ROGUE JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN

For the second time in less than a year, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy of Boston has inserted himself between the elected executive branch and its constitutional authority to govern, issuing a sweeping injunction Monday that blocks Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from implementing common-sense reforms to the nation’s childhood vaccine advisory structure. The ruling, which freezes both a revised immunization schedule and Kennedy’s reconstitution of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, is the latest episode in a troubling pattern: a midnight Biden appointee wielding judicial power as a political weapon against a duly elected administration.Judge Murphy’s record speaks for itself. In the spring of 2025, Murphy issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from deporting violent criminal aliens to third countries. When the Supreme Court stayed that injunction by a vote of 6 to 3, Murphy simply declared that a separate remedial order he had issued was unaffected by the high court’s ruling and continued to block the deportations. The Supreme Court was forced to rebuke him a second time, by a remarkable 7 to 2 margin, warning that further defiance would not be tolerated. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, joined that majority rebuke. Even the court’s most left-leaning members could not defend what Murphy had done.Now the same judge has turned his sights on public health policy, an area squarely within the executive’s discretionary authority. Kennedy, exercising his statutory powers as HHS Secretary, took two reasonable and defensible actions. First, he removed and replaced the members of ACIP, the advisory panel that shapes vaccine recommendations. Second, he oversaw a revision of the childhood immunization schedule, reducing the number of recommended vaccines from 17 to 11. Both actions were consistent with the administration’s mandate to scrutinize federal health policy with fresh eyes, and both reflect the kind of executive reorganization that every incoming administration undertakes as a matter of course.Murphy found this process likely violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that bypassing ACIP when revising the schedule was arbitrary and capricious. But his legal reasoning deserves scrutiny. The Secretary of HHS has broad authority to manage the department’s advisory infrastructure. FACA imposes procedural requirements on advisory committees, but those requirements have never been interpreted to strip a cabinet secretary of the power to reconstitute a panel whose membership had grown stale and whose recommendations had calcified into something approaching uncritical orthodoxy. Murphy’s reading of the statute is, to put it charitably, aggressive, and his track record with aggressive readings of federal law has not been good. The Supreme Court has already corrected him once for misreading immigration statutes. There is every reason to expect the appellate courts will do so again here.The political timing of this ruling is impossible to ignore. Murphy was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, 47 to 45, in the final days of the Democratic Senate’s lame-duck session in December 2024, rushed through by Senator Chuck Schumer before Republicans took control. Even Senator Susan Collins, the most moderate Republican in the chamber, voted against him. He has now issued consequential nationwide injunctions in two of the highest-profile policy battles of the second Trump administration: immigration enforcement and vaccine policy. Coincidence strains credulity.The practical consequences of Monday’s ruling are serious. ACIP’s scheduled meeting this week to discuss COVID-19 vaccines has been canceled. The revised immunization schedule, which Kennedy’s team developed after a deliberate review process, is frozen. The administration is once again forced to litigate basic questions of executive authority before a single district court judge in Boston who has demonstrated, more than once, that he is willing to push past the limits of his authority to achieve policy outcomes he prefers.HHS has signaled it will appeal promptly, and it should. Given the Supreme Court’s prior willingness to intervene swiftly in Murphy’s rulings, an emergency application for a stay is entirely appropriate. The justices have already shown they understand what is at stake when a lower court judge uses procedural pretexts to paralyze executive governance. The No Rogue Rulings Act, passed by the House, reflects a broader congressional consensus that the era of single district judges issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions to override federal policy must come to an end.Kennedy’s reforms are not the work of a reckless ideologue. They represent a serious effort to apply rigorous scrutiny to vaccine recommendations that have gone largely unquestioned for decades, and to restore accountability to a committee whose membership had not been refreshed in years. Whether one agrees with the underlying policy or not, the process by which a duly confirmed cabinet secretary manages his department’s advisory infrastructure is not properly a matter for a Boston district court to veto. Judge Murphy should be reversed, and reversed quickly.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 my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: Murphy's Latest Power Grab Threatens Kennedy's Lawful Health Reforms


Neuroscience, Vaccines, and Autism: What Science Actually Says and Doesn’t Say

Comments prepared in support of my upcoming presentation at theAutism Health Conference 2026You can register to attend here.If you are raising a severely autistic child, especially a nonspeaking one, you have probably spent years navigating a medical and scientific establishment that often felt dismissive of your observations, your instincts, and your questions. You have watched your child struggle. And many of you watched something change around the time of a vaccination appointment. Your child was developing. Then, in the days or weeks that followed a vaccine visit, something shifted. Language that was emerging went quiet. Eye contact that was growing became rare. A child who had been turning toward the world seemed to turn away from it.You reported this to your pediatrician and were told it was a coincidence. You found other parents who described the same sequence of events and were told you were part of a community built on fear. You were handed studies and told the question was settled. But the question did not feel settled, because you were there. You saw what you saw.This piece takes that observation seriously. Not because parental observation is infallible, and not because the science supports every conclusion drawn from it, but because a pattern reported independently by thousands of families across decades and across countries is not nothing. It is a signal that deserves honest engagement rather than dismissal. The goal here is to examine what science actually knows, what it does not know, and where the honest uncertainties lie.* * *The Microstroke Hypothesis: Where It Comes FromThe microstroke hypothesis proposes that vaccine-induced inflammation could, in some infants, cause tiny subclinical injuries to blood vessels in the brain. These would be too small to show up on standard imaging but potentially significant enough to affect neurodevelopment. It is not a mainstream scientific position. No major medical body endorses it, and there is no direct imaging evidence that it occurs.But the hypothesis is not invented from nothing. It draws on real biology.THE ALUMINUM QUESTIONResearchers at INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, France’s national health research agency), led by Romain Gherardi, have published peer-reviewed work showing that aluminum from vaccine adjuvants can be taken up by immune cells and transported to brain tissue in animal models [1,2]. Once there, it triggers microglial activation and neuroinflammation. Critics note that the animal doses differ from human vaccine schedules, and that human brain accumulation has not been directly demonstrated. The research is real, the debate about its relevance is legitimate, and the question has not been fully resolved.THE INFLAMMATORY PATHWAYVaccines work by triggering an immune response. That response includes a transient surge of inflammatory cytokines. This is not a side effect; it is the mechanism. What is genuinely uncertain is whether, in a small subset of