Patients refusing to use personal protective equipment, like masks, defined as “threats.”
Portuguese health authorities conducted a formal avian influenza (H5N1) simulation exercise in early 2025 to test how primary health care units would respond to a bird flu outbreak, according to a study published last week in Acta Médica Portuguesa and indexed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
The exercise comes as bird flu is simultaneously being advanced through expanded PCR surveillance, laboratory-engineered H5N1 research, and revived mRNA vaccine programs, raising questions given the similar convergence of testing, research, and preparedness measures that preceded COVID-19.
The exercise took place on February 3, 2025, and was coordinated by the Infection Prevention and Control Programme responsible for primary health care units in Northern Lisbon, within the Santa Maria Local Health Unit.
According to the authors, the event was a tabletop exercise—a structured simulation used to rehearse decision-making during hypothetical outbreaks—designed to assess whether frontline clinics could identify, isolate, and manage patients during high-risk infectious disease scenarios.
What Was Simulated
The exercise explicitly included avian influenza A (H5N1) as one of its outbreak scenarios, alongside Marburg virus disease and measles.
Participants were initially presented with blinded clinical and epidemiological information and asked to respond without knowing the pathogen in advance.
The diagnoses—including H5N1—were disclosed only after discussion.
Who Participated
Representatives from 15 primary health care units, accounting for 83% of clinics in the region, took part in the exercise.
Participants included healthcare professionals and unit leadership responsible for infection control and patient flow.
What the Exercise Tested
The simulation evaluated:
Early identification of suspected infectious cases
Availability of isolation rooms and isolation pathways
Staff familiarity with mandatory reporting and isolation procedures
Communication between clinics and external health authorities
Barriers to compliance, including “uncooperative” patients and language obstacles.
‘Uncooperative’ Patients as a Defined ‘Threat’
The authors explicitly frame patient non-compliance as a threat to outbreak control during the simulation, rather than as a secondary or peripheral challenge.
They write:
“[L]anguage barriers or non-cooperative patients (e.g., refusing to use personal protective equipment) were seen as threats to implement procedures correctly.”
In the study’s structure, this language also appears under the “Threats” category of the SWOT analysis—placing patient behavior alongside infrastructure failures and staffing shortages as factors that could actively undermine outbreak response.
The paper also notes that frontline clinics lacked personnel trained to manage or redirect patients once non-compliance occurred:
“[C]oncerns were raised about non-healthcare professionals in several units, such as security guards and administrative assistants, lacking training to identify potential infectious diseases and guide patients towards isolation circuits and/or alert healthcare workers.”
This framing treats refusal—specifically refusal to use personal protective equipment—as an anticipated operational risk during an infectious disease response scenario.
The authors do not describe voluntary refusal as a matter of patient autonomy.
Instead, refusal is listed as an obstacle to the correct implementation of procedures, implying a need for enforcement capacity that clinics were found to lack.
No mitigation strategies for patient refusal are proposed in the paper.
No limits on enforcement authority are discussed.
The simulation record shows that non-cooperation was expected, identified in advance, and formally categorized as a threat within a modeled H5N1 outbreak response.
Why This Exercise Draws Attention
Although the simulation occurred in early 2025, the study was submitted in July 2025, accepted in December, and published online January 8, 2026, placing it into the medical literature at a time when international concern over bird flu preparedness is intensifying.
The timing and structure of the exercise are notable.
In the years preceding COVID-19, global health institutions conducted high-level pandemic simulations—including SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 and Event 201—that modeled coronavirus outbreaks, public messaging challenges, and emergency countermeasures shortly before those scenarios became reality.
This Lisbon exercise follows the same pattern:
a named pathogen,
a simulated outbreak,
documented preparedness gaps,
and publication after the fact to formalize the response framework.
The study documents preparedness planning.
It confirms that bird flu is now being actively rehearsed as a plausible next pandemic scenario, not only in abstract policy discussions, but through operational simulations involving frontline civilian healthcare systems.
Was the exercise solely for preparedness, or does it function as early-stage coordination for future response architectures?
World Health Organization data show system-wide adverse event reports spanning neurological, cardiac, immune, gastrointestinal, and reproductive categories.
The World Health Organization’s VigiAccess pharmacovigilance database currently lists 5,811,685 individual adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports associated with COVID-19 vaccines as an active ingredient.
A Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare/HHS study confirms fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported, meaning the number could be closer to half a billion.
These reports are submitted by national drug regulators worldwide and categorized by affected body system.
Below is the full numerical breakdown exactly as listed in the database.
Reported Potential Side Effects by System Category
General disorders and administration site conditions 3,435,222 reports (26%)
Speed is being prioritized over scrutiny, with AI-generated models designed to justify interventions before they can be meaningfully challenged.
The U.S. military is funding artificial intelligence (AI) systems designed to drastically accelerate viral outbreak modeling—compressing a process that typically takes weeks into something that can be produced in days, then used to steer real-world interventions.
In other words, the faster the model, the less time there is to question whether the response is justified at all.
This acceleration follows DARPA’s already-documented pre-COVID pandemic infrastructure designed to turn digital genetic sequences into synthesized viruses and mass-produced mRNA countermeasures on a fixed timeline.
DARPA’s Stated Problem: Pandemic Models Were Brittle, Opaque, & Slow
As SARS-CoV-2 radiated across the planet in 2020, epidemiologists scrambled to predict its spread—and its deadly consequences. Often, they turned to models that not only simulate viral transmission and hospitalization rates, but can also predict the effect of interventions: masks, vaccines, or travel bans.
