The result, as the records show, was a deliberate failure to investigate potential safety signals the agency was legally required to consider, leaving the US vaccine early-warning system not fit for purpose.

Wiseman, a highly prominent public figure regarding the scrutiny of FDA safety monitoring data, wrote a September 2025 preprint that estimated the scale of statistical signals lost to masking. He later testified at Senator Ron Johnson’s April 29, 2026 hearing and, in this interview, walks through the internal FDA emails, the technical failures, and what they mean for the surveillance system going forward.

A statistical signal is not proof that a vaccine caused an injury. As Wiseman puts it:

“The signal does not prove causation. Let’s be really clear about that. It’s a signal that says, here’s your engine warning light. Go check your engine. It doesn’t prove that there’s a problem with your engine. It just says, OK, you better check this out.”

The failure was not generating or acting on those warning lights.

Masking and the High Threshold

Masking occurs when the comparison group used to decide whether an adverse event is disproportionate already contains a large volume of the same type of reports from other products. In the early COVID-vaccine rollout, more than 90 percent of VAERS reports were for the mRNA shots. Comparing Pfizer to “everything else” therefore included Moderna reports (and vice versa). If both products elevated the same risk, the observed and expected frequencies looked similar and no alert was generated.

Wiseman uses a simple illustration. Picture two equally toxic substances, hemlock and arsenic, each compared against a safe baseline such as tea. Both stand out as unsafe. Now mix arsenic into the baseline data. Hemlock no longer looks elevated relative to that inflated baseline, even though it is just as toxic. This is masking.

A second, related problem was the detection threshold itself. The agencies typically required the lower bound of the confidence interval to exceed 2 before counting a signal, rather than treating values statistically greater than 1 as worth examining. Wiseman argues that this choice was especially inappropriate for a new technology authorised under emergency conditions:

“That’s not a time to be setting the threshold at two. You need to be looking at everything. And so what? You get a few false positives, but you don’t want to get false negatives.”

Myocarditis: The Signal the Standard Method Missed

Myocarditis became one of the most visible examples of the masking problem. The standard empirical Bayesian method used by the FDA failed to generate a signal for myocarditis (or pericarditis) associated with the mRNA vaccines, even as case reports mounted and later analyses confirmed elevated rates, particularly in young males. This was because both Pfizer and Moderna produced large numbers of similar cardiac reports, each effectively inflated the baseline against which the other was measured. The result was no automated alert.

FDA officials including then-Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks repeatedly told the public and COVID vaccine injured individuals that no signals were being seen. Wiseman calls that position untenable once the internal analyses are examined:

“Marks is telling.. we don’t see a signal yet. We believe you, but we don’t see a signal yet. I mean, this is absolutely outrageous.”

The Inventors of the Method Identified the Flaw

The empirical Bayesian method and the software the FDA used were developed by the pioneering statistician, computer scientist and data analyst Dr. William DuMouchel. Dr. Ana Szarfman, then a senior medical officer in the FDA’s CDER, had been the internal champion who helped bring the system into the agency.

In a 2022 Drug Safety paper, Harpaz, DuMouchel, Szarfman, and colleagues quantified masking in COVID-vaccine data and showed that an adjusted approach could recover signals the standard method missed. The paper examined seven adverse events (Bell’s palsy, myocarditis, pericarditis, appendicitis, pulmonary embolism, herpes zoster, and tinnitus) and demonstrated that signals for them could be undetected or delayed under the standard methods then in use.

Wiseman highlights the significance of who was raising the alarm:

“This is the father of the method, William DuMouchel, as it were, and the mother, as it were, Anna Szarfman. And that’s who’s writing this paper. That is about as significant as it gets.”

Internal records show Szarfman presented the problem and the alternative method to Peter Marks and other senior officials at the FDA in early March 2021. Subsequent analyses she shared identified roughly 25 statistically significant signals the standard method had not flagged, including sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy, pulmonary infarction, acute myocardial infarction, and death or sudden death. The response was not adoption. In May 2021 she was told to hold off on creating and sending further data-mining results; in September Marks wrote that she had been asked to “cease and desist” because the approach could create conflicts that fed “anti-vaccination rhetoric.”

