We covered systematic data destruction, lost serious adverse events (including child deaths with no pre-existing conditions), lack of autopsies, blanket liability granted before the pandemic declaration, regulatory capture, and the weaponization of fear.

All of this and much more, is meticulously documented in my book 3/11 Viral Takeover.

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

We explore the mechanisms behind lockdowns, flawed testing protocols, the suppression of early treatment and dissenting voices, rushed “vaccine” authorizations, and the unprecedented censorship apparatus that shaped the narrative.

We discussed:

• The critical problems with PCR testing

• The marginalization of scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration

• Conflicts of interest, data manipulation, and the role of public-private partnerships in shaping policy and silencing debate

• The parallels between 3/11 and 9/11 that led to lasting shifts in power and freedom

This interview gets to the heart of why I spent years researching and writing 3/11 Viral Takeover.
It was never just about cataloguing the failures and deceptions of the COVID era. It was about exposing the coordinated blueprint: the simulations, the censorship machinery, the institutional capture, that allowed March 11, 2020 to become the day our world was permanently altered. Only by fully understanding that blueprint can we hope to resist its return in whatever form it takes next.

If you haven’t yet, you can get 3/11 Viral Takeover (available in Kindle eBook, paperback, and hardcover) here:

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Thank you to Dr John Campbell for hosting this important discussion and for his continued commitment to asking the questions that matter.

Looking forward to reading your comments below.

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

Baroness Hallett’s long-awaited Module 4 Report on Vaccines and Therapeutics, published on 16 April 2026, declares the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination programme “an extraordinary feat” and “a great success” that “protected people against the most serious effects of Covid-19 and saved lives.” It acknowledges “the suffering of those for whom vaccines led to serious injury or death” but insists “the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines were carefully managed and were far outweighed by the benefits.”

The report praises rigorous trials, prompt regulatory action on signals, and robust surveillance systems, while calling mainly for modest reforms to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme and better data linkage for future monitoring.

As the author of 3/11: Viral Takeover, I view Baroness Hallett’s verdict not as genuine accountability, but as another layer of institutional self-protection and a clear continuation of the official whitewash. Chapters 11 (“Rush to Market”), 12 (“Beyond the Label”), 14 (“The Blind Watchdogs”), 15 (“Censoring Harms”), and 16 (“For Your Safety”) lay bare how safety concerns were systematically sidelined from the very beginning. The absence of long-term safety studies, genotoxicity testing, and any meaningful assessment of the novel mRNA platform meant that critical questions about potential risks remained unanswered before the vaccines were rolled out to the public.

Rushed Authorizations and What Regulators Knew

The Module 4 Report claims expedited authorization occurred without compromising safety. However, Chapter 11 of my book exposes the leaked European Medicines Agency emails from November 2020 (just weeks before EUA was granted for the novel gene-based products) showing senior regulators raising urgent concerns about manufacturing quality, high levels of truncated mRNA, impurities, and inadequate stability data. These warnings were overridden in the rush to approve the vaccines.

Chapter 12, “Beyond the Label,” highlights critical regulatory failures, most notably the DNA contamination scandal. Independent laboratory analyses revealed not only residual plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccine commercial batches (fragments that should have been removed during manufacturing) but also the presence of SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences. Regulators were slow to acknowledge or properly investigate these findings. In response to a Freedom of Information request I submitted, the MHRA explicitly refused to test for this contamination, despite serious concerns regarding potential genomic integration, insertional mutagenesis, and long-term health risks.

Censoring Harms: The Systematic Suppression of Injury Reports

Chapters 15 and 16 lay bare the coordinated machinery that silenced discussion of vaccine adverse events. It documents how government agencies, tech platforms, fact-checkers, and NGOs worked together to label reports of myocarditis, pericarditis, neurological damage, thrombosis, and other serious conditions as “misinformation” or “vaccine hesitancy.”

The Module 4 Report attributes lower vaccine uptake partly to “false information online” without examining how official overstatements and the active suppression of real-world safety data eroded trust. It frames hesitancy as a problem of external misinformation rather than a rational response to emerging signals and the lived experiences of the injured.