But in addition to being computationally intensive, models in epidemiology and other disciplines can be black boxes: millions of lines of legacy code subject to finicky tunings by operators at research organizations scattered around the world. They don’t always provide clear guidance. “The models that are used are often kind of brittle and nonexplainable,” says Erica Briscoe, who was a program manager for the Automating Scientific Knowledge Extraction and Modeling (ASKEM) project at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) own program manager is conceding that the models used to steer COVID-era responses were fragile and difficult to interpret.
Meaning: they’re not trying to slow down or restrain model-driven policy after COVID.
They’re trying to make the same kind of decision machinery run faster.
There’s “real potential” for them to speed up model building during an outbreak, says Mohsen Malekinejad, an epidemiologist at the University of California San Francisco who helped evaluate the ASKEM products. “In a pandemic, time is always our biggest constraint. We need to have the information. We need to have it fast,” he says. “We simply don’t have enough data-skilled modelers for every single emergence, or every different type of public health need.”
The Program: AI-Generated Outbreak Models on Demand
“Launched in 2022, the $29.4 million program aims to develop artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools that can make model building easier, faster, and more transparent.”
DARPA funded infrastructure that standardizes and accelerates outbreak modeling.
The emphasis is on speed, reproducibility, and usability by non-specialists, allowing policy-relevant models to be generated quickly, even when underlying assumptions are incomplete or contested.
How It Works: Papers & Notebooks → Equations → Models
“The program’s AI tools automate that coding, allowing researchers to construct, update, and combine models at a higher level of abstraction.”
By removing much of the technical friction involved in model construction, these tools make it easier to generate outbreak models that carry institutional weight, even when the scientific grounding is thin or uncertain.
“ASKEM teams designed AI systems that can consume scientific literature… and extract the equations and knowledge needed to create or update a given model.”
Scientific literature is converted directly into reusable model components, giving machine-parsed interpretations of research the ability to propagate quickly into decision-making frameworks.
“One ASKEM project developed a way to ingest those notebooks, extract the underlying mathematical descriptions, and turn them into a model.”
Informal reasoning and exploratory notebook work can be elevated into deployable models at speed, reducing the distance between preliminary thinking and authoritative outputs.
Intervention-Focused Modeling
“The resulting model integrated the viruses’ different transmission and seasonal patterns, while gauging the effects of interventions such as wearing masks and testing.”
The system is designed to evaluate intervention scenarios alongside disease dynamics, embedding policy considerations directly into the modeling process.
“Testers were asked to model the impact of a vaccination campaign on the cost of hospitalization for hepatitis A in a state’s unhoused drug users.”
These tools are oriented toward applied governance questions—cost, targeting, and campaign impact—rather than purely descriptive epidemiology.
The Speed Claim: 83% Faster
“In the final results, testers found that the ASKEM tools, when pitted against standard modeling workflows, could create models 83% faster.”
Model generation is fast enough to fit within political and media timelines, reducing the opportunity for external review before results are acted upon.
“They were able to build practically useful models in a 40-hour work week for multiple problems.”
Once speed ceases to be the limiting factor, the pressure shifts toward rapid implementation rather than careful validation.
‘Transparency’ as an Internal Confidence Signal
“Because of the ASKEM models’ enhanced transparency, testers also found that decision-makers would be more confident in ASKEM’s outputs than in those of traditional models.”
Here, “transparency” functions less as a safeguard and more as a confidence amplifier for officials.
By making models legible enough to satisfy internal review, the system reduces friction within institutions, allowing officials to act more quickly while unresolved uncertainties remain embedded in the outputs.
“DARPA is working to find agencies or programs within the health, defense, and intelligence communities that might want to take advantage of ASKEM.”
Outbreak modeling is being positioned as a permanent national-security capability, integrated alongside defense and intelligence functions rather than treated as an ad hoc public-health exercise.
Bottom Line
DARPA is building a system that converts literature, assumptions, and exploratory analysis into outbreak models fast enough to guide interventions in near real time.
When speed is treated as the primary constraint, the window for scrutiny, dissent, and meaningful challenge necessarily collapses before those models are used to justify action.
samRNA-copying enzyme also produced in the body post-vaccination detected for at least 15 days, according to study.
Arcturus Therapeutics’s Kostaive (zapomeran, ARCT-154) self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is said to force cells in the body to produce SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—detectable in draining lymph nodes for at least 28 days—and a replicase enzyme that makes more copies of the vaccine mRNA, with the enzyme itself detectable for up to 15 days.
ARCT-154 was quietly approved by U.K. regulators over the weekend.
An April 2025 Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports publication confirms that the ARCT-154 spike protein was “detectable up to 28 days post-vaccination” in mice.
The ARCT-154 samRNA-replicating enzyme also produced in the body post-vaccination was detectable for “up to 15 days.”
The study reads:
The encoded spike protein reached its highest level approximately 3 days after vaccination and quickly disappeared from the rectus femoris muscle, the injection site. Although the spike protein levels also peaked at an early time point in the lymph nodes, it remained detectable 28 days after the vaccination and then disappeared by 44 days after the vaccination. Expression of nsP1, nsP2 and nsP4 was observed in the injected muscle and/or the lymph nodes for up to 15 days post-vaccination.
There were no samples taken at intermediate days like 30, 35, or 40, so we don’t know the exact day the vaccine-produced spike protein became undetectable.
The U.K. press release failed to mention any of this.
Are citizens being fully informed before they consent to this new pharmaceutical injection?
Why are government regulators not providing this information?
Can the Vaccinated Shed samRNA Onto the Unvaccinated?
It is biologically plausible that sa-mRNA, spike protein, and replicase enzymes from Kostaive could be packaged into EVs and exosomes for shedding into bodily fluids—potentially amplified by the self-replicating nature of sa-mRNA—allowing their release into circulation and excretion via blood, sweat, saliva, or breast milk.