infants with particular genetic vulnerabilities, this cytokine surge could be exaggerated enough to temporarily compromise the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier in infants is less mature than in adults. The biology here is plausible at a theoretical level. It has not been demonstrated at vaccine doses.VITT: PROOF THAT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM CAN AFFECT CEREBRAL VESSELSOne of the more important developments in recent years was the documented discovery of VITT (Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis), a rare thrombotic complication of adenoviral vector COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines [3]. This condition involves immune-mediated clotting, including in cerebral blood vessels. It was initially missed, then denied, then confirmed. It matters not because it is directly analogous to childhood vaccine injury, but because it established beyond doubt that vaccine-induced immune mechanisms can, in rare cases, affect brain vasculature. The possibility space is not zero.WHAT THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SUPPORTSThe most defensible version of the microstroke hypothesis is not a general claim about all vaccines in all children. It is a narrower claim: that children with specific genetic vulnerabilities, including immune dysregulation or mitochondrial disorders, might respond atypically to immune activation, potentially experiencing neurological effects that most children do not. This subgroup model is unproven but not biologically incoherent.* * *The Autism Connection: What Is Plausible and What Is NotThe microstroke hypothesis, if it has any relevance to autism, operates through a specific neurobiological mechanism and deserves to be evaluated on its own terms, separate from the broader and long-contested public debate over vaccines and autism. The question here is not about that debate. It is about whether inflammation-mediated cerebrovascular injury is a plausible pathway to neurodevelopmental harm in a susceptible subset of children.The dominant scientific hypothesis holds that autism’s origins are largely prenatal. Prospective studies of infants at high genetic risk for autism, watched from birth, show measurable differences in brain development and social attention within the first months of life, well before vaccination could play any role. This represents the mainstream position and poses a genuine challenge to broad postnatal vaccine-injury models of autism. It is worth noting, however, that a hypothesis being dominant is not the same as it being complete. The prenatal origin framework accounts well for many autistic individuals but has more difficulty explaining regressive presentations, and researchers continue to investigate what additional factors may shape outcomes after birth.WHERE THE QUESTION REMAINS GENUINELY OPENRegressive autism is different. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of autistic children appear to develop typically and then lose skills, often language and social engagement, somewhere between 12 and 24 months of age. This regression is real, documented, and poorly understood. Its timing does overlap with the vaccine schedule. And it is worth saying plainly: the parents who report watching their child change in the days and weeks following vaccination are not, as a group, confused or misremembering. Regression happens. The timing they describe is real. The unresolved scientific question is not whether the regression occurred but what caused it.This distinction matters. For too long, the response from the medical establishment has been to challenge the parents’ account rather than to engage the mechanism. That is not good science, and it has damaged trust in ways that will take a long time to repair. The honest position is to acknowledge the reported pattern, take it seriously as an observation, and invest in the research needed to understand it.Autistic brains, examined postmortem, show neuroinflammatory signatures, activated microglia, elevated cytokines, and white matter abnormalities [4,5]. These findings are consistent with what you might expect from microvascular injury, though they almost certainly have other explanations as well. The point is not that vaccines caused these findings, but that the brain biology of autism involves immune and vascular components that researchers are still working to understand.We do not fully understand regressive autism. Ruling out postnatal contributions on political rather than scientific grounds would itself be a failure of honest inquiry.The most credible narrow claim, and it is narrow, is that in a subgroup of children with underlying immune or metabolic vulnerabilities, a strong immune activation event, possibly including vaccination, could act as a trigger for neurological regression in children already on a susceptible developmental trajectory. This has not been demonstrated. It has not been ruled out.* * *The Locked-In Hypothesis: A Different Kind of HopeWhatever one believes about the causes of autism, there is a question that matters enormously for families right now: for nonspeaking autistic children, is the absence of communication a reflection of absent thought, or is it a reflection of a motor system that cannot reliably carry thought into the world?This is the locked-in hypothesis. And here, the neuroscience offers something genuinely encouraging.WHAT THE BRAIN RESEARCH SHOWSApraxia of speech is a well-documented condition in which a person knows what they want to say but cannot reliably execute the motor sequence required to say it. The brain regions implicated in autism, the supplementary motor area, the basal ganglia, the cerebellum, are precisely the regions involved in motor initiation and sequencing. Postmortem studies of autistic brains consistently show Purkinje cell loss in the cerebellum, a region critical for the timing and coordination of voluntary movement, including speech [6,7].Eye-tracking studies, which assess comprehension without requiring any motor output, have found language understanding in some nonspeaking autistic individuals that far exceeds what behavioral testing would predict. Neuroimaging during language tasks has shown activation patterns inconsistent with global cognitive impairment. These findings do not prove that every nonspeaking autistic person has intact cognition. They do suggest that standard assessments, which rely heavily on verbal and fine motor responses, may systematically underestimate what is happening inside these children’s minds.Some nonspeaking autistic individuals who later gained communication access have described years of awareness without any means of expressing it. These accounts are internally consistent, sophisticated, and in some cases verifiable. They deserve to be taken seriously.LETTER BOARDS AND EMERGING COMMUNICATION METHODSIt is important to be honest about the controversies here, because parents deserve accurate information.Facilitated communication, in which a facilitator physically supports a person’s hand while they point to letters, has been shown in controlled research to reflect the facilitator’s output rather than the communicator’s [8]. The facilitator is not consciously fabricating; the mechanism is the ideomotor effect, the same phenomenon behind Ouija boards. This is not a fringe finding. It is a well-replicated result, and FC (facilitated communication) has caused real harm to families through false accusations and misdirected hope.But there are newer approaches that operate differently in principle. The Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C) explicitly work toward independent pointing, with the goal of fading physical support entirely. Some practitioners conduct message-passing tests to verify independence. Some individuals using these methods have transitioned to fully independent communication and gone on to write books, give public talks, and advocate for themselves in ways that could not plausibly be attributed to a facilitator.These methods are not yet validated by the kind of large controlled trials that would satisfy a skeptical scientific audience. That is a real limitation and families should know it. But the methods are not equivalent to FC, the evidence is not uniformly negative, and the stakes for getting this wrong in either direction are enormous.THE CORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONWe do not know how many nonspeaking autistic individuals have intact cognition that standard assessment cannot reach. This is one of the most important unanswered questions in autism research, and it has been inadequately studied, partly because the political environment around these questions has made honest inquiry more difficult than it should be.