Jeanne Moore RN BSN MBA

And the Trump administration refuses to allow grants to study the connection between turbo cancer and Covid cancer. NIH money is spent on everything but studying what actually affects health.

COVID changed something in how I understand what regulatory independence actually means, and what it is for. Nearly six years on, the agencies that exist specifically to act as checks on the pharmaceutical industry, the journals that exist specifically to subject medical claims to honest scrutiny, the scientific institutions that exist specifically to protect the integrity of the evidence base, have offered almost nothing in the way of honest examination of their own conduct during the pandemic. Not of what they enforced. Not of what they suppressed. Not of what they chose not to see. Not one major regulatory agency has commissioned a serious independent review of how safety signals were handled during the vaccine rollout. Not one editor of a major medical journal has accounted publicly for why studies raising questions about efficacy or injury were consistently treated with a scrutiny that was never applied symmetrically to studies supporting the approved narrative. Not one scientific institution that sanctioned or marginalised a dissenting researcher has looked back at that decision, examined whether it was made on scientific grounds, and said clearly what it found. The silence is not the silence of reflection. It is the silence of continuation. This is the observation that matters most to me. Not the individual failures. Not the individual papers that should not have been published, or the individual ones that should not have been suppressed. The institutional shape of the failure. Because regulatory agencies, journals, and scientific bodies exist for a specific and serious reason. The reason is not to validate official positions. The reason is to stand between the public and the motivated use of science as a policy instrument. To be the friction. To be the inconvenient question. To be the institution that makes consensus earn itself rather than simply assert itself. That is not a peripheral function. It is the entire function. What we observed instead was something close to its inverse. Agencies that were aware of safety signals and did not halt. That approved products on data packages they have since resisted releasing in full. That sat on FOIA requests for years while the policies those requests were meant to scrutinise remained in force. Journals that published and amplified studies with serious methodological problems when those studies supported the approved position, and found methodological problems in studies that did not. Editors who described honest scientific questioning of vaccine efficacy as dangerous misinformation. Institutions that referred dissenting scientists not to the evidence but to professional consequences. And the researchers, the clinicians, the epidemiologists who raised questions and were sanctioned for it, who lost grants, lost positions, lost platforms, are still waiting. Not for vindication. Many of them have that already, in the form of studies that have since been published without controversy because the political urgency that required their suppression has passed. They are waiting for something simpler. For an institution to say, we treated you as a threat to the narrative rather than a contribution to the science. That was wrong. We are examining how it became possible. That statement has not been made. It will not be made. And the reason it will not be made is the same reason the safety signal reviews have not been conducted and the journal correction processes have not been initiated. Because those processes lead to findings. And the findings lead to questions about the nature of the relationship between the agencies and the industry they regulate. The journals and the funding streams that sustain them. The scientific institutions and the governmental and philanthropic money that flows through them. The question of whether what failed during COVID was a system that was overwhelmed, or a system that performed exactly as its actual incentive structure required.

I have no words

🚨 The lawsuit against Bill Gates has entered unprecedented territory. Plaintiffs arrived in such numbers that an additional courtroom had to be opened. When the defense opened with the single substantive statement “vaccines are safe and effective” the gallery erupted in laughter. The judge was forced to intervene. Nine attorneys on the defense side, only one spoke. The rest simply concurred. Keep following 👇🏻

This is the biggest government scandal of my lifetime, and the legacy media refuses to cover it. The FDA knew that COVID injections were causing severe adverse events, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, and Bell’s palsy. Americans had the Right to Know, and those affected deserve justice.