A December Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law study shows that spike protein produced by cells from the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is mainly released into the surroundings through extracellular vesicles (which include exosomes).
Moderna knew as early as 2017 that its mRNA vaccine lipid nanoparticles—which carry vaccine mRNA into cells and are used in samRNA jabs—enter the bloodstream and accumulate in the liver, spleen, kidneys, heart, and lungs.
A January 2023 Nature Reviews Drug Discovery paper co-authored by Moderna scientists bluntly admits that avoiding “unacceptable toxicity” in mRNA vaccines remains a major challenge, warning that “lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns” and that the way these vaccines spread through the body can cause harm due to “cell tropism and tissue distribution… and their possible reactogenicity.”
Can individuals injected with self-replicating vaccines spread sa-mRNA, spike protein, and replicase enzymes to others?
After those elements are shed onto the unvaccinated, will they become vaccinated?
From Left to Right: Hania Zlotnik, Chief of the UN Migration Section, Joseph Chamie, Director of the Population Division – authors of the UN’s Replacement Migration Plan. Renaud Camus popularized the term “Great Replacement.”
The phrase “Great Replacement” has been so relentlessly caricatured that many readers now flinch at hearing it. They have been trained to hear it as a coded accusation, an ethnic grievance, or a paranoid fantasy. But strip away the moral panic and the accusation collapses. The disagreement is not over whether replacement migration exists. It is over whether citizens are permitted to notice it, analyze it, and object to it.
Begin with a simple clarification. The Great Replacement, as originally articulated, is not a theory of secret cabals or genetic hostility. The term was popularized in the 2010s by the French writer Renaud Camus, who argued that European societies were undergoing a profound demographic transformation driven by mass immigration combined with sustained sub replacement fertility among native populations. His concern was civilizational rather than biological. Culture, language, norms, law, and social trust are not abstractions. They depend on continuity. Replace the people who sustain them and the civilization changes, whether anyone intended it or not.
That claim can be false. But it cannot be dismissed as imaginary. It is an empirical claim about demography and policy. And here the left’s central move is to declare the entire discussion illegitimate by labeling it a far-right, racist, conspiracy theory. The charge works rhetorically only if replacement migration itself is fictional. It is not.
In March 2000, more than a decade before Renaud Camus popularized the term “Great Replacement,” the United Nations Population Division published a report titled Replacement Migration, Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations. The report was prepared under the direction of Joseph Chamie, then Director of the Population Division, with Hania Zlotnik serving as Chief of the Migration Section. The document did not whisper. It did not hedge. It defined replacement migration explicitly as the volume of international migration required to offset population decline, working age population decline, or population ageing. It then modeled it.
The report begins from premises no one disputes. Fertility across the developed world has fallen below replacement. Longevity has increased. The result is ageing societies with shrinking labor forces and rising dependency ratios. The question posed by the UN was not whether this was happening, but how states might respond. One option was fertility recovery. Another was later retirement. A third was migration. But the structure of the report, the scenarios it emphasized, and the conclusions it drew were designed to persuade policymakers that migration was not merely one option among others, but the only solution capable of producing results on the relevant time horizon. Fertility recovery was treated as slow and uncertain. Retirement reform was acknowledged but sidelined. Migration alone was presented as immediate, scalable, and actionable. In effect, the report framed replacement migration as the only real lever available to governments facing demographic decline.
What followed was not advocacy in the crude sense, but something more consequential. It was normalization. The UN constructed multiple scenarios in which migration was used as the compensating mechanism. To keep total population constant. To keep the working age population constant. To keep the potential support ratio constant. The numbers required were staggering. Tens of millions for Europe under modest goals. Hundreds of millions under ambitious ones. In almost every scenario migrants and their descendants became majorities of future populations.
One need not endorse these scenarios to grasp their significance. The UN was not merely acknowledging that migration affects population. It was treating migration as a lever that could be pulled deliberately to replace demographic shortfalls. The phrase replacement migration was not metaphorical. It was technical.
This matters because ideas shape policy long before they appear in statute. The UN Population Division does not write immigration law, but it educates the people who do. Its reports circulate through the WEF, IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the G20, and the ecosystem of global policy forums that train ministers, advisors, and civil servants. When a generation of policymakers is told, year after year, that fertility recovery is slow, uncertain, and politically difficult, while migration is immediate and scalable, a pattern emerges. Migration becomes the default. Family formation disappears from the menu.
Here the left retreats to a verbal defense. Replacement migration, they say, is not a deliberate plot to replace native populations. Perhaps. But this defense wins a point no one contested. The claim was never that elites gathered in secret to swap populations. The claim is that elites converged, openly, on a single solution to demographic decline, mass migration, while dismissing or ignoring alternatives. Intent does not negate outcome. A bridge that collapses through negligence still collapses.
For twenty five years Western publics have not been asked whether they consent to this transformation. When critics attempt to discuss replacement migration they are branded racist, far right, xenophobic, or bigoted, and the conversation is shut down. Debate itself is treated as illegitimate. This is a form of soft censorship more effective than law, anyone who proposed alternatives was ridiculed, professionally punished, or excluded from polite society. Citizens were never offered a choice between importing millions of outsiders or rebuilding the conditions of family formation at home. They were told there is no alternative. That is the lie.
Consider the United States. Roughly $7B per year is spent resettling and supporting refugees and migrants from societies with low literacy, low trust, and little cultural compatibility with Western norms. This is not humanitarian triage. It is a structural commitment. At the same time, native born Americans face housing scarcity, marriage penalties in the tax code, student debt, delayed family formation, and cultural messaging that treats children as lifestyle accessories rather than social necessities.