* * *New Medicines on the HorizonThe communication barrier is not the only frontier where the outlook is changing. For the first time in the history of autism medicine, researchers are developing compounds that target the core social symptoms of the disorder, not just the behavioral symptoms that have always been easiest to manage pharmacologically. This is a meaningful shift, and families deserve to know about it.Currently approved medications for autism, risperidone and aripiprazole, address irritability and agitation. They carry significant side effect burdens and do nothing for the social and communicative dimensions of the condition that most affect quality of life. For decades, this was considered the ceiling. It no longer is.A PROMISING EXAMPLE: L1-79One of the most advanced compounds in this new generation is L1-79, developed by Yamo Pharmaceuticals. It works through a mechanism that would have seemed counterintuitive even a decade ago: rather than adding to neurotransmitter activity, it reduces it. Specifically, L1-79 inhibits tyrosine hydroxylase, the enzyme that controls the rate of dopamine and norepinephrine production in the brain. The scientific rationale is that many autistic individuals, particularly those with more severe presentations, have an overactive catecholamine system, and that excess signaling through these pathways contributes to the social communication deficits and excitatory imbalances that define the disorder.The drug is not without precedent. The L-isomer of the same molecule, metyrosine, is already FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved for pheochromocytoma, a condition involving catecholamine excess. L1-79 uses a racemic formulation adapted for use in autism, giving it a pharmacological foundation that is established even if the application is new.The clinical results, presented in full at the International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) conference in 2025, are the most compelling data yet seen for a compound targeting core autism symptoms [9]. In a rigorous 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of 58 adolescents and young adults, L1-79 produced a 7.94-point advantage over placebo on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales socialization score. The minimal clinically important difference for that instrument is 4 points. The drug nearly doubled it. Families participating in the trial also reported meaningful improvements in what they identified as the three most bothersome symptoms of their child’s autism. There were no serious adverse events. No one dropped out because of side effects.The FDA granted L1-79 Fast Track Designation in 2018, reflecting the agency’s recognition that there is a serious unmet need in this population [9]. Phase 3 trials are now in preparation. That is not a guarantee of approval, and the path from Phase 2 to the pharmacy shelf is long and often disappointing. But the direction of travel is real, and it points somewhere new.L1-79 is one example among several compounds now in development that approach autism differently, targeting neurobiological mechanisms rather than suppressing surface behaviors. The field is not where families deserve it to be. But it is moving, and it is moving in a direction shaped by a growing scientific understanding that the brains of autistic individuals are not simply broken versions of neurotypical brains, but are organized differently in ways that specific, targeted interventions may be able to address.* * *What We Owe These ChildrenParents of nonspeaking autistic children have often been told, implicitly or explicitly, that their child is not “in there” in the way they sense. They have been handed devastating prognoses based on assessments that may not capture what these children actually know and feel. Many have spent years grieving a connection they were told was not possible.The science does not yet tell us with certainty how many of these children have rich inner lives waiting for a reliable path out. But it tells us enough to know that presuming they do not is not the conservative scientific position. It is its own kind of risk. A child with intact cognition who is treated as cognitively absent suffers a harm that is profound and largely invisible.The emerging evidence around motor-speech dissociation, the documented cases of nonspeaking individuals who found their voice through letter boards and augmentative communication, and the neuroimaging data suggesting preserved language networks in some nonverbal autistic individuals all point in the same direction: the story is not over. The barrier may be at the output, not at the source.For families, the practical implication is worth sitting with. If your nonspeaking child is in there, aware, understanding more than they can show, then every interaction you have with them, every book you read aloud, every conversation you have in their presence, every moment you treat them as a full person, matters in ways you may not be able to measure yet. And the work being done to build reliable, independently verifiable communication pathways for this population is among the most important work in autism today.A Note to Parents Who Have QuestionsIf you have watched your child and felt that the official answers did not fit what you observed, you are not irrational. Some of the most important scientific questions about autism remain genuinely open. The research community is not infallible, and the history of medicine includes many cases where parental observation preceded scientific confirmation by years or decades.At the same time, the most important thing for your child right now is not resolving debates about causation. It is finding every possible way to presume their competence, to offer them tools for expression, and to meet them where they are.The locked-in hypothesis, if it holds for your child, means that what you have always sensed is true: they are there. They have been there all along. And the distance between you may be shorter than anyone has told you.Science is slowly learning to find them. Do not stop looking.References[1] Khan Z, Combadière C, Authier FJ, et al. Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:99. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1741-7015-11-99[2] Gherardi RK, Eidi H, Crépeaux G, Authier FJ, Cadusseau J. Biopersistence and Brain Translocation of Aluminum Adjuvants of Vaccines. Frontiers in Neurology. 2015;6:4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2015.00004/full[3] Pavord S, Scully M, Hunt BJ, et al. Clinical Features of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;385:1680-1689. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109908[4] Vargas DL, Nascimbene C, Krishnan C, Zimmerman AW, Pardo CA. Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism. Annals of Neurology. 2005;57(1):67-81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15546155/[5] Morgan JT, Chana G, Pardo CA, et al. Microglial activation and increased microglial density observed in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in autism. Biological Psychiatry. 2010;68(4):368-376. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20674603/[6] Bauman ML, Kemper TL. Histoanatomic observations of the brain in early infantile autism. Neurology. 1985;35(6):866-874. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4000488/[7] Whitney ER, Kemper TL, Bauman ML, Rosene DL, Blatt GJ. Cerebellar Purkinje cells are reduced in a subpopulation of autistic brains: a stereological experiment using calbindin-D28k. Cerebellum. 2008;7(3):406-416. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18701892/[8] American Psychological Association. Resolution on Facilitated Communication. 1994; reaffirmed 2016. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/facilitated-communication[9] Yamo Pharmaceuticals. Yamo Pharma Presents Statistically Significant Phase 2 Autism Results for L1-79 at INSAR 2025. GlobeNewswire. May 8, 2025. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/05/08/3077235/0/en/Yamo-Pharma-Presents-Statistically-Significant-Phase-2-Autism-Results-for-L1-79-at-INSAR-2025.htmlThanks 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 my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: An honest look at vaccine biology, autism research, and a hypothesis that may offer real hope for families of nonspeaking children.