Hundreds of Signals Missing

Using the FOIA-released weekly tables, the Harpaz paper’s supplemental data, and other datasets, Wiseman estimated the combined effect of missing reports, masking, and the elevated threshold. The central figure he arrived at was substantial:

“The sort of central number that I came up with was about 760 missing events.”

The practical outcome was that the mRNA products generated almost no automated alerts for many events later flagged by other methods, while the system continued to register numerous Janssen signals.

Those missing signals were not optional details. Under the statutory standard for Emergency Use Authorization, the FDA is required to consider known and potential risks (even without proof of causation) when determining whether the known and potential benefits outweigh the risks. Statistical safety signals are precisely the kind of potential risk the agency is legally obliged to examine. Wiseman is blunt about what happened instead. Speaking about the failure to properly process and investigate the signals that were appearing, he said:

“They were legally required to do that. They didn’t do it. That’s the scandal.”

The Early Warning System Is Now Impaired for Every Vaccine

Since the volume and variety of COVID-vaccine reports now sit inside VAERS, the same masking problem affects signal detection for other products. Rare or novel events that appear even at low levels from the COVID shots raise the baseline against which a different vaccine is judged. Wiseman’s conclusion is direct:

“When I say that VAERS is disabled, because it’s not only disabled for the COVID vaccines, it’s disabled for everything.”

The early-warning function the agencies have long described as the nation’s pharmacovigilance system is therefore compromised going forward.

The BMJ Investigation and Missing Credit

A BMJ investigation, published 16 September 2026, later covered elements of the same story, including interviews with Szarfman and DuMouchel. It confirmed that officials knew of the algorithm’s limitations and that Szarfman had been told to stop. Yet the piece does not cite Wiseman’s September 2025 preprint quantifying the lost signals, nor does it name Senator Ron Johnson or the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report and hearing that assembled and released the core documentary record months earlier. Wiseman observed that the BMJ presentation gave the impression of an original investigation into findings that the Senate investigators and independent analysts had already documented and made public. The journalistic contribution expanded visibility and added some interviews, but the quantitative estimates of signal loss and the primary-source timeline remain grounded in the work that preceded it.

Senator Ron Johnson’s report and the supporting records are public. Wiseman’s preprint is available on ResearchGate. The technical details are dense, but the sequence is clear: the people who built and championed the method identified the problem early, demonstrated that a correction recovered signals for serious events, but were instructed by the FDA to stop based on the grounds that it would spread anti-vaccine sentiment.

However, the bigger scandal is that the nation’s early-warning system for vaccine safety has been effectively disabled, not just for the COVID products, but for every other vaccine going forward and nothing is being done to fix it.

This should be headline news everywhere.

If this investigative reporting matters to you, please consider a paid subscription or buy me a coffee! Your support makes this work possible.

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

If this investigation resonated, you’ll want the full record.

In my book 3/11 Viral Takeover, I document how the March 11, 2020 pandemic declaration was used to lock in lockdowns, flawed testing protocols, rushed authorizations, and a permanent biosecurity and censorship apparatus. The book draws on 941 citations from FOIA releases, leaked emails, scientific papers, and whistleblower accounts. It is the primary-source chronicle of what actually happened and why the systems put in place then remain ready for the next crisis.

Available in Kindle, paperback, hardcover, and audiobook!

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Recently, there was a post circulating on X that claimed Labour is about to give Ofcom the power to shut down social media in Britain. The bill is real but the attribution is not.

What Baroness Floella Benjamin, a Liberal Democrat life peer and former Play School presenter, introduced in the House of Lords on 7 September was a private member’s bill. Although it is not government policy and has only had a formal first reading, the Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill should still be read with great care.

This is because it states, more plainly than most official documents dare to, the direction in which speech regulation has been travelling for a while.

For several years, I have written about the West’s descent into digital authoritarianism. In 3/11 Viral Takeover I forensically examined how “misinformation” became the pretext for pervasive coordinated censorship during Covid. I made the same argument about the Online Safety Act and its amendments, as well as Starmer’s under-16 social media ban, which I described as a Trojan horse for digital ID. I have also analysed the government’s own dystopian manual on “misinformation.”

It appears that while the veneer changes, the machinery of censorship beneath it does not.

