a wooded area near the crime scene and that is the alleged murder weapon.The rifle purportedly found in a wooded area near the campus and photographed is a “sporterized” military Mauser action hunting rifle. Because of the popularity of the bolt action designed by Paul Mauser in 1895 and adopted by the German Imperial Army in 1898, this action has been incorporated into sporting rifles ever since. Shortly after Kirk’s murder, I found one at my local used gun dealer.The German Military Mauser 98 (Gewehr 98) was originally chambered for the 7.92X 57mm Mausercartridge. However, many sporterized versions were built to chamber the .30-06 Springfield cartridge.I have fired both cartridges, including WWII era German army cartridges of the former, which I found to produce a ferocious recoil—so ferocious that I wondered how German infantrymen managed to shoot it more than a few times without suffering shoulder trauma. It’s possible, I suppose, that the propellant becomes hotter with age.According to an informant the gun dealer considers reliable, the photograph of the rifle released to the press was NOT authorized by the FBI, and is NOT a forensic photograph, but a clandestine photo snapped by someone at the scene, hence its poor quality.The photograph of the rifle that is the alleged murder weapon is a “sporterized” Mauser action rifle with the following characteristics.Probably a stainless steel barrel.Apparently a grey synthetic stock, probably made by Bell and Carlson in the 1980s or 1990s. Alternatively, it could be a “sand-coated and painted” wooden stock.“Short Mag” scope. The slightly unusual back mounting—necessitated on this rifle because of the scope’s short length—would NOT necessarily affect the shooting performance, depending on shooter’s style.Barrel probably 22 or 24 inches long.A similar weapon in my local used store has a 24 inch barrel and weighs 9 pounds 4 ounces.The rifle in the photograph is a cheap weapon, probably worth around $400, but certainly capable of shooting accurately.NOT possible to rapidly break down this kind of rifle. Breaking it down requires unscrewing two screws to remove barrel from stock. Disassembling the rifle results in multiple parts coming loose.Does NOT appear that the figure videotaped on the roof and dropping from the roof is carrying this kind of rifle.However, it is possible that the figure on the roof tossed this kind of rifle from the roof onto the ground in a different placebeforehe was captured by the video camera.NOT clear what exactly the figure is toting when he jumps off the roof.Alleged Murder WeaponSame kind of rifleBack disassembly screwForward disassembly screwSubscribe nowShare

Summary: Identifying the weapon featured in the photograph of a rifle allegedly found in a wooded area near the crime scene.


The Death of Wikipedia: How the “Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit” Became the Encyclopedia No One Should Trust

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHMany in the academic, business, communications fields have dropped use of Wikipedia altogether.🪦 Wikipedia Discredited by a Thousand CutsMost colleges give this advice when looking at Wikipedia:  “You may read Wikipedia but don’t cite Wikipedia when a better original source is available.”Occasionally Wiki editors reach out to me and for a fee, propose they edit my profile.  On the last occasion, I told him I don’t think people believe Wikipedia is valid anymore and it is not frequently quoted.  It’s been discredited.  He never replied.  This yearWiredlamented the fall of Wiki stating its ideals are not believable; this means the content is also not credible.📖 The Promise vs. The RealityWikipedia sold the world a beautiful lie: a democratic repository of human knowledge, crowdsourced and self-correcting, free from the biases of traditional gatekeepers. The reality is something far uglier — a digitalPravdawhere ideological conformity is enforced by a permanent class of activist editors, and where the “neutral point of view” policy functions as a euphemism for whatever narrative the most obsessive and politically aligned moderators choose to protect.The site’s decline into irrelevance isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s observable. It’s measurable in the way people now instinctively append “Wikipedia” to search queries only for quick date-checking or uncontroversial trivia, while instinctively discounting anything politically adjacent. The trust is gone.Subscribe nowRead more

Summary: Bias, defamation, and lack of equipoise has rendered the platform irrelevant.


When Ruthless People Try to Seize an Institution They Didn't Build: A Case Study

In 2002, my father, Sam S. Leake, and his friend, John Mullin, hatched the plan to convert the old, abandoned, graffiti-defaced, and dilapidated filter building on White RockThe Filter Building on White Rock Lake(see images before conversion) into a world class rowing club.They raised the money, oversaw the construction, and built the institution, thereby creating a flourishing rowing community in Dallas.A few years later, a group of covetous parents, including a plaintiffs attorney, in my native town of Highland Park, decided THEY wanted the boat house for their rowing program.These people joined forces with Chip Northrup -- an original donor to the project who apparently became unhappy with how the institution developed without his control -- and have been trying to seize control of the institution ever since.On August 6, Dallas sports reporter and broadcaster, Richie Whitt, wrote a devastating portrait of this grasping coterie titled “DALLAS’ ROWING ROW: GOOD PARTNERS VS. BAD PEOPLE.Whitt paints an ugly portrait of self-serving, egoistic, and ruthless people. He has also assembled solid documentary evidence that -- in addition to being shockingly rude--Chip Northrup is loose with the truth about himself and the facts of this saga, including his mischaracterization of my father as a former “Marine Corps drill instructor” (he was a Marine Corps helicopter crew chief).To me, the story is an expression of a larger social and cultural development that I have observed since I graduated from Highland Park High School in 1989 -- namely, our society is conspicuously long on money, self-assertiveness, and striving, but increasingly short on class.Click on the image below to read Whitt’s report.Subscribe nowShare

Summary: A portrait of ruthless people in Dallas who are trying to seize a flourishing community club that my father and his friend built.