Sunday Strip: Convoy to Cuba

True story - the Republican Party is destroying its chances of winning the midterms.Ignoring the voice of the people who elected them is dangerous.  And ignoring the issues MAHA supports is a good way for a candidate to rapidly circle the drain.Thirty children is an exaggeration, but the point is well taken…Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareBeen there - done that.This is truly brilliant idea.  It might be worth carrying wallet sized pieces of paper with this printed message.The Doom Goblin with the weird hair is once again making idiotic demands of our President.Greta would rather see the Cuban people wallow about in poverty, due to their Communist dictatorship than allow the government of Cuba to be overturned.It seems like just last week that Greta was protesting for oil production and usage to be banned from the world. For the sake of climate change, y’know!BUT THAT IS SO YESTERDAY!Now Greta’s furious that the evil President Trump won’t let the Cuban communist regime import fossil fuels to run their dictatorship. What’s the matter, Greta? I thought you wanted everything to go green!So, another grifter donation campaign has been developed.“Free Cuba - lets the oil flow freely.”You can’t make this stuff up.Tuesday, March 17th- in case you were wondering.JGM

Summary: The latest thing.


THE MOLECULE YOUR BODY ALREADY TRUSTS

THE MOLECULE YOUR BODY ALREADY TRUSTS: Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl)Imagine you cut your finger. Within seconds, before you’ve even reached for a bandage, your body has already deployed its first line of chemical defense. Deep inside the white blood cells that flood to the site of injury, a remarkable reaction is taking place: hydrogen peroxide is being transformed, by an enzyme called myeloperoxidase, into a potent antimicrobial oxidant that will annihilate bacteria, viruses, fungi, and virtually anything else that tries to take advantage of your open wound.That molecule is hypochlorous acid. Scientists write it as HOCl. And your immune system has been relying on it for millions of years.Here is the extraordinary thing: scientists have figured out how to bottle it. And when they did, they discovered that the same molecule your body produces to fight infection is also, by almost every measure, the most effective and safest disinfectant ever studied. Over 5,600 peer-reviewed papers agree. Regulatory agencies in more than 50 countries have approved it. Military field hospitals have deployed it in war zones. Burn units swear by it. Doctors use it to prepare the eyes of patients for surgery. And yet, until recently, most people had never heard of it.That is about to change.“HOCl comprises many of the desired effects of the ideal disinfectant: easy to use, inexpensive, good safety profile, and can be used to disinfect large areas quickly with a broad range of bactericidal and virucidal effects.”Block & Rowan, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2020Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.From the trenches of World War I to your kitchen counterThe story of HOCl begins in 1915, in the blood-soaked field hospitals of the Western Front. Gas gangrene was killing Allied soldiers at catastrophic rates. Wounds contaminated by the bacterium-rich soil of the trenches were becoming infected faster than surgeons could treat them. The antiseptics of the day, carbolic acid and mercury-based solutions, were barely better than nothing.Into this crisis stepped Henry Drysdale Dakin, a British biochemist working under the legendary surgeon Alexis Carrel. Dakin developed a dilute chlorine-based solution that, when continuously irrigated through wound cavities via a system of rubber tubes, dramatically reduced infection rates and saved thousands of limbs and lives. The Carrel-Dakin method, as it became known, was adopted across Allied field hospitals on every front. Soldiers who would have died from gas gangrene survived. Amputations that would have been inevitable became avoidable.The irony is that what Dakin was actually producing, imperfectly and without quite knowing it, was a crude version of HOCl. His solution, made by adjusting the pH of sodium hypochlorite (bleach), contained the active molecule he needed, but in an unstable and impure form mixed with other chlorine compounds. It worked well enough to save lives in the field, even if it was not yet optimized enough to accelerate healing. The cytotoxic effects that the alkaline formulation had on recovering tissue were outweighed, in the grim arithmetic of the Western Front, by the alternative: almost certain death from sepsis.The problem that would take another century to solve was this: how do you make HOCl stable, pure, and consistent enough to actually be a pharmaceutical product?Why bleach is not HOClMany people assume HOCl is just fancy bleach. It is not. Bleach is sodium hypochlorite, a different molecule, made at alkaline pH, that is toxic to tissue and corrosive to equipment. Pure HOCl, made at the correct acidic pH (3.5 to 5.5), is the specific molecule your immune cells produce. It is 80 to 100 times more potent per unit than bleach, yet non-toxic to human cells. The chemistry is completely different, even though both contain chlorine.For decades after WWI, scientists understood conceptually that HOCl was the active agent, but they could not produce it in a stable, pure form at scale. Early attempts to acidify bleach produced hazardous chlorine gas. Electrolytic methods existed but were expensive, inconsistent, and generated mixed solutions of uncertain composition. HOCl was known to be promising, but practical application remained out of reach for anything beyond bedside generation.That changed in the late 1990s and 2000s, when advances in electrochemical engineering finally allowed manufacturers to produce pure, stable HOCl at controlled pH, with verified concentration and oxidation-reduction potential, packaged in containers that kept it potent for years rather than hours. The molecule your immune system had been relying on since before humans walked upright was finally available in a bottle.And when researchers began systematically testing it against the full range of pathogens and clinical applications, the results were, to put it mildly, remarkable.Why it works so well, and why nothing has ever developed resistanceTo understand why HOCl is so extraordinary as an antimicrobial, you need to understand how most antibiotics and conventional disinfectants work, and why that approach is failing us.Conventional antibiotics work by targeting a specific biological structure: a particular enzyme, a cell wall protein, a replication mechanism. The problem is that bacteria are extraordinarily adaptable. Over time, through mutation and selection pressure, they evolve workarounds. They change the targeted structure, develop enzymes that break down the drug, or pump the antibiotic out of their cells before it can act. This is antibiotic resistance, and the World Health Organization calls it one of the ten greatest threats to global health.Conventional chemical disinfectants like bleach, chlorhexidine, and quaternary ammonium compounds work differently, but they also have targeted mechanisms that bacteria can, over time, learn to circumvent. Chlorhexidine, for example, has been shown to induce cross-resistance to multiple antibiotics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae.HOCl is fundamentally different. It does not attack one target. It attacks everything simultaneously.The five-way attack that resistance cannot beat1. It oxidizes and disrupts cell membranes, causing bacteria to lose structural integrity. 