Read more

A newly disclosed cache of Health Canada documents, forced into the open by Canada’s Information Commissioner in June 2026, confirms what independent researchers have been documenting for years. The agency identified “unnecessary” SV40 promoter and poly-A terminator sequences in the plasmid backbone used to manufacture Pfizer-BioNTech’s COMIRNATY shots. Health Canada strongly recommended their removal but Pfizer refused. An SV40 promoter sequence used in gene delivery because it can help DNA reach the nucleus, packaged in lipid nanoparticles, is a cancer-relevant risk the public was never told about. To this day, plasmid-derived DNA elements remain in COMIRNATY.

The documents, first highlighted recently by researcher Scoops McGoo, include a Health Canada quality review summary and internal emails from August 2023.

They are the result of an access-to-information request specifically seeking records mentioning Simian Virus 40 (SV40) in relation to COVID-19 vaccines.

After Health Canada withheld material, the Information Commissioner ruled the complaint “well-founded” and ordered further disclosure of pages 150 and 193 of the relevant file. The official finding is damning: a national regulator withheld records about residual SV40 promoter sequences in a product rolled out to the public.

What the quality review actually said

Under the heading “SUMMARY OF KEY QUALITY ISSUES,” Health Canada reviewers addressed “Unnecessary regulatory elements present on plasmid.”

They noted that, in response to a Quality Clarifax dated 4 August 2023, the sponsor (Pfizer) had acknowledged DNA regulatory elements on the plasmid. These included an SV40 promoter and SV40 poly-A terminator.

The review team rejected Pfizer’s justification for it because plasmid-derived DNA fragments remain in the finished product as a process-related impurity, “the plasmid should not include unnecessary DNA regulatory elements. At a minimum, these regulatory elements should have been disclosed initially.”

The document then states, in language that leaves little room for interpretation:

“To be consistent with general manufacturing practices and to support vaccine acceptance, Health Canada strongly recommends the removal of unnecessary DNA elements from the backbone of plasmids to be used for the manufacture of COMIRNATY vaccines for future SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Health Canada communicated this position in a follow-up clarifax to the sponsor on 24 August 2023. Pfizer responded by only agreeing to “further evaluate” the regulator’s request. In other words, the pharmaceutical company had no intention of doing anything about it.

Where the SV40 DNA actually came from

Japanese patent attorney “Patent SUN” has traced Pfizer’s manufacturing plasmid to a 1990s research kit, pCMV-Script, sold “for research use only.” Mainz scientists who built BioNTech’s pST platform wrote that they engineered pST1 from that vector. The SV40 sequence sits in that inherited backbone. The European Medicines Agency’s Rolling Review names BioNTech’s production plasmid and prints a map that labels T7, spike, poly-A and the resistance gene. Notably, the SV40 element is not marked (see plasmid map below).

What is missing, Patent SUN noted on X, is not a generic SV40 label. It is DNA from pCMV-Script, a Stratagene/Agilent reagent sold for research, not for pharmaceutical or clinical use. Given the history BioNTech itself published, Patent SUN wrote, “all of this should have been submitted from the outset.”

This is what Health Canada’s “should have been disclosed initially” was pointing at. The SV40 sequences were inherited, left off the public plasmid map but left on the licensed backbone, even after the regulator asked them off.

Health Canada’s email chain the next morning

An email chain dated 25 August 2023 (the day after the clarifax was sent) captures the regulators’ reaction to Pfizer’s response.

These emails show Canadian officials knew the sequences were unnecessary and wanted them gone. Wu’s “As expected, Pfizer didn’t commit” means they also knew the sponsor would hide behind “minimal risk.” The fact Dean Smith writes, “They have over blown that!” is evidence that a Health Canada official strongly believed Pfizer’s risk assessment was overstated and that if the regulator and its allies set a higher “characterisation bar” (more data on what the fragments actually are and do), Pfizer would no longer have a “reasonable argument” for leaving the sequences on the plasmid. The paper trail and a reason to internationalise the fight, is what he called “a win.” However, international pressure from the regulators never materialised.

What independent researchers have been documenting since 2023

In April 2023, Kevin McKernan and colleagues sequenced expired bivalent Pfizer and Moderna vials and reported leftover expression-vector DNA in both, at levels they put in the nanogram-to-microgram range per dose. The abstract says multiple assays supported DNA above the EMA 330 ng/mg and FDA 10 ng/dose figures. Pfizer vials also carried the SV40 promoter/enhancer from the manufacturing plasmid. Following this discovery, I wrote a two-part investigation, “Thou Shalt Not Adulterate” on residual plasmid DNA and the SV40 sequences in the mRNA shots.