3/11: Viral Takeover documents the central role played by the Trusted News Initiative, the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s “Disinformation Dozen,” and government-linked units (including the UK’s 77th Brigade and Counter Disinformation Unit) in flagging and removing content about vaccine injuries. Injured individuals who shared their stories were often stigmatized as “anti-vax,” compounding their suffering with a “second trauma” of disbelief.

The inquiry heard testimony from groups like Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK describing this dynamic, yet the final report presents the issue narrowly and avoids confronting the censorship apparatus that protected the “safe and effective” narrative at all costs.

A Pattern of Minimization

While the report includes voices from the injured and concedes the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme needs reform due to its strict thresholds and low payouts. It continues to portray harms as affecting only a small minority and insists the benefits of the Covid shots far outweigh the risks.

3/11: Viral Takeover demonstrates that this minimisation was not mere oversight but part of a deliberate strategy to control the narrative, prioritise uptake, and silence dissenting data and personal testimonies. It provides the forensic documentation: the leaked EMA emails, manufacturing failures, data suppression by the UKHSA, and the systematic censorship of harms, that the official inquiry has avoided.

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry had a genuine opportunity to deliver real accountability by examining what regulators knew, how risks were communicated to the public, and why serious harms were consistently downplayed or censored. Instead, it has delivered little more than a polished whitewash defence of the programme, offering only token reforms while carefully protecting the official “safe and effective” narrative.

3/11 Viral Takeover is available in Kindle, paperback, and hardcover editions.

Order on Amazon.com/ Amazon.co.uk (or search “3/11 Viral Takeover Sonia Elijah” in your local Amazon store).

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

We covered the forensic timeline I spent months compiling: the pre-planned exercises like Crimson Contagion and Event 201, the rapid alignment of Moderna’s vaccine sequence just days after the viral genome was published, the invocation of emergency powers weeks before the WHO even declared a pandemic, and the coordinated machinery of fear, censorship, and compliance that followed.

The conversation unpacked how unelected scientific advisors (SAGE in the UK and equivalents elsewhere), international organisations, and the emerging biodefence-industrial complex effectively took control. We discussed the weaponisation of behavioural science and flawed modelling to push lockdowns, the suppression of early treatments, the known risks with mRNA technology that were ignored, and the censorship apparatus, including the BBC-led Trusted News Initiative, that silenced dissenting scientists, doctors, and even vaccine-injured individuals.

We also looked ahead at the UK’s new £1 billion pandemic preparedness strategy, with its proposed “All Pandemics Hazards Bill,” expanded contract tracing, biosecurity hub, and sweeping emergency powers. Officials are already framing the next crisis as a “certainty.”

As I explain in the interview, 3/11 wasn’t just a health event, it was a biological sequel to 9/11 in its scale of disruption and the permanent changes it accelerated: mass compliance, surveillance, narrative control, and the shift toward digital authoritarianism.

The book is evidence-based, with 900+ citations, FOIA documents, leaked emails, scientific literature, and whistleblower interviews.

Paul asked me if I’m afraid of what’s coming. My answer: No. Because knowledge is the antidote. The more people understand how the machinery worked last time, the harder it becomes to run the same playbook again.

You can also listen to the full interview here.

3/11 Viral Takeover is now available in Kindle, paperback, and hardcover editions.

Order on Amazon.com/ Amazon.co.uk (or search “3.11 Viral Takeover Sonia Elijah” in your local Amazon store).

If you’ve already read it (or once you do), I’d be incredibly grateful if you could leave an honest review on Amazon. Reviews make a huge difference in helping independent investigative work reach more people, especially on a topic this important.

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

The rapid rise of AI-powered mass surveillance is one of the biggest threats to our personal freedoms right now. What started as tools for catching specific criminals has exploded into huge systems that watch and predict what billions of people are doing, all in real time, often without proper checks or our consent. Governments and corporations deploy these technologies under the banner of “safety,” yet they deeply erode privacy and free expression.