2. It chlorinates and denatures proteins, including enzymes that bacteria need to survive. 3. It fragments DNA and RNA, preventing replication. 4. It penetrates and dissolves biofilm, the protective matrix that makes bacterial colonies so hard to treat. 5. It inactivates viral capsids and envelopes, eliminating infectivity. No organism can simultaneously evolve resistance to all five of these mechanisms. This is why, across more than 100 years of clinical use, no pathogen has ever developed documented resistance to HOCl.The numbers bear this out. HOCl kills methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (one of the most feared drug-resistant bacteria in hospitals) in under 30 seconds at concentrations of 10 to 50 parts per million. It inactivates SARS-CoV-2 at 35 ppm in under 30 seconds. It achieves a greater than 99.99% reduction of human papillomavirus (HPV-16 and HPV-18, the strains responsible for most cervical and oropharyngeal cancers) in just 15 seconds of contact time. It eliminates Candida auris, the terrifying multidrug-resistant fungus that has been causing outbreaks in ICUs, within 60 seconds.And in perhaps its most astonishing capability, HOCl inactivates prions, the misfolded proteins responsible for devastating diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and mad cow disease. Prions are virtually indestructible by conventional means: they survive autoclaving at 134 degrees Celsius, they persist in soil for years, and they are unaffected by formaldehyde. HOCl, at room temperature, achieves log reduction values approaching six (that is 99.9999% elimination) within 60 minutes. No other ambient-temperature decontaminant can do this.The part nobody talks about: HOCl does not just kill germs, it healsHere is where HOCl parts company completely from every conventional antiseptic. Bleach, povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, and hydrogen peroxide all share a critical flaw: they kill bacteria by damaging cells, and they are not particularly selective about which cells they damage. Applied to a wound, they kill the bacteria you want dead, but they also impair the fibroblasts and keratinocytes that are trying to close the wound. The cells that form new tissue, the cells that resurface the wound with healthy skin, are getting caught in the crossfire. This is why wounds treated with conventional antiseptics often heal more slowly than wounds treated with saline.HOCl is different because it is what your body evolved to produce. The concentrations your immune system uses are calibrated to kill pathogens without damaging the surrounding tissue. When scientists began testing HOCl at clinical concentrations on human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, they found that instead of inhibiting these cells, it actually stimulated them. Dose-dependent, favorable effects on migration and proliferation were documented: the cells responsible for wound closure moved faster and proliferated more robustly in HOCl than in any other tested antiseptic environment.But it goes even deeper than that. At the molecular level, HOCl is actively triggering a cascade of healing mechanisms:How HOCl actively drives healingIt suppresses matrix metalloproteinases (the enzymes that destroy the scaffolding new tissue needs to grow). It activates HIF-1 alpha, the body’s master switch for angiogenesis (the growth of new blood vessels that a wound needs for perfusion and repair). It triggers vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production, further driving new blood vessel formation. It actually converts skin fibroblasts into vascular endothelial cells (the building blocks of new blood vessels), providing raw material for vascularization that the wound would not otherwise have. It inhibits the inflammatory chemicals that keep wounds stuck in the chronic inflammation phase. And it produces a secondary compound called N-chlorotaurine, which sustains the healing signal in the wound for up to 36 hours after the HOCl itself has dissipated.This is not theoretical. The clinical evidence is extensive. An international consensus panel reviewed the data in 2015 and found strong clinical evidence specifically supporting HOCl for diabetic foot ulcers, one of the most difficult wound types in all of medicine, responsible for more than half of all non-traumatic limb amputations.A randomized controlled trial of 67 patients found that HOCl irrigation alone outperformed oral antibiotics for mild diabetic foot infections, achieving a 93.3% clinical success rate compared to 56.3% for levofloxacin plus saline. Another trial found that HOCl reduced the time to surgical closure of infected traumatic wounds so dramatically that, by day 14, 90% of HOCl-treated patients were ready for reconstruction, compared with 0% in the povidone-iodine group. And a remarkable retrospective study of 1,249 venous leg ulcers found that every single one of them healed completely with HOCl-centered care, including 10 patients whose wounds were considered untreatable by conventional approaches.“HOCl is safe, low cost, painless, easy to perform, and improves wound healing, rapidly preparing the wound for reconstruction better than any conventional antiseptic we have tested.”Mekkawy & Kamal, University of Assiut, 2016 clinical trialWhat this means for your everyday lifeYou do not have to have a diabetic foot ulcer or a battlefield wound to benefit from HOCl. The same properties that make it extraordinary in clinical settings make it extraordinarily useful in the ordinary demands of daily life.Skin and inflammatory conditionsIf you or someone in your family deals with atopic dermatitis (eczema), rosacea, or seborrheic dermatitis, HOCl is worth knowing about. Research published in Redox Biology demonstrated that HOCl blocks inflammatory gene expression in skin tissue. Studies comparing HOCl to tofacitinib, a pharmaceutical JAK inhibitor used for eczema, found comparable reductions in inflammation, itch behavior, and skin thickness. The key mechanism is reduction of Staphylococcus aureus colonization, the bacteria that drive most eczema flares, combined with direct anti-inflammatory action