In addition, independent laboratories, in different countries, with different methods have found these findings repeatedly.

Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics Phillip Buckhaults PhD told the South Carolina Senate he had confirmed plasmid DNA, including SV40 sequences, in the Pfizer shots.

In Germany, Ulrike Kämmerer and Klaus Steger reported large amounts of residual DNA in BioNTech lots, including SV40 promoter/enhancer and the antibiotic-resistance gene after RNase A treatment, with fluorometry readings they put above the 10 ng/dose cap.

In Canada, David Speicher et al., tested tracked Canadian vials. Their work first appeared as a 2023 preprint and was later published in Autoimmunity (2025). The researchers found residual plasmid DNA in both products. SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori was detected only in Pfizer vials. Depending on the assay (qPCR on specific plasmid targets versus fluorometry for total DNA), some readings exceed the 10 ng-per-dose residual-DNA limit written for older biologics. Notably, this limit was never designed for nucleic acids that lipid nanoparticles protect and help deliver into cells.

I later sat down with David Speicher, Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose on the measurements, the assays regulators prefer, and why a 10 ng-per-dose cap written for older biologics does not fit DNA that is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles. The conversation also covered the campaign against their paper: the retraction pressure and the wider attempt to shut the work down.

The DNA contamination scandal is also forensically documented in Chapter 12 of 3/11 Viral Takeover.

What Parliament asked and what Ottawa read out instead

On 2 May 2024, MP Dean Allison put Question No. 2665 on the Order Paper. The question was built from emails the House already knew existed: August 2023 emails among Health Canada (HC), EMA and FDA before a meeting on 24 August 2023 (the same day HC sent Pfizer the follow-up clarifax), HC scientist Michael Wall’s note five days later, plus an EMA officer writing to Dr. Dean Smith on 12 October 2023.

Allison asked, in substance: What did Health Canada actually fear in those August 2023 emails with EMA and FDA and what did it ask Pfizer? Had its scientists read McKernan? Did it still claim no peer-reviewed paper showed a human risk from the enhancer? Did it know the SV40 promoter-enhancer can bind p53 (Drayman) and can act as a nuclear targeting sequence (Dean, 1999) and was either risk put to Pfizer? If the sequences were expected and safe, why did Michael Wall write on 29 August 2023 that Canada would work with partners to remove those elements from the plasmid at future strain changes? What action followed EMA’s 12 October note to Smith on SV40 and “alleged high level of DNA”? What assessment said the enhancer was safe inside an LNP product and what is the policy for any vaccine?

On 19 June 2024, Yasir Naqvi, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, delivered the government’s reply. It read like a press statement.

Rather than answering Allison’s questions, the government chose obfuscation. It said Pfizer had replied “to address all of Health Canada’s questions,” but those communications could not be disclosed because they were “considered confidential business information.” It also said the residual SV40 DNA fragments are “considered as low risk.” Notably, this was an echo of the sponsor’s line evidenced in Dean Smith’s email sent to his colleagues a year earlier.

What Health Canada told the public

In October 2023 Health Canada confirmed an SV40 promoter-enhancer in Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID shot after McKernan and Buckhaults made it public. The agency told the Epoch Times it expects sponsors to flag “biologically functional” plasmid sequences such as an SV40 enhancer at filing but Pfizer’s full plasmid sequence did not specifically identify SV40. The EMA and FDA later also acknowledged the sequence.

Health Canada went on to say: cancer-link claims are “unfounded”; the fragment is “inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit.” When the Epoch Times asked for the risk assessment, the studies behind that claim, what “inactive” means in a human cell, why the sequence is there if it has no role, and the actual SV40 measurements and methods, Health Canada would not provide them.

The newly released review and emails reveal that the agency itself called the elements “unnecessary,” said they should have been disclosed at the outset, and strongly recommended their removal from plasmids used for future COMIRNATY variants.

If the fragments were truly nothing, there was no reason to “strongly recommend” their removal. If removal was the right manufacturing practice, there was no excuse for leaving them in or for telling the public they did not matter.

Pfizer did not remove them. The regulators did nothing about it. The public was told none of this and went on receiving an adulterated gene-based product.