China: The Global Benchmark for Digital Control

The country has around 700 million surveillance cameras, that’s more than one for every two people. Programs like “Sharp Eyes” and “Skynet” use AI to recognise faces, analyse how people walk, identify voices, and even predict behaviour. It all links up into one massive system for controlling the population. In the Xinjiang region, AI flags Uyghur Muslims for everyday things like praying or posting on social media, feeding them into vast networks of detention camps where over a million have been held, often without trial. Now, advanced AI even handles censorship, directs police, and watches prisoners’ emotions in high-tech jails. This is pre-emptive governance: dissent is anticipated and crushed.

Exporting the Model: From Lockdowns to Surveillance Tech

Just as China pushed its strict “zero-COVID” lockdowns around the world during the pandemic with quarantines, mass testing, and shutdowns that many nations copied, the country is now aggressively selling its AI surveillance tech. Chinese companies such as Huawei, Hikvision, Dahua, and ZTE are supplying “safe city” and “smart policing” kits to dozens of nations. These include facial recognition cameras, AI analysis tools, and systems that combine data just like back home in China.

China is beating the US in deals for this facial recognition gear. At least 63 countries have taken it up, especially in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, often funded through China’s huge Belt and Road projects. Huawei has set up nationwide systems in places like Uganda and helped Zimbabwe monitor its people (where one firm even tested its tech on locals). In Mexico and Peru, cities use Dahua and Hikvision cameras. In Malaysia and Pakistan, they’re building “digital twin” cities for constant tracking. China even runs training sessions and seminars to promote its approach.

The West is Heading Towards Digital Control

In my book 3/11 Viral Takeover, I warn about the West’s descent into digital authoritarianism, sparked from the fallout following the World Health Organization’s declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020, which I mark as 3/11.

The UK is a prime example of a democracy rushing headlong into this. Facial recognition, AI that spots unusual behaviour in videos, and scraping social media posts are already letting police profile people in real time on a massive scale. An extract from the book reads, “In 2025, trials in cities like London have integrated AI cameras that scan crowds in real-time, linking to national databases for instant identification, a capability that has moved from pilot to operational use in 2026, evoking a biometric police state.”

UK police are massively expanding live facial recognition (LFR). The fleet of mobile vans with this tech is set to jump from around 10 to over 50, ready for use in town centres, crime hotspots, and transport hubs. The Metropolitan Police has scanned millions of faces recently, leading to hundreds of arrests. Permanent setups are running in places like Croydon and major train stations.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is pushing hard for AI to “get ahead of criminals,” even referencing the old idea of a “panopticon,” a prison where inmates feel watched all the time. A national facial matching service is in the works, and there’s a fresh consultation launched in March 2026 on voluntary national digital IDs for public services. Critics fear this could open the door to much wider tracking and data merging. Civil liberties campaigners say it’s risking permanent mass surveillance, eroding the idea that you’re innocent until proven guilty, boosting chances of wrong identifications, and leaving protections worryingly thin.

In the United States: Growing Federal Use and Big Ethical Rows

Across the pond, US agencies like Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI are ramping up AI for matching biometrics, tracking vehicles, and analysing social media. Private firms scan millions of posts, and old laws let them access commercial data without warrants. Civil liberties groups warn of a creeping digital police state where biased AI automates and muzzles critics.

Tensions boiled over in early 2026. AI firm Anthropic turned down Pentagon contracts over worries about mass domestic surveillance and killer robots without human control, leading the Defence Department to call it a “supply chain risk” and block it. Rival OpenAI stepped in, agreeing in February 2026 to put its models on classified military networks (with some limits in the contract, though critics say they’re too vague). Then, on March 7, 2026, OpenAI’s head of hardware and robotics, Caitlin Kalinowski, quit in protest. She said: “Surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorisation are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got.”

“Big Brother is Watching You”

The danger is real: AI takes everyday data like phone locations, web browsing, and who you know, then builds detailed predictions of your behaviour on a huge scale. These systems can crush dissent and make constant monitoring feel normal. China’s dual export of harsh lockdowns, then its surveillance tech, looks like the clearest roadmap to an Orwellian future where “Big Brother is watching you.”

The big question isn’t whether this is coming but whether we act before it becomes our reality.