on the NF-kB pathway, the same inflammatory signaling pathway that expensive pharmaceutical drugs target.The advantage over pharmaceutical approaches? HOCl costs pennies per application, has no systemic side effects, requires no prescription, and has been shown safe for use on even the most sensitive skin.Eye and eyelid careBlepharitis (chronic inflammation of the eyelid margins driven by bacterial overgrowth) affects tens of millions of people and is one of the most common reasons for ophthalmology visits. Standard treatments involve repeated antibiotic courses, which are becoming less effective as resistance increases.HOCl at 100 parts per million, applied around the eyelids, achieves greater than 99% reduction of staphylococcal bacteria within 20 minutes. It is so safe that it is used to prepare the eye surface before intraocular surgery, a context where extreme precision and zero tolerance for error are required. Products like Avenova, an FDA-cleared HOCl eyelid spray, are now used routinely by ophthalmologists. Surgeons prefer HOCl over the previous standard (5% povidone-iodine) because patients report significantly better comfort and there are no concerns about iodine absorption in pregnant patients or those with thyroid conditions.Oral healthResearch published in peer-reviewed journals has demonstrated that HOCl mouthwash achieves a 4.1 to 5.5 log reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva within one minute. That is a reduction of over 99.99%, outperforming chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% and hydrogen peroxide 1.5% in direct comparison. For dental practices, this makes HOCl-based pre-procedural rinsing a compelling infection control tool.For everyday use, HOCl addresses gingivitis, halitosis, and dental plaque without the alcohol that makes conventional mouthwashes harsh or the chlorhexidine that stains teeth and disrupts the balance of the healthy oral microbiome. It is also exceptionally effective at sterilizing toothbrushes; soaking in HOCl for five minutes eliminates virtually all bacterial contamination.Home disinfection, without the hazmatThe COVID-19 pandemic forced millions of households to use bleach, quaternary ammonium compounds, and other harsh disinfectants at unprecedented volumes and frequency. What most people did not know is that NIOSH and the U.S. National Toxicology Program subsequently determined that the acceptable occupational exposure level for quaternary ammonium compounds (the active ingredient in most commercial disinfectant sprays) is effectively zero. The same products that were sprayed on every surface in schools, restaurants, and homes were causing documented respiratory damage in cleaning staff and healthcare workers.HOCl is EPA-registered against SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, Candida auris, influenza, norovirus, and dozens of other pathogens. It is also FDA-approved as a no-rinse food-contact sanitizer, safe to spray directly on produce, meat, and food-preparation surfaces without rinsing. It is non-flammable, non-corrosive, and breaks down to dilute salt water within minutes of use. It requires no personal protective equipment to handle. It does not stain, discolor, or corrode surfaces. And it can be safely aerosolized and fogged into rooms, something bleach can never do safely, reaching pathogens in HVAC systems, corners, and surfaces that spray cannot access.FDA, EPA and USDA approvals for HOClThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved HOCl for: direct application to meat, poultry, fish, fruits, and vegetables as a no-rinse sanitizer; high-level disinfection and sterilization of medical instruments; topical wound care; eyelid cleansing; and as an antipruritic (anti-itch). The USDA’s National Organic Program lists HOCl as an approved substance for certified organic food production. More than eight branded HOCl formulations have been cleared by the FDA for topical wound management as of 2024.  The EPA has certified specific manufacturers and products for use in disinfecting a wide range of pathogens at non-tosic concentrations, and has certified the Curativa Bay HOCl 150ppm product for unlimited shelf life.Is it safe? The answer is yes, and the evidence is extraordinaryThis is the question that almost everyone asks when they first hear about HOCl. Something this effective at killing pathogens must surely be dangerous, right?Wrong. And the reason why gets to the heart of what makes HOCl unique.Conventional disinfectants are potent because they are toxic, they damage cells, including human cells. Their antimicrobial action and their tissue toxicity are inseparable. This is precisely why bleach cannot be applied to wounds, why chlorhexidine cannot be used near the eyes, why hydrogen peroxide slows healing, and why quaternary ammonium compounds require ventilation and gloves.HOCl is potent because of physics and chemistry, not brute toxicity. At the correct pH (3.5 to 5.5), it carries no charge, allowing it to penetrate microbial cell walls that repel charged molecules. It generates oxidative stress at multiple simultaneous targets. But mammalian cells have evolved over millions of years of coexistence with HOCl produced by their own immune systems to withstand exactly this kind of oxidative stress. They have antioxidant defense mechanisms specifically calibrated to protect them from the HOCl produced by their neutrophils.The result is a therapeutic index (the ratio of effective dose to toxic dose) that is extraordinary by any pharmaceutical standard. Pure HOCl at pH 3.5 to 4.0 has a therapeutic index more than 1,000 times higher than hydrogen peroxide against gram-positive organisms. That means there is enormous room between the concentration that kills bacteria and the concentration that would harm human tissue.What the safety record actually showsAcross more than 100 years of clinical use and more than 5,600 peer-reviewed publications, no case of adverse reaction attributable to pure, properly formulated HOCl appears in the medical literature. In controlled rodent inhalation studies, rats exposed to dense HOCl fog for four hours showed no pathological changes. In human surveys of voluntary inhalation exposure (employees using HOCl fog as COVID-19 prophylaxis), more than 450 exposures produced only 2.6% reporting minor transient effects like nasal tingling. The U.S. EPA, FDA, USDA, European Chemicals Agency, Australian TGA, and Health Canada have all independently evaluated HOCl and approved its use across multiple categories. The environmental safety record is equally clean: HOCl degrades to dilute salt water within minutes of use, leaving no toxic residue.