If this investigative reporting matters to you, please consider a paid subscription or buy me a coffee! Your support makes this work possible.

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

Vaccine has published a retrospective cohort study of just over four million Americans aged 16 to 25, comparing recorded COVID infection with a recorded Pfizer dose.

The Toraih et al. paper claims “SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with higher 6-month risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and all-cause mortality than BNT162b2 vaccination.” Vaccination, we are told, looks markedly safer: 85 per cent less myocarditis, 79 per cent less pericarditis, 72 per cent less mortality than documented infection.

The authors (one of them, Stephen J. Thomas, was a senior investigator on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine phase 3 trial) interpret this as support for “a favourable benefit–risk profile,” while notably stating that the mortality contrast should be read “as descriptive rather than causal.”

However, if you take a closer look at the method the authors used to arrive at their conclusion, many red flags begin to emerge. Take for instance the labelled groups (where the authors divide everyone into four neat piles) and their unusual sizes.

Read more

In August 2026, amid fierce controversy, BMJ Group formally retracted a peer-reviewed paper published in BMJ Public Health in June 2024 that documented a staggering three million excess deaths across 47 Western countries between 2020 and 2022. The study, led by Dutch researchers including Dr Saskia Mostert, analysed all-cause mortality data and noted that excess mortality remained elevated for three consecutive years despite containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. The authors observed that while vaccines were intended to reduce morbidity and mortality, serious adverse events had been reported, and they called for further investigation into the underlying causes of the excess deaths.

I reported on the pivotal Mostert et al. paper the day after its publication. Its findings attracted widespread media coverage, with The Telegraph daring to write: “Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.”

Institutional Distancing

Shortly after publication and amid the media frenzy, the Princess Máxima Centre (where three out of the four authors, including Dr Saskia Mostert, worked at the time of publication) issued a statement on June 11, “distancing itself” from the paper that had undergone nine months of peer review before acceptance.

Their statement, which I included in my follow-up article, has since been removed from their website. It can be read in part below.

“The Princess Máxima Centre distances itself from the publication… Serious questions have arisen regarding the publication… The Princess Máxima Center deeply regrets that this publication may give the impression that the importance of vaccinations is being questioned… We are not experts in epidemiology… We should have been more alert to the formation and results of this publication… We strongly support vaccination, and… this publication should certainly not be read as an argument against vaccination.”

This prompted BMJ Public Health to respond with an “expression of concern” a few days later, on June 14th, clarifying that the study did not establish a causal link between vaccination and deaths.

Official Reasons for Retraction

On 11 August 2026, more than two years after the original expression of concern was issued, BMJ Public Health formally retracted the paper.

The journal stated the decision was based on:

“The article is retracted by the journal for misinformation in the discussion regarding the possible causes of excess mortality, and because the limited nature of the original work by the authors was not sufficiently described.”

Interestingly, an investigation by the Princess Máxima Centre in Utrecht found no evidence of malicious intent, data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. However, it concluded that the paper paid “disproportionate attention” to the possibility that containment measures and vaccination might have caused excess deaths, was selective in its literature citations, and did not reflect the scientific consensus of the time. Two co-authors (Kaspers and Huibers) supported the retraction on grounds of public misinterpretation risk; the other two, including Mostert, did not.

BMJ Group said it offered the lead author an opportunity to revise the discussion, but judged the proposed changes insufficient. A spokesman emphasised that the retraction was not driven by media coverage of the paper.

It should be noted that under the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (the international standard followed by BMJ and most major journals), “spreading misinformation” is not, by itself, a recognised or sufficient justification for retracting a scientific paper. COPE requires clear evidence that the findings or conclusions are unreliable due to major error, fabrication, plagiarism, unethical research, compromised peer review, or similar concrete failings. A broad, subjective label such as “misinformation” does not meet this threshold unless it is tied to demonstrable scientific invalidity. Using it as a primary reason, without proving the data or core results are false, is widely regarded as weak justification and has fuelled accusations that the decision went far beyond normal scientific standards.

Criticism of the Decision

A Telegraph article reported that three Dutch experts wrote to the BMJ editorial board describing the move as “disproportional” and raising “serious questions about the extent to which political considerations played a part.”

Professor Ronald Meester of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam told The Telegraph there was “no scientific reason to retract” and suggested political pressure may have been involved. Dr Jona Walk, another signatory of the letter, argued on X that the decision was political rather than scientific and set a dangerous precedent amid growing political interference in research.