Redirecting even a fraction of this spending would change the landscape. Housing is the clearest example. High migration inflows increase demand at the bottom of the housing market. Prices rise. Space shrinks. Stability disappears. This is felt most acutely by Gen Z, which has been told, accurately, that home ownership is out of reach. Without stable, affordable housing they do not feel safe starting families, so family formation is delayed again and again until biology closes the window. Reduce the inflow and supply catches up. Affordable housing is not a mystery. It is arithmetic.
The same is true of fiscal incentives. Eliminate marriage penalties. Front load child benefits to the first and second child rather than back loading them. Provide comprehensive fertility and maternal care for women in their 20s and 30s rather than rationing support after decline has already set in. Treat parenthood as a civic contribution rather than a private indulgence. None of this is radical. All of it is cheaper than permanent dependency.
Cultural signals matter as much as material ones. Developed societies ruled by Feminists, Democrats, and Hollywood elites valorize consumption, leisure, and careerism while quietly treating family as a burden. Education and media often frame childbirth as environmentally suspect or personally regressive. This is not neutral. It conditions preferences. And it conveniently reinforces the claim that migration is the only solution left.
Nowhere is the cost of denial clearer than in the character of recent migration. Increasingly, inflows come from the Islamic world. These are not neutral bearers of labor power. They bring with them norms about law, religion, and governance that are incompatible with Western liberal order when practiced faithfully. In the Somali case, they bring a patronage system structured around clan obligation and fraud. When combined with Western welfare states and what can only be called suicidal empathy, the result is not assimilation but dependency.
Assimilation requires pressure. It requires expectation. Instead, migrants are taught that they are owed permanent support, cultural accommodation, and moral exemption. The host society bends. The newcomers do not. This is not compassion. It is abdication.
Critics insist that discussing these outcomes is racist or conspiratorial. But again the objection misfires. The argument is not about race. It is about systems. A society that replaces family formation with migration replaces itself, regardless of who arrives. The UN report understood this. It modeled it. It warned that the volumes required to stabilize ageing through migration alone were enormous and politically unsustainable. Policymakers, instead of ignoring that warning, simply made it politically and socially unacceptable to address the fact that replacement migration would basically destroy western society.
The official policy of the United States is not replacement migration. Formally, that is true. Substantively, it is false. For a quarter century every major institution shaping elite opinion has operated as if there is no alternative to demographic replacement. Every lever has been pulled except the one that matters most, making it possible and desirable for citizens to form families.
Much of the controversy exists because two sides are talking past each other. One side points to tables, projections, and outcomes. The other hears accusations of malice. But the reality is simpler. Replacement migration is a documented demographic concept. It has been treated as the only viable response to low fertility. Its consequences are now visible. Denying the concept does not undo the reality.
To raise birthrates without migration, developed societies must stop treating children as a private hobby and start treating them as a public good. Systems that depend on future workers must reward those who produce them. Housing, taxes, healthcare, and culture must be aligned with human biology rather than hostile to it. None of this requires coercion. It requires honesty.
The Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory. It is what happens when a civilization abandons family formation and imports a substitute. The tragedy is not that people notice. The tragedy is that they were never given a choice.
Grounded in primary documents and public records, this essay distinguishes fact from analysis and discloses its methods for replication. Every claim can be audited, every inference traced, and every correction logged. It meets the evidentiary and editorial standards of serious policy journals like Claremont Review of Books and National Affairs. Unless a specific, sourced error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable.
Local news outlets attack residents they claim to serve instead of listening to them.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has collected more than 400 reports from citizens upset with the trails left behind by aircraft that linger, disperse, and block the sun and sky since June, when the state’s anti-geoengineering bill was signed into law.
The FAA, NASA, and NOAA have admitted that these trails—formed when metal nanoparticle- and sulfur-containing jet engine emissions meet cold, wet air—can “last for hours to days” and “span several hundred kilometers.”
These aircraft-induced contrail cirrus clouds artificially alter the weather and prevent people from experiencing natural sky and sunlight conditions as they would otherwise occur.
Some also worry about the negative health and environmental outcomes associated with prolonged exposure to persistent aircraft-generated aerosols that settle into the air we breathe, as well as the surrounding soil and water.
Screenshot from globe.adsbexchange.com showing the sheer volume of aircraft simultaneously flying over the continental United States in real-time.
However, local news outlets, whose role is to serve the communities they cover, have instead adopted a condescending tone toward residents raising these concerns, downplaying and dismissing their complaints.
One staff writer for New Orleans’ NOLA.com chose to adopt such a condescending framing, repeatedly characterizing residents’ concerns as a “long-debunked conspiracy theory.”
The writer calls the reports themselves “alarming,” not the fact that the sun and sky are being obscured artificially, as multiple federal agencies have confirmed they are.
Here’s how the writer portrays the reports from concerned citizens:
The reports are alarming.
Angry residents say the Louisiana skies are being sprayed with chemicals, creating “tic-tac-toe” shapes up above, or in one case, an “Acura logo.”
The supposed culprit: Chemtrails, a long-debunked conspiracy theory that scientists say is not accurate.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the state agency charged with regulating the state’s expansive petrochemical industry, among other sectors, has collected more than 400 such reports since just this summer, when the Republican-led Legislature passed a bill requiring them to track such reports.
A handful of Republican state lawmakers have encouraged their constituents to write in, propping up the conspiracy theory that the condensation trails airplanes leave behind are, in fact, dangerous chemicals or heavy metals.
(Notice the tired and out-of-date “left-versus-right” trope the writer is still stuck in, which only serves the mainstream political elite establishment.)