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareHow HOCl compares to what you are probably using nowMost households rotate among a small collection of cleaning and disinfecting products: bleach-based sprays, alcohol-based sanitizers, chlorhexidine wipes, hydrogen peroxide cleaners, and quaternary ammonium disinfectants. Here is how HOCl compares across the properties that actually matter:What to look for when you buyNot all HOCl products are created equal. The molecule is highly sensitive to pH and formulation, get it wrong, and you end up with a mixture that contains cytotoxic hypochlorite rather than pure, potent HOCl. Here is what the science says matters:pH between 3.5 and 5.5.This is the range where HOCl predominates as the pure active species. At higher pH (above 5.5), the solution converts increasingly to hypochlorite, less potent and potentially tissue-toxic. Products claiming to be pH-neutral or pH 7 contain predominantly hypochlorite, not HOCl, regardless of what the label says. Roughly the same pH as black coffee. Same as healthy skin. Look for this on the label or specification sheet.Active HOCl concentration between 100 and 500 ppm.The FDA clears wound care products in the 100 to 200 ppm range. Environmental disinfection products may go up to 500 ppm. Products significantly outside this range in either direction may be either ineffective (too low) or unnecessarily irritating (too high for certain applications).Greater than 99% pure HOCl.Modern electrochemical manufacturing, when done correctly, produces solutions containing only HOCl with no detectable hypochlorite, chlorate, chlorite, or elemental chlorine. This purity is what guarantees both the efficacy and the safety profile described in the clinical literature. Ask for a certificate of analysis.Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) above 800 mV.ORP is the key measure of the solution’s actual antimicrobial capacity. High-quality HOCl solutions typically show 900 to 1200 mV. This is what actually kills pathogens, not just the chlorine concentration. Some products have acceptable chlorine numbers but low ORP, meaning the HOCl has degraded into less active forms.Verified shelf life.Properly manufactured HOCl in appropriate sealed packaging maintains its potency for two to five years at room temperature, including in tropical conditions. If a product cannot state its verified shelf life, or if that shelf life is only days or weeks, it is not a properly stabilized formulation.FDA registration or EPA registration for your intended use.For wound care, look for FDA-cleared wound care products. For surface disinfection, look for EPA registration numbers. For food contact surfaces, look for FDA food contact clearance. Reputable HOCl manufacturers (including Curativa Bay) can supply all of these.The bigger picture: why this matters nowWe are living through a moment when the limitations of our conventional antimicrobial toolkit are becoming painfully visible. Antibiotic resistance is responsible for an estimated 700,000 deaths per year globally, a number projected to reach 10 million annually by 2050 if trends continue. The pipeline of new antibiotics is nearly empty. Many of our go-to disinfectants are contributing to the problem, selecting for resistant traits in exactly the bacteria we are trying to eliminate.At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed just how toxic our standard disinfection practices were when deployed at scale. When bleach, quaternary ammonium compounds, and peracetic acid were sprayed on every surface in every building across the developed world for two straight years, the consequences (documented respiratory damage, ecological contamination, equipment corrosion) became impossible to ignore.HOCl sits in a unique position in this landscape. It kills every pathogen that matters, including the antibiotic-resistant ones. It kills them with mechanisms that cannot generate resistance. It does so without contributing to resistance, without damaging tissue, without producing environmental toxins, and without requiring hazardous handling. The WHO has formally proposed its inclusion in the Essential Medicines List. Medecins Sans Frontieres has lobbied for its adoption globally. Military and humanitarian organizations have deployed it in the most extreme environments on earth.It degrades to salt water. It costs about a dollar a liter at scale. It can be made from water and salt with a refrigerator-sized machine anywhere in the world.The molecule your immune system has been using to fight infection since before you were born is finally available in a form you can put on your bathroom shelf, your kitchen counter, and in your medicine cabinet.“HOCl offers a significant ability to protect humanitarian aid workers, the populations they serve, and the communities that receive displaced families. When used for traumatic injuries it can eliminate microbial wound biofilms while decontaminating tissue, potentially reducing the risk of sepsis while improving the rate of healing.”Rasmussen & Williams, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, 2017The bottom lineHOCl is not a wellness trend. It is not a supplement with anecdotal support. It is a rigorously studied, regulatory-approved, clinically validated antimicrobial and wound-healing agent backed by over a century of evidence and more than 5,600 peer-reviewed publications. It has been used in burn units, military field hospitals, Ebola treatment centers, dental surgeries, and ophthalmology clinics. It is approved for use on food by the USDA and FDA. It has been proposed for inclusion in the WHO Essential Medicines List.And it is the molecule your own white blood cells produce every time you get injured or infected.The fact that it took this long to make it available in stable, pure, consumer-accessible form is one of the more frustrating chapters in the history of medical technology. The good news is that the wait is over.Look for it. Read the label carefully (pH 3.5 to 5.5, greater than 99% HOCl, verified shelf life). Buy from manufacturers who can show you their FDA or EPA registration. And consider what it would mean to have a single, safe, extraordinarily effective product that could replace the bleach spray, the harsh wound wash, the chemical-laden mouthwash, and the disinfectant wipes you are probably cycling through right now.Your immune system already trusts this molecule. Now you can too.150 ppm Hypochlorous Acid with unlimited shelf life certification from EPA with all of the characteristics cited above can be purchased from Curativa Bay.Conflict of interest disclosure: Robert and Jill Malone are members of Curativa Bay senior management and hold equity in Curativa Bay - because we personally use and believe in the usefullness of Curativa Bay and CuraClean HOCl products.Use promocodehocl15for 15% off the list price of all Curativa Bay HOCl purchases viathis website link.Purchase HOCl HereProduct examples include the following:

Summary: A plain-English guide to hypochlorous acid and why it might be the most important thing you put in your medicine cabinet and take with you during your travels


A Free Speech Victory...