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

As the UK government unveils its first new pandemic preparedness "strategy since 2011, one phrase stands out: a new pandemic is a “certainty.”

According to the plan reported by The Telegraph, the government intends to spend £1 billion of public funds building a fresh contact-tracing system, stockpiling PPE, establishing a new biosecurity hub, and introducing an “All Pandemics Hazard Bill” to grant rapid emergency powers. Officials stress that the next threat may differ from the last, requiring flexible, broad-ranging measures and international cooperation.

Six years after the events of March 11, 2020, the day the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic, these announcements demand far more rigorous scrutiny than ever before.

In my new book 3/11 Viral Takeover, I present a forensic, evidence-based examination of how the world’s response to COVID-19 was coordinated. This ranges from pandemic simulation exercises held just months earlier, through flawed modelling that drove policy U-turns, to the suppression of early treatments, the redefinition of vaccination status, and the rapid rollout of novel mRNA products under emergency authorisation.

Drawing on FOIA documents, leaked emails, regulatory filings, and scientific literature, the book exposes how many of the tools now being revived, including contact-tracing infrastructure, emergency legislation, centralised messaging, and vast procurement schemes, delivered deeply questionable results. Far from protecting public health, these measures inflicted devastating economic damage, widespread social harm, and lasting health costs that are still being felt today.

The new strategy acknowledges that future threats may not mirror COVID-19. However, the proposed solutions look strikingly familiar: more centralised surveillance tools, larger stockpiles, and broader executive authority. History shows that infrastructure built for one emergency can easily be repurposed and expanded for the next.

My investigation in 3/11 Viral Takeover documents how unelected scientific advisers, international organisations, philanthropies with deep pharmaceutical ties, and intelligence-linked entities shaped the global response in 2020. It examines the known risks that were documented before mass deployment of certain countermeasures, the censorship of dissenting voices (including highly qualified scientists and doctors), and the profound shift toward digital health IDs and compliance systems that many nations tested during the pandemic years.

As governments once again speak of pandemics as inevitable and invest heavily in preparedness, citizens have every right to ask: What exactly are we preparing for and at what cost?

Are we laying the groundwork for another cycle of fear-driven policies, suppressed debate, and concentrated power?

3/11 Viral Takeover insists on asking the uncomfortable questions backed by primary documents. It serves as both a historical record and a cautionary analysis of how quickly exceptional measures can become normalised.

Before we commit another £1 billion of taxpayers’ money, and potentially far more in societal disruption, we must demand a full, honest reckoning with the documented failures of the last pandemic and the powerful interests that profited from it.

3/11 Viral Takeover is available now on Amazon in paperback, hardback, and Kindle formats.

Share

What began as a health emergency morphed into something far more profound: a coordinated test of global compliance, fear, and control.

I was thrilled to return to Redacted with Clayton Morris to discuss my new book 3/11 Viral Takeover: On March 11, 2020, a Pandemic was Declared and Our World Changed Forever. We unpacked the forensic timeline, from the WHO’s March 11 declaration to the mechanisms that locked societies down and silenced dissent.

I hope you enjoy watching the full interview!

Get your copy of 3/11 Viral Takeover today, available in Kindle, paperback, and hardcover!

Order Your Copy

Share

Yet the inquiry itself is strikingly cautious in its wording. The report never states outright that the slogan “cost lives” or “may have cost lives.” Instead, it uses measured, hedged language: “This suggests that the public messaging of Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives may have, inadvertently, sent the message that healthcare was closed.”

It notes that people were deterred from accessing care due to the slogan, fear of catching Covid in healthcare settings, or reluctance to burden the NHS. This resulted in plummeting non-Covid attendances, delayed diagnoses, increased ill-health and suffering, and risks of deterioration or death in some cases.

The Telegraph, however, went one step further in its headline and framing: “Covid stay-at-home order may have cost lives, inquiry finds.”

It highlights the relentless messaging, crafted by Cabinet Office officials, which conveyed that the NHS was effectively closed or too dangerous to use. People stayed away from A&E even for heart attacks, strokes and cancer symptoms. Non-Covid hospital attendances plummeted, diagnoses were delayed, and avoidable deaths mounted from other causes.