The writer claims these residents are reporting “chemtrails,” but without citing a single report that uses that term.
This is not only an ad hominem (juvenile name-calling) attack on the people the writer claims to represent, but it’s also a straw man fallacy.
Rather than engage with what residents are reporting, the writer invents a simplified “chemtrails” belief and knocks it down, avoiding the substance of the complaints altogether.
The bill itself doesn’t even use the term ‘chemtrail.’
In reality, people are genuinely upset that their sun and sky are being obscured by these metal nanoparticle- and sulfur-laced jet emissions.
The majority of Americans support laws banning weather modification.
They’re worried about the health and environmental effects.
Whether we call what’s coming out of airplanes ‘chemtrails’ or ‘cirrus contrails’ misses the point: our sun and sky are being blocked, our weather is being manipulated, and there are legitimate concerns about our soil, water, and the air we breathe.
American citizens deserve news agencies that report on their concerns accurately and in good faith, rather than dismissing them through caricature or ridicule.
They also deserve transparency and clarity from the airline industry and state and federal agencies about what’s really going on over our heads.
With more than 400 formal reports filed in just months, this is not a fringe issue but a widespread public concern that large numbers of ordinary citizens believe warrants serious attention, not dismissal.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded that governments surveil online information that questions the legitimacy of influenza vaccines and that they launch “countermeasures” against those who question the WHO’s vaccine dogma, in a November Vaccinesjournal publication.
The WHO’s largest funders are the U.S. government (taxpayers) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In the November publication, the WHO representatives do not argue for their beliefs in vaccines.
They do not attempt to interact with arguments against vaccines.
Instead, they call for governments to use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor online opposition to injectable pharmaceuticals, and to develop ways to combat such opposition.
There is no persuasion, only doctrine.
The WHO paper reads:
“Vaccine effectiveness is contingent on public acceptance, making risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) an integral component of preparedness. The research agenda calls for the design of tailored communication strategies that address local sociocultural contexts, linguistic diversity, and trust dynamics.”
“Digital epidemiology tools, such as AI-driven infodemic monitoring systems like VaccineLies and CoVaxLies, offer real-time insight into misinformation trends, enabling proactive countermeasures.”
The WHO starts from the assumption that all vaccine skepticism is inherently false, pushing surveillance tools to track and catalog online dissent from those rejecting that creed.
The goal is not finding middle ground or even fostering dialogue.
It’s increasing vaccinations.
“The engagement of high-exposure occupational groups as trusted messengers is recommended to improve uptake.”
To accomplish this, governments “should” align “all” their messaging with the WHO’s denomination of vaccine faith.
“All messaging should align with WHO’s six communication principles, ensuring information is Accessible, Actionable, Credible, Relevant, Timely, and Understandable, to strengthen public trust in vaccination programmes [sp-non English].”
The WHO’s faith system requires not only that its own followers, but also non-followers inject themselves with drugs linked to injuries, diseases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
If your posts online oppose that faith system, they are targeted and labeled as “misinformation.”
You require “behavioural [sp-non English] intervention.”
You must be “counter[ed].”
“Beyond monitoring misinformation, participatory communication models that involve local leaders, healthcare workers, and veterinarians have shown measurable improvements in vaccine uptake and trust. Evidence-based behavioural [sp-non English] can complement these approaches to counter misinformation.”
The WHO is outlining an Orwellian control system where dissent is pathologized, belief is enforced by surveillance, and governments are instructed to algorithmically police thought in service of pharmaceutical compliance.
Ironically, the game uses the very techniques it claims to train users to detect.
U.S. taxpayer funds are being used by federal health agencies to develop and test online psychological games designed to condition how people—especially younger audiences—interpret and respond to vaccine skepticism.
An August Nature Scientific Reportsstudy reveals that the project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through a CDC award administered by the American Psychological Association.
The paper states that the funding totaled “$2,000,000 with 100% funded by CDC/HHS.”
The grant supporting the project is titled “COVID—INOCULATING AGAINST VACCINE MISINFORMATION,” award number 6NU87PS004366-03–02.
That award has already handed out over $4.3 million in taxpayer funds since its activation in 2018.
The project language mirrors the study’s conceptual framework: dissent is treated as exposure to a pathogen, and resistance to dissent is treated as immunity.
The government-funded study centers on the creation and evaluation of an online game called Bad Vaxx.
According to the authors, the purpose of the game is not to examine disputed vaccine claims or to compare competing evidence, but to reduce what they define as “vaccine misinformation” by shaping how players cognitively process vaccine-critical content.
This is despite the CDC’s own VAERS data confirming over 2.7 million injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to vaccines since 1990.
The study authors explain their premise at the outset:
“Vaccine misinformation endangers public health by contributing to reduced vaccine uptake.”
From this premise, the study moves directly to intervention design.
“We developed a short online game to reduce people’s susceptibility to vaccine misinformation.”
The paper frames this approach as a form of psychological prevention, borrowing language from immunology rather than education or debate.
“Psychological inoculation posits that exposure to a weakened form of a deceptive attack… protects against future exposure to persuasive misinformation.”
The Bad Vaxx game operationalizes this concept by training players to recognize four specific “manipulation techniques”: what it refers to as emotional storytelling, fake expertise, the naturalistic fallacy, and conspiracy theories.
These techniques are treated as characteristic of vaccine misinformation as a category.
“The game trains people to spot four manipulation techniques, which previous studies have identified as being commonly used in the area of vaccine misinformation.”
The study does not include a corresponding examination of whether similar persuasive techniques may be used in vaccine-promoting messaging, government communications, or pharmaceutical advertising.