Lead author Dr Saskia Mostert, who has since resigned from the Princess Máxima Centre, has described the reaction to the paper as “irrational and blind fury.”

In her June 2026 testimony to the US Senate she stated:

“To be clear: I lost my position after publishing official government mortality data and calling for further scientific investigation into persistent excess deaths. Science cannot function when legitimate questions become professionally dangerous to ask. When scientists fear professional destruction, the public loses access to honest scientific inquiry.”

Public Statements by BMJ’s Editor-in-Chief

Kamran Abbasi, Editor-in-Chief of The BMJ, defended the retraction in an X post on 15 August 2026. He described criticism of the decision as “utter garbage and predictable misinformation,” stating that the process was not political, that the journal had not been pressurised by anyone, that the authors had been given a fair hearing, and that the real mistake had been publishing the paper in the first place. Notably, Abbasi chose to share these forthright views on social media while restricting who could reply to his post.

In a follow-up the next day he reiterated that “retracting a flawed paper constitutes scientific integrity.”

Analysis of Scientific Suppression Criteria

Maarten Fornerod, PhD, formerly associate professor at Erasmus MC Rotterdam and author of more than 100 scientific papers, has argued that the retraction of Mostert et al. meets all five criteria for scientific suppression, as identified by Elisha et al. (2024)

According to Fornerod, this pattern strongly suggests suppression rather than a genuine correction of the scientific record. The five criteria, and how they apply in this case according to Fornerod, are:

1. Timing of actions
   The suppressive actions followed soon after newspaper coverage in the UK (The Telegraph) and the Netherlands (de Volkskrant), the latter framing the study as an “anti-vax study.”

2. Unusual venue or source of criticism
   Complaints to the host institute originated from a social media figure, Klaas van Dijk, who has a documented history of targeting Covid-critical voices in academia and medicine.

3. Double standard test
   Imbalances in academic discussions are common and are sometimes even prompted by peer reviewers. Yet they are almost never (if ever) used as grounds for retraction. Data from Our World in Data is cited thousands of times in scientific literature without similar public complaints about misuse — with the exception of this paper.

4. Vested interests
   The host institute (Princess Máxima Centre) has received funding from vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, and carries reputational interests linked to the Dutch Royal family (whose name it bears). Our World in Data, which also publicly criticised the paper, receives substantial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust via the Global Change Data Lab.

5. Pattern of similar adverse actions
   Multiple scientific publications that questioned COVID-19 vaccine safety or efficacy have been retracted in recent years, often without clear adherence to COPE criteria. Examples include Walach et al. (2021), Kostoff et al. (2021), Gautret et al. (2020), Hazan et al. (2022), Rancourt et al. (2021), and Gibo et al. (2024).

Questions of Funding and Institutional Conflicts

It should be noted that BMJ Group has long received substantial revenue from the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. Its own disclosures show that in the mid-2010s it earned approximately £6.8–7.5 million a year from product advertising, commercial sponsorship and article reprints (representing 8–12% of relevant revenues).

It has also received specific educational grants from Pfizer to fund institutional access to its “Research to Publication” programme. While BMJ maintains that editorial decisions are independent of commercial income, the existence of these long-standing financial relationships raises legitimate questions when the journal retracts a paper that discusses possible harms linked to products made by those same funders.

In the end, a peer-reviewed paper that documented three million excess deaths and merely called for further investigation was erased from the scientific record. Not for fabricated data. Not for plagiarism. Not for methodological fraud. But for the sin of spreading “misinformation.” That single word has now become sufficient grounds to override nine months of peer review, institutional findings of no misconduct, and the core principle that science advances by open debate rather than enforced consensus. When a journal can retract a study because its discussion is deemed insufficiently aligned with the prevailing narrative, the boundary between retraction and censorship collapses.

If this investigative reporting matters to you, please consider a paid subscription or buy me a coffee! Your support makes this work possible.