The report also condemns the harsh visiting restrictions that left dying patients isolated from their families, causing deep and lasting trauma. Most starkly, the inquiry addresses the scandal of the blanket DNACPR notices imposed on vulnerable groups: older people, those with learning disabilities, without proper individual assessment or family consultation. It states plainly that this “should not have happened.”

All these findings arrive six years too late, but they vindicate the forensic account I laid out in my book 3/11: Viral Takeover, particularly in Chapter 5: Locking Down Harms.

That chapter moves beyond abstract policy critique to confront the human cost: the silent suffering, the shattered lives, the “ethical blackouts” that lockdowns created and normalised. I humanise the statistics with personal stories, whistleblower testimony and official data to show the real, often irreversible damage inflicted on ordinary people.

Here are the key realities the chapter documents, now echoed (belatedly) by the inquiry:

• Excess non-Covid deaths and untreated illnesses. Lockdowns and the “Protect the NHS” campaign deterred people from seeking timely care for cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and other serious conditions. The result was thousands of avoidable deaths from causes unrelated to the virus, exactly the healthcare avoidance the inquiry now confirms.

• Mental health crisis and suicides. Spikes in suicides, severe depression, anxiety, and domestic abuse hit the young, the elderly, and the isolated hardest. Behavioural-science units and fear-amplified messaging from SAGE and the Behavioural Insights Team deliberately escalated terror to drive compliance, worsening the psychological fallout.

• Learning loss and impacts on children. School closures caused massive educational disruption, developmental delays, increased child poverty, and long-term harm to mental and physical health. Entire generations bear scars from enforced social isolation.

• Care home catastrophe and end-of-life abuses. The chapter details the silent deaths in care homes, the cruelty of visiting bans that robbed families of final moments with loved ones, and the blanket DNACPR notices applied to vulnerable groups without proper consultation. These were precisely the discriminatory practices the inquiry now calls unacceptable: outcomes of resource panic, fear-based protocols, and a system that prioritised biosecurity over basic humanity.

At the heart of the chapter is the concept of “ethical blackouts”: a moral detachment where policymakers, healthcare systems and society normalised extreme measures, downplayed foreseeable harms, and failed to recognise or address the devastation in real time. The inquiry’s admissions on DNACPR, visiting restrictions and messaging failures are partial acknowledgements of this blackout but my book shows how it was engineered from the start through weaponised fear, narrative control and the sidelining of dissent.

In the words of Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute and author of the book’s foreword: “The book is five years in the writing and includes a level of documentation that will amaze you…The result is a book for the ages, one that will end the whitewashing that is taking place right now. Indeed, the appearance of 3/11: Viral Takeover becomes on its publication date the most exhaustive and authoritative account of the UK experience to appear in print. It will likely be years before it is surpassed if it ever will be.”

Order your copy

Share

6 years later..the truth is exposed.

Amazon.com orders

Amazon.co.uk orders

Share

Releases worldwide on March 11, 2026

Pre-order on Amazon.com

“3/11 Viral Takeover by investigative journalist Sonia Elijah is a fearless, meticulously documented exposé that rips the veil off the coordinated global response to COVID-19. Drawing on FOIA documents, leaked emails, and expert interviews, Elijah dissects how unelected scientists, intelligence-linked philanthropies, and regulatory bodies shaped the ‘official’ origin story and ushered in a new era of biosecurity control. Combining forensic precision with moral urgency, this book redefines pandemic history—not as a health event, but as a blueprint for a technocratic takeover. A must-read for anyone who suspects the true contagion was not viral, but political.”

—Robert Malone, MD, MS. Physician and Scientist, Adjunct Professor, Vice Chair, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Sonia Elijah used a sword to cut through thickets of obfuscation that grew like a jungle around the truth of what occurred during the pandemic. Meticulous timelines supported by original documents describe how a bio-pharmaceutical complex arose, executing what was potentially the most lucrative business plan in human history. Be prepared to read every page to the very end.”

—Dr. Peter McCullough, New York Times bestselling author of Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex and Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology and Reality

“This masterful treatise by science journalist Sonia Elijah... is five years in the writing and includes a level of documentation that will amaze you. The result is a book for the ages...”

—Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute

”Viral Takeover is a fearless exposé that dismantles the official narrative of the COVID-19 pandemic with meticulous research and unyielding scrutiny. Sonia Elijah uncovers hidden truths—from the engineered origins of the virus and flawed PCR testing to the harms of rushed vaccines and the machinery of global censorship. Drawing on leaked documents, FOIA revelations, and expert interviews, this book is a vital indictment of power unchecked. Essential reading for anyone seeking thefacts behind the ‘once-in-a-century’ crisis.”

—Steve Kirsch, Founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation

“Sonia Elijah stands out as one of the very few journalists who, from the outset, recognized and courageously exposed the profound deceptions at the heart of the official covid narrative and response. Her book provides an invaluable, unflinching resource for those seeking a clear, evidence-based understanding of the mismanagement, cover-ups, and misplaced priorities that defined those years.”—Professor Norman Fenton, Emeritus Professor of Risk Queen Mary University of London

“One cannot talk about democracy and freedom in the Western world without talking about the glaring democratic deficit that exists in the form of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, scientists, lobbyists and social media organizations. Sonia Elijah’s excellent book takes a deep dive into how these actors can quickly come together in ‘lockstep’ by showing how they weaponized COVID-19 as a pretext to achieve their goals.”— Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., journalist

On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared a global pandemic and our world changed forever.

In 3/11 Viral Takeover, I deliver a forensic, evidence-based examination of the COVID-19 response that reshaped society. Drawing on thousands of pages of FOIA documents, leaked emails, scientific papers, whistleblower interviews, and my exclusive reporting, I expose the coordinated narrative that justified unprecedented lockdowns, flawed testing protocols, rushed vaccine authorizations, and widespread censorship.

My investigation begins with the early suppression of alternative views and the influential papers that locked in the natural-origin story amid growing lab-related concerns. I reveal how unelected scientists and pharma-linked philanthropies took control of policy, while a single deeply flawed model drove global lockdowns in lockstep, inflicting catastrophic harms through school closures, care-home neglect, and suppressed ethics.

I uncover the unvalidated PCR protocol, never intended for diagnosis, that became the multi-billion-dollar engine perpetuating lockdowns, alongside scandals like the California-based startup Innova’s £4 billion VIP lane for “not fit for purpose” Chinese-made rapid lateral flow tests.

The book traces mRNA technology’s Warp-Speed rise despite longstanding toxicity hurdles, the blacklisting of treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, leaked EMA emails exposing manufacturing flaws and political pressure, undisclosed DNA sequences in vaccines, regulators’ early awareness of harms, and deep dives into Pfizer’s clinical trial data and post-authorization adverse event reports.

Beyond the shots themselves, 3/11 Viral Takeover documents the machinery of censorship that silenced injured voices and inconvenient science, the biodefense-industrial complex fueling digital authoritarianism, and the repurposing of COVID-era controls into permanent biosecurity frameworks.

This book stands as my live indictment of a turning point still unfolding. Backed by rigorous documentation and a comprehensive timeline of facts, it challenges the official narrative and demands accountability.

If you’ve questioned the “follow the science” mantra, sought suppressed truths about COVID origins, vaccine technology, lockdown harms, or the erosion of freedoms, this uncensored deep dive is essential reading.

Pre-order today and it will be automatically delivered to your Kindle on release day, 3/11.

Paperback and hardcover editions will be available for purchase starting 3/11 release day.

Pre-order on Amazon.com

Share

At the end of last year, I had the privilege of speaking with Kevin McKernan, Jessica Rose, and David Speicher. Their pioneering research on uncovering shocking levels of DNA contamination in the Pfizer and Moderna shots has not only challenged the safety narrative but also ignited a firestorm of backlash, including retraction attempts.

In a chilling escalation, recently the Daily Mail covered another bombshell scandal: a major oncology journal, Oncotarget, falls victim to a cyber attack mere days after publishing a damning systematic review linking COVID shots to cancer cases worldwide.

Below is a summary of the interview’s key revelations, where the parallels become stark