By Brownstone InstituteOn Tuesday, attorneys announced a “Consent Decree,” which will put an end to the years-long litigation inMurthy v. Missouri(previously calledMissouri v. Biden), which focused on government-induced social media censorship. While its proponents herald the settlement agreement as a victory for free speech, the details suggest that Leviathan has not lost this civilizational struggle. Its concessions are decorative, and the text implicitly suggests that the practices will largely continue.The “victory” for free speech in this case is that the remaining defendants – the CDC, CISA, and the Surgeon General – agree not to “threaten Social-Media Companies with some form of punishment…unless they remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content” that contains “protected free speech.” That is akin to a civilian signing an agreement not to steal his neighbor’s car; it “prohibits” something that is already illegal under black-letter First Amendment law.Free speech advocates, however, cannot even celebrate that as a “victory.” The agreement not to bludgeon social media companies into imposing state censorship only lasts “for a period of 10 years,” per the terms of the agreement. After that, the agreement implies that CISA can return to its practice of “switchboarding,”which dictatedwhich posts should be banned from social media.Further, the “restriction” only applies to three government agencies; the settlement does not apply to similar assaults fromany othergovernment group (including DHS, the CIA, the FBI, or the White House).Moreover, the only people who can enforce the terms are the five remaining plaintiffs, as the agreement is “enforceable only by the Parties.” If government warhawks coerce platforms to ban critics of the Iran War, this “Decree” will have no effect.The supposed triumphs lack substance. The government agencies agree that “modern technology does not alter the Government’s obligation to abide by the strictures of the First Amendment” and that “misinformation” labels do not render speech constitutionally unprotected. Excellent. But that is nothing more than a repetition of well-established law.Unfortunately, this was the predictable endpoint of the litigation following the Supreme Court’s dereliction of duty in June 2024, when it concocted procedural excuses to evade the controversy of the indisputable evidence of the Biden White House’s censorship apparatus. The history of the Action reveals that the Supreme Court forfeited a generational opportunity to protect American free speech.July 2023: The District Court Unravels the Censorship HegemonOn July 4, 2023, District Court Judge Terry Doughtygranteda preliminary injunction barring large swaths of the US government from colluding with social media companies to censor “content containing protected free speech.” He described the allegations, if true, as “arguably [] the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”The order included a155-page memorandumrecounting the Biden administration’s wide-ranging assaults on free expression. Provided it survives future digital purges, historians will one day look to it as a guide to the authoritarian madness that overtook the republic under the guise of “public health.” The vast conspiracy spanned nearly every federal entity, including the White House, the Department of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Intelligence Community.That was the high-water mark of this case’s victory for freedom.The Regime Fights BackThe regime would not let an injunction usurp its power. Censorship had been integral to its governing strategy since 2020’s crackdown on Covid dissidents and the later election campaign, as Joe Biden anointed Antony Blinken Secretary of State in return for himarranging forthe CIA to thwart the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Once in office, the Biden administration had unprecedented censorship aspirations, including its hope toinstalla ‘Ministry of Truth’ in the Department of Homeland Security and its threatsto stripsocial media companies’ liability protections if they failed to curb dissent.When Judge Doughty issued the injunction, the next election was just a year away, and the control of information would be vital to that campaign; the President’s health was failing, his son’s legal battles continued, inflation was soaring, the Ukraine conflict was escalating, and more than ten million illegal immigrants had flooded into the nation. Freedom of speech represented an existential threat.The Biden administration responded withfamiliar doublethink: denying that the censorship existed while arguing that it had to continue. Its lackeys like Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe described the censorship allegations as a “thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory,” despite the litany of allegations detailing the government’s strong arm tactics. The Administration’s attorneys simultaneously argued that the censorship operations were imperative to respond to “covert Russian operatives,” as if that justified stripping Americans of their right to question mRNA vaccines. Most of all, they defended their role in the fight against “misinformation,” which became identifiable as anything inconvenient to the administration.But the landscape had changed since Blinken had used intelligence assets to fix the 2020 election. Just nine months before Judge Doughty issued his injunction, Elon Musk purchased Twitter and turned it into X. While Blinken’s efforts had led Jack Dorsey’s team to ban theNew York Postfor reporting on the “laptop from hell,” Musk had partially restored the public forum for dissent.After appeals and re-argument, the Fifth Circuitlargely upheldJudge Doughty’s injunction in Fall 2023. The Biden administration again appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the issue in a hearing set for March 2024.June 2024: The Supreme Court Again Caves to Political PressureState and corporate powersconvergedin opposition to theMurthyplaintiffs in the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court argument. Groups including Stanford University, the CATO Institute, and Letitia James submittedamicibriefs supporting the security state’s right to suppress dissent. Supposed “free speech” organizations like the ACLU remained conspicuously silent.In the buildup to the hearing, the White House increasingly demonstrated that it was unwilling to adhere to Constitutional constraints. In February 2024, President Biden boasted to his constituents that he disregarded the Supreme Court’s ruling on his vote-buying gambit of “student loan forgiveness.” “The Supreme Court blocked it,”he said. “But that didn’t stop me!”This was no coincidence. The target audience was not Democratic voters or MSNBC viewers;it was the Chief Justiceand like-minded establishment conservatives on the Court. Democrats had successfully run this same operation twelve years earlier when it induced John Roberts to flip his vote on Obamacare.After three days of oral arguments inNFIB v. Sebelius, Roberts told his colleagues that he would provide the critical fifth vote ruling that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. Then, the Obama administration launched a public pressure campaign specifically targeting Roberts. In the ensuing weeks, Roberts flipped his vote to uphold the law, with writers across the political spectrumacknowledgingthatthelaw was “saved by political considerations.”As Biden reveled in threatening a constitutional crisis, the Court’s “institutionalists” (Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh) prepared for appeasement. The result was devastating.In June 2024, Justice Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, Roberts, and the Court’s liberal bloc, overturned Judge Doughty’s injunction on supposed procedural grounds. The opinion ignored the 155-page memorandum of injuries and ruled that the plaintiffs lacked “standing.” But “standing” was a copout draped in legalese. As Justice Alitowrote in dissent, the plaintiffs’ standing was indisputable.Most absurdly, the Court ruled that there was no “substantial risk of future injury” because it was merely “conjecture” that the plaintiffs could suffer future censorship. Effectively, the Courtgreenlit censorshipfor the forthcoming election cycle. If not for Musk’s purchase of Twitter, they may have succeeded in retaining power.Now, we continue to examine the wreckage that the censorship regime induced. Inflation, learning loss, vaccine injuries, crises of confidence in our institutions, and our staggering national debt are just a few long-term symptoms of their malfeasance.President Trump’s return to power partially revealed the censors’ misdeeds. Mark Zuckerbergadmittedthat Facebook faced “investigation by several agencies” when it refused to “remove Covid related content, even things that were facts, or memes and humor.”On the first day of his second term, President Trump issued an Executive Orderacknowledgingthat the “government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”At this point, the defendants likely hoped the case was thereby made moot. The Consent Decree is a settlement to which both parties agree. The win for the plaintiffs is real.Aaron Kheriaty wiselycomments: “What we have done with Missouri v. Biden in regard to public opinion is more important than what we accomplished today in the legal court. Our case, along with the Twitter Files, put this issue on the map for the American people. With our 20,000 pages of documents obtained on discovery, we were able to highlight and report on the scope and workings of the government’s Censorship-Industrial Complex.”The Decree is a win, but it comes nowhere near capturing the seriousness of the reality or the initial court judgment that led to the injunction. Free speech is still in danger, and the fight continues. We have taken a step in the right direction as a start.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareWritten and Republished with permission byBrownstone Institute.

Summary: Sort of?