Ironically, the Bad Vaxx project itself relies on the same persuasive architecture it claims to neutralize—emotional framing, authority cues, and repetition—embedded in a gamified format designed to shape intuition rather than invite scrutiny.
The classification of “vaccine misinformation” is established in advance and applied only to information critical of injectable pharmaceutical products.
Throughout the paper, vaccine skepticism is framed as a behavioral and social risk rather than as a possible response to uncertainty, evolving evidence, or institutional error.
The taxpayer-funded authors write:
“Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 predicts lower compliance with public health regulations and lower willingness to get vaccinated.”
The choice of a game as the delivery mechanism is emphasized as a strength of the intervention.
The authors repeatedly describe the format as “entertaining,” “immers[ive],” and scalable, highlighting its ability to shape intuition rather than deliberation.
“A practical, entertaining intervention in the form of an online game can induce broad-scale resilience against manipulation techniques commonly used to spread false and misleading information about vaccines.”
Games function by rewarding correct pattern recognition, reinforcing desired responses, and reducing analytical friction.
The study’s outcome measures reflect this design: discernment scores, confidence ratings, and willingness to share content, rather than independent evaluation of claims or evidence comparison.
The researchers also emphasize the potential reach of such interventions.
“The Bad Vaxx game has the potential for adoption at scale.”
This matters because the funding source is not an academic foundation with no policy stake.
The CDC is the primary federal agency responsible for vaccine schedules, promotion, and uptake.
Yet the study does not address how this institutional role shapes the definition of misinformation used in the intervention, nor does it acknowledge the conflict inherent in a public health authority funding psychological tools aimed at managing disagreement with its own policies.
The dystopian nature of the project emerges from the structure itself: state funding, psychological conditioning, asymmetric definitions, and a delivery system designed to bypass debate in favor of intuition.
What the paper documents, in concrete terms, is the use of taxpayer funds to develop and validate a behavioral intervention—delivered through a medium optimized for psychological conditioning—that trains users to reflexively distrust a predefined category of speech, while exempting vaccine-promoting institutions from equivalent scrutiny.
“A PCR-positive test alone can by no means confirm infection,” study authors confirm—yet the test is currently being used to justify government response to bird flu.
Only a small fraction of people who tested positive for COVID-19 by PCR in Germany met researchers’ criteria for infection, according to an October peer-reviewed study published in Frontiers in Epidemiology.
The findings come as PCR tests are being used to justify government response to avian influenza “bird flu,” including animal culling, countermeasures (vaccine) development, and gain-of-function experiments.
After analyzing nationwide laboratory data from March 2020 through mid-2021, the authors of the new study concluded that only 14% of PCR-positive individuals showed evidence of true infection, which they measured by later antibody development.
The remaining majority did not.
“Only approximately 14% of those who tested PCR-positive were actually infected.”
That means 86% of PCR-positive tests did not meet the authors’ definition of infection, calling into question the use of PCR positivity to count disease cases.
The study was conducted by researchers from multiple European universities and research institutes, examining data from Akkreditierte Labore in der Medizin (ALM), a laboratory consortium that conducted roughly 90% of all PCR testing in Germany during the period analyzed.
Rather than attempting to confirm individual infections through culture (showing evidence of physical, growing live virus in lab cells), the researchers compared weekly PCR-positive fractions with subsequent IgG antibody positivity, which they describe as the accepted biological marker of past infection.
“Since 1942, the detection of virus-specific antibodies has been regarded as the methodological gold standard for confirming infection.”
The logic of the analysis was straightforward.
If PCR-positive results were reliably identifying infected individuals, then PCR positivity should closely track the rise in IgG antibodies over time, given the mainstream virological and immunological model.
Instead, the researchers found that the PCR signal had to be scaled down dramatically to match observed antibody levels.
“Fitting the scaled cumulative PCR-positive fraction … yields PPCR ≈ 0.14 … This implies that roughly only one in seven German individuals with a PCR-positive test later had detectable IgG antibodies, that is, was actually infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
The article further notes that this 14% figure may still be an overestimate.
When accounting for possible testing biases, they state that the proportion of PCR positives representing real infections could be even lower.
“A more conservative interpretation of our results suggests that as few as one in eight or even in nine PCR-positive individuals … may have actually been infected.”
In other words, between 86% and 90% of PCR-positive results did not correspond to confirmed infection.
The paper emphasizes that PCR testing does not, by itself, diagnose infection.
“PCR tests merely detect the presence of fragments of viral genetic material, not necessarily an active infection.”
The study also identifies known sources of false-positive PCR results, including laboratory artifacts and statistical effects that become pronounced during mass testing.
“It is therefore important to highlight two known sources of false-positive PCR results.”
One cited example involves PCR-positive signals detected in water-only samples containing no virus at all.
“The Charité’s PCR assay produced positive results on water controls at cycle threshold (CT) values between 36 and 38.”
Beyond laboratory artifacts, the authors explain that even tests designed to be highly accurate at ruling out uninfected people can still produce large numbers of false positives when true infection levels are low.
In this context, “specificity” refers to how often a test correctly returns a negative result in someone who is not infected.
If specificity is less than 100%, some uninfected people will inevitably test positive.
“According to Bayes’ theorem, the rate of false positives increases when disease prevalence declines, owing to test specificity below 100%.”
Using observed positivity rates and their fitted infection estimate, the authors calculate that PCR specificity alone can explain the discrepancy between PCR positives and confirmed infections.
“Assuming 1% of tested individuals were true positives, a specificity of 94% explains the remaining 6% of PCR-positive results as false positives among the 99% who were not infected.”