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

This past week, Senator Rand Paul released a significant trove of documents, including the personal diary entries of Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infect…

Read more

In May 2026, the UK Government published a 136-page report that reads less like an objective “evidence review” and more like an instruction manual for expanding state control over speech. “False and …

Read more

A huge thank you to every…

Read more

A major witness statement recently published by the UK COVID-19 Inquiry has blown the lid off one of the darkest aspects of the pandemic response: a secretive government surveillance machine that tar…

Read more

The UK Covid Inquiry’s latest findings on PPE procurement (Module 5), as covered by the BBC today, are damning: £10 billion of taxpayers’ money was wasted on personal protective equipment that left N…

Read more

Read more

The tragic kni…

Read more

In a wide-ranging, no-holds-barred conversation on Stay Free with Russell Brand, I sat down with Russell to unpack the explosive revelations in my book 3/11 Viral Takeover: On March 11, 2020, a Pande…

Read more

Today, Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at Downing Street and made it official: a full ban on social media access for under-16s across major platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube,…

Read more

“Big Brother is watching you.”

With every passing week in 2026 Britain, George Orwell’s warning in 1984 feels less like literary fiction and more like a policy blueprint. Fresh from the ashes of viol…

Read more

In a seismic ruling that mainstream media has largely ignored, Greek administrative courts have begun holding the Hellenic Republic accountable for serious injuries and deaths caused by COVID-19 vacc…

Read more

• The engineered narrative from day one: How top scientists (including Fauci, Farrar, and others) privately discussed lab-origin possibilities while publicly condemning it as a “conspiracy theory” in the Lancet and elsewhere. Conflicts of interest were hidden.

• The flawed foundation for lockdowns: Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College model, its catastrophic (and wrong) predictions, and how one paper shut down the world despite early contrary data from Nobel laureate Michael Levitt and the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

• Suppression of early treatments: The coordinated attack on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin — including the retracted Surgisphere scandal in The Lancet, to clear the path for emergency authorisation of the novel mRNA products.

• Censorship machinery: The Trusted News Initiative, Event 201, government pressure on Big Tech, the CCDH (“Disinformation Dozen”), and the weaponisation of “misinformation” labels against scientists, doctors, and the vaccine-injured.

• The bigger picture: Vaccine passports as a proof-of-concept for digital IDs, the shift to permanent biosecurity states, and the alarming rise of digital authoritarianism across the West — including arrests for social media posts and expanding surveillance.

We also spoke about the human cost: the psychological operation that used fear and compliance, the silencing of the vaccine-injured, excess deaths, and why hard-copy documentation of these events matters more than ever.

If you haven’t yet, grab a copy and share it.

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Share

• How the natural origin narrative was locked in early through coordinated publications (Lancet, Nature Medicine, Cell) while key architects privately expressed lab-origin concerns.

• The pivotal February 1, 2020 teleconference and the subsequent “relief” emails among Fauci, Farrar, Drosten and others.

• Neil Ferguson’s catastrophic Imperial College modelling (Report 9) and the near-simultaneous global lockdown response.

• The weaponisation of fear through UK government behavioural science papers and terrifying public messaging campaigns.

• The deeply flawed Drosten PCR protocol, its undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the staggering false-positive rates later confirmed in official data.

• The systematic suppression of early treatments (hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) to clear the path for Emergency Use Authorisation of the novel mRNA shots.

• The rushed mRNA platform, DARPA’s central role, Process 2 manufacturing changes, and the resulting DNA/plasmid contamination scandal (including undisclosed SV40 promoter sequences).

• What regulators knew before authorisation — myocarditis, pregnancy losses, deaths — and the shocking post-rollout data hidden from the public.

• The industrial-scale censorship of dissenting scientists, vaccine-injured individuals, and inconvenient studies.

• The pre-pandemic simulations (Event 201, Crimson Contagion), the biodefence complex, and the shift toward digital authoritarianism under the banner of “for your safety.”

  Sonia Elijah investigates is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I ended on a note of hope. The antidote to this machinery of crisis, fear, and control is simple but powerful: truth-seeking, open scientific debate, informed consent, courage, and forensic evidence over plausible denial.

You can watch the full presentation above (I’ve also included the short trailer for the book at the start).

If you haven’t yet read the book, I hope this talk gives you a clear sense of what I’ve uncovered. 3/11 Viral Takeover is my attempt to document what really happened — not the official story we were fed, but the one revealed in the documents they never wanted us to see.

The paperback, hardcover, and ebook are available now.

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Share

Watch the ful…

Read more

There are books that comfort, books that entertain, and books that disturb — in the most necessary…

Read more