Stephen Kapos's Views on Gaza

A friend just sent me the following video of Stephen Kapos, a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor and activist based in the UK.Kapos describes the situation in Gaza as a “Holocaust” (or genocide) and notes that some Jewish individuals speak out against Israeli actions there, while criticizing broader support or silence in the Jewish community. Kapos’s statements in the video are consistent his other public statements and interviews.Born in Budapest in 1937, Kapos survived the Holocaust as a child (including time in hiding and the Budapest ghetto under Nazi occupation; much of his family perished). He has been a vocal pro-Palestine activist, regularly appearing in videos, interviews.He draws parallels between his experiences and the suffering in Gaza, calls Israel’s actions a genocide, rejects using the Jewish Holocaust to justify them, and is associated with groups of Holocaust survivors and descendants opposing the war in Gaza.To me, this kind of testimony goes to the heart of our current epistemological crisis—that is, our inability to know what to believe.I am often told that, when it comes to the situation in the Middle East, I am not allowed to consider points of view that stray from official US and Israeli government narratives. This is a very strange state of affairs for me, because the rationale for founding this newsletter with Dr. Peter McCullough was our questioning of official US government narratives about COVID-19.We also noted—to our astonishment—that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government initiated a “Green Badge” policy in which the government made entry to gyms, hotels, pools, and cultural events accessible only to those who carried a certificate of vaccination with a QR code. The program was in effect roughly between February 2021 and March 2022.What do you think about Kapos’s point of view? Do you think he is overstating, exaggerating, or just plain wrong?Subscribe nowShare

Summary: What are we to make of the Hungarian Holocaust survivor who is characterizing the situation in Gaza as another Holocaust?


The Summer Hydration Double-Stack

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPHI just finished a long work-out in the Texas summer heat.  Sometimes I think the lonestar state is somehow closer to the sun.  I want to let you know what I do for hydration.🌊 Summer Hydration Should Match Salt and Water LossesSummer training demands a hydration strategy that matches the intensity. You’re not just replacing water — you’re replenishing what the heat strips away. Most people get this wrong by treating all hydration as interchangeable. It’s not.Here’s the two-part system that actually works.💧 Post-Workout: XE FountainYou just finished a session in 95-degree heat. Your electrolytes are depleted, your mitochondria are stressed, and chugging plain water is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.XE Fountainis built for this exact window. The rapid-absorption formula hits your system when it’s most receptive — immediately after exertion. Think of it as opening the floodgates while your cells are still screaming for replenishment. It’s not about “drinking more water.” It’s about what that water carries into your cells and how fast it gets there.The key is timing: within 30 minutes of your last set. That’s the metabolic sweet spot where uptake efficiency peaks. Miss it and you’re playing catch-up all day.🌙 Pre-Sleep: BT FountainNighttime hydration is the piece almost everyone neglects — and it’s where the real recovery magic happens.BT Fountainis formulated for the parasympathetic shift. When your nervous system transitions into rest-and-repair mode, the nutrient demands change. This isn’t about rapid absorption anymore — it’s about sustained, slow-release support through the full sleep cycle. Growth hormone pulses during deep sleep depend on proper mineral balance. Cellular repair mechanisms run on hydration status.Taking BT Fountain 30–45 minutes before bed gives your body the substrate it needs to actually rebuild while you sleep, rather than waking up dehydrated and catabolic.🧬 Why the Stack WorksSeparating these two formulas by time of day isn’t marketing — it’s physiology. Your body runs on fundamentally different operating systems during wakefulness and sleep. Morning hydration needs speed and electrolyte replenishment. Nighttime needs sustained mineral support and nervous system calming.Together, theXE + BT stackcovers the full circadian hydration cycle. You train hard, you recover deeper, and you wake up actually ready for the next session instead of dragging yourself out of a deficit.Try the stack for two weeks this summer.The difference between guessing at hydration and dialing it in precisely is the difference between surviving the heat and thriving in it.Thanks for reading FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™)! This post is public so feel free to share it.SharePlease 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 withPiqueto promote your optimal health. To learn more aboutPiqueproducts and get 20% off and free gifts today,https://www.piquelife.com/DRPETERPique Life— hydration engineered for how your body actually works.

Summary: Why Your Post-Workout and Pre-Sleep Routines May Need an Overhaul with Pique Life


Sunday Strip: "There’s an App for That"

“There’s an App for That”Remember when you could justdo things?Check into a hotel. Board an airplane. Park your car. Order lunch. Buy a ticket. Enter a museum. Pay a bill. Turn on the television. Apparently those days are over.Now there’s an app for that.Checking in for a flight on an obscure foreign airline you will almost certainly never fly again? Download the app.Parking for 37 minutes in a small town in Virginia? Download the app.Want to look at the menu? Scan the QR code. Actually, no, download the app.Want to pay for the parking meter? App.Charge the car? Different app.Open the hotel room? App.Use the hotel Wi-Fi? Create an account, verify your email, accept 46 pages of terms and conditions, then download the app.And naturally, every app would like to get to know you better.Please provide your full legal name, date of birth, home address, email address, mobile number, two forms of identification, emergency contact, name and phone number of your closest living relative, credit card, billing address, location permissions, Bluetooth access, camera access, microphone access, contacts, notifications, and apparently a small vial of blood.Then create a password containing 14 characters, one capital letter, two numbers, a hieroglyph, a Sanskrit character, and the name of your third-grade teacher.Excellent.Now verify your identity with a six-digit code we have sent to the phone you are currently using to read the six-digit code.Whoops! The password has expired, create a new password. Be sure it doesn’t contain anything related to the last password. Oh, now verify your identity again.All because you wanted to park the car.There may indeed be an app for everything.Unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be an app forleaving me the hell alone.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.JGM

Summary: Whether you want it or not...