The study’s findings have direct implications for how COVID-19 “cases” were counted and used in public policy.
Throughout the pandemic, PCR-positive test results were treated as proxies for infection and were used to justify restrictions and emergency measures.
PCR-positive test results are not being used to justify bird flu containment measures around the world.
The article argues this approach lacks biological grounding.
“A PCR-positive test alone can by no means confirm infection at the individual level.”
The paper concludes that Germany’s reliance on raw PCR positivity substantially overstated infection levels and distorted the understanding of the pandemic’s actual course.
“The principal finding from our analysis … is this: only 14%—and possibly even fewer, down to 10%—of individuals identified as SARS-CoV-2-positive via PCR testing were actually infected, as evidenced by detectable IgG antibodies.”
The article argues that PCR positivity was treated as infection when the data showed it overwhelmingly not.
By analysis, PCR positivity does not reliably indicate infection, raising questions about its continued use as a case-defining tool in current and future disease responses.
Is the “chilling” rise in flu cases nationwide attributable to PCR tests detecting vaccine RNA, not wild virus?
Mainstream news outlets are broadcasting that there is a “chilling” rise in flu cases, with Colorado, Louisiana, and New York experiencing the “fastest increases in influenza cases.”
However, the rise in cases follows flu vaccination campaigns in those states, which raises questions about vaccine efficacy.
But it also raises questions about whether the vaccinations themselves are contributing to the increasing case numbers.
For example, the New Orleans Health Department (NOHD) launched a flu vaccination campaign in early October.
NYC Health Department similarly launched an October push urging all residents 6 months and older to get flu shots.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) influenza webpage was updated the same month to promote flu vaccination.
These campaigns are meant to increase flu vaccine uptake.
Now there’s a rise in influenza cases, which are counted using positive PCR test results.
However, a March 2012 Journal of Medical Microbiology publication confirms the presence of residual viral RNA (genomic RNA—which PCR tests look for—from the influenza viruses used in vaccine production) in inactivated split-virus seasonal influenza vaccines.
One of the most popular injectable flu vaccines in the U.S., the formaldehyde-containing ‘Fluzone High-Dose,’ is an inactivated split-virus vaccine.
The 2012 study directly tested two 2010 trivalent inactivated vaccines (egg-based, similar in type to Fluzone) and detected high quantities of influenza A and B viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR on the vaccine liquid itself.
This RNA was stable, remaining detectable for at least 66 days after opening the vials.
Sequencing confirmed it included genetic components matching vaccine strains.
The study abstract reads:
False-positive PCR results usually occur as a consequence of specimen-to-specimen or amplicon-to-specimen contamination within the laboratory. Evidence of contamination at time of specimen collection linked to influenza vaccine administration in the same location as influenza sampling is described. Clinical, circumstantial and laboratory evidence was gathered for each of five cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) with unusual patterns of PCR reactivity for seasonal H1N1, H3N2, H1N1 (2009) and influenza B viruses. Two 2010 trivalent influenza vaccines and environmental swabs of a hospital influenza vaccination room were also tested for influenza RNA. Sequencing of influenza A matrix (M) gene amplicons from the five cases and vaccines was undertaken. Four 2009 general practitioner (GP) specimens were seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B PCR positive. One 2010 GP specimen was H1N1 (2009), H3N2 and influenza B positive. PCR of 2010 trivalent vaccines showed high loads of detectable influenza A and B RNA. Sequencing of the five specimens and vaccines showed greatest homology with the M gene sequence of Influenza A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 H1N1 virus (used in generation of influenza vaccine strains). Environmental swabs had detectable influenza A and B RNA. RNA detection studies demonstrated vaccine RNA still detectable for at least 66 days. Administration of influenza vaccines and clinical sampling in the same room resulted in the contamination with vaccine strains of surveillance swabs collected from patients with ILI. Vaccine contamination should therefore be considered, particularly where multiple influenza virus RNA PCR positive signals (e.g. H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B) are detected in the same specimen.
These are the exact substances PCR tests are applied to.
Another popular flu vaccine is FluMist, whose FDA package insert directly confirms uses a live virus that can be shed from bodily fluids for at least 28 days after vaccination, detectable with PCR tests.
All together, this data raises logical questions:
Are PCR tests detecting vaccine virus RNA, not wild virus RNA?
Is the nationwide rise in flu-positive PCR tests attributable, at least in part, to the detection of vaccine material?
Why haven’t the CDC or vaccine manufacturers directly tested this?
Press release admits current mRNA-based vaccine are not effective enough and contain too many impurities.
Despite mainstream attempts to downplay the alarming contamination problem plaguing COVID-19 vaccines, the Gates Foundation has awarded $3.3 million to a team of scientists at New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) to develop “breakthrough purification technologies” for producing mRNA-based vaccines.
A September Autoimmunity study confirms that both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 injections contain many hundreds of times more contamination than the FDA and WHO limit.
The grant is an implicit admission that contamination is in fact a problem posed by mRNA vaccines, as well as a sign that the platform is here to stay.
Gates is funding the project because of the “impurities” and “inefficien[cy]” related to mRNA vaccines.
The research team aims to address a critical bottleneck in the production of mRNA therapeutics: the purification process that removes impurities while maintaining the integrity of the therapeutic molecule.
“This project represents a paradigm shift in how we think about mRNA purification,” Belfort said. “Current technologies are prohibitively expensive and inefficient, creating barriers to access for the populations that need them most. Our goal is to develop a purification platform that is not only more cost-effective but also more productive and scalable.”
The researchers aim to accomplish this by “replacing conventional resin-based purification systems with advanced membrane technologies and innovative binding molecules.”
The RPI announcement also admits that current mRNA-based vaccine impurities are linked to side effects and that the injectables are not effective enough, more revelations that cut against mainstream counterclaims.
Higher purity mRNA vaccines with lower immunogenic impurities could lead to improved clinical outcomes, including reduced side effects and enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
The announcement predicts the rise of self-replicating vaccine technology, which this website was the first to warn about in December 2023.
Additionally, the technology being developed could prove particularly valuable for self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) therapeutics, which require lower doses than traditional mRNA vaccines and represent the next generation of RNA-based medicines.
Gates has been developing self-copying mRNA vaccines for COVID (here, here) as well as for bird flu (here), which is the pathogen this website has been predicting will fuel the next orchestrated pandemic.
The billionaire’s latest investment is made in the name of strengthening Big Pharma infrastructure, as well as “equity” and “pandemic preparedness.”
If successful, this technology could enable local production of mRNA vaccines in regions that currently lack access to affordable biomanufacturing infrastructure, supporting global health equity and pandemic preparedness.
Despite the disease, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to mRNA jabs, the technology isn’t going anywhere.
U.S. Representative Chris Smith says we are now “one step closer to finally determining whether the U.S. government’s bioweapons program contributed to the proliferation of Lyme disease.”
U.S. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) has successfully included his amendment to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease into the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The ordeal underscores the national security threat posed by laboratory pathogen manipulation.
Rep. Smith, who is Co-Chair of the Congressional Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Caucus, had offered similar amendments—one in 2019 and the other in 2021—which passed the House, but failed in the Senate.
The successful addition of the amendment follows FDA Chief Dr. Marty Makary’s statements during a November podcast, in which Makary expressed his belief that Lyme disease was created in U.S. military Lab 257 on Plum Island, New Jersey.
A critical amendment authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26 NDAA) (S. 1071), which has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, headed to the Senate, and is expected to be signed by President Trump upon its final passage.
Smith’s amendment—now Sec. 1068 of the bill—directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the Congressional “watchdog”—to investigate the Cold War-era Department of Defense (Department of War) bioweapons program and determine whether they ever used ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents.
In the press release, Smith emphasized that “New Jersey has one of the highest Lyme rates in the United States—the disease is present in all 21 counties.”
“The pervasive presence of Lyme disease in New Jersey not only carries concerns for civilians, but also for the military personnel stationed in the state—especially and including those serving at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, part of which is located within my congressional district,” the republican added.
The book includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the federal researcher and U.S. bioweapons specialist credited with discovering Lyme disease.
Dr. Burgdorfer has revealed that “he and other bio-weapons specialists injected ticks with pathogens in order to cause severe disability, disease, and even death to potential enemies in unsuspecting ways.”
Smith’s amendment in the NDAA would compel the Comptroller General of the United States “to conduct an exhaustive review of research conducted by the military, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other federal agencies between the period of January 1, 1945 and December 31, 1972, regarding experiments involving Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales—two forms of tick-borne bacteria.”
Smith says we are now “one step closer to finally determining whether the U.S. government’s bioweapons program contributed to the proliferation of Lyme disease.”
“The hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans suffering from Lyme disease—in addition to the millions across the United States—deserve to know the truth about the origins of their illness. An enhanced understanding of how Lyme came to be will only assist in finding a cure for this debilitating disease,” said Smith.
Rep. Smith’s amendment reads:
SEC. 1068. GAO REVIEW AND REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS EXPERIMENTS ON AND IN RELATION TO TICKS, TICK-BORNE DISEASE.
(a) REVIEW.— The Comptroller General of the United States shall, to the extent practicable, conduct a review of research conducted during the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on December 31, 1972, by the Department of Defense, including by the Department of Defense in consultation with the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, or any other Federal department or agency on—
(1) the use of ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents, including experiments involving Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales; and
(2) any efforts to improve the effectiveness and viability of Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales as biological weapons through combination with other diseases or viruses.
(b) LOCATION OF RESEARCH.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review research conducted at facilities located inside the United States and, if feasible, facilities located outside the United States, including laboratories and field work locations.
(c) INFORMATION TO BE REVIEWED.—
(1) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review any relevant classified information.
(2) MATTERS FOR REVIEW.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review, among other sources, the following:
(A) Technical Reports related to The Summary of Major Events and Problems, US Army Chemical Corps, FY 1951–FY 1969.
(B) Site Holding: CB DT DW 48158 Title: Virus and Rickettsia Waste Disposal Study. Technical Report No. 103, January 1969. Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. Report Number: SMUFD-TR-103. Publish Date: 1969-01-01.
(C) Site Holding: CB DT DW 60538 Title: A Plaque Assay System for Several Species of Rickettsia. Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. Report Number: SMUFD-TM-538. Publish Date: 1969-06-01.
(D) Site Holding: CB DW 531493 Title: Progress Report for Ecology and Epidemiology and Biological Field Test Technology, Third Quarter FY 1967. Corp Author Name: Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT. Publish Date: 1967-05-08.
(E) Any relevant scientific research on the history of Lyme disease in the United States.
(d) REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.— Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives or the Senate a report that includes the following:
(A) A list of the research projects reviewed under subsection (a) and an assessment of the scope of such research.
(B) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any ticks used in such research were released outside of any facility (including any ticks that were released unintentionally).
(C) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any records related to such research were destroyed, and whether such destruction was intentional or unintentional.
(2) FORM OF REPORT.— The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
If the GAO does its job and follows the paper trail where it leads, this amendment may finally force the U.S. government to answer a question it has avoided for decades: whether a taxpayer-funded Cold War bioweapons program left millions of Americans paying the price with their health.
fox files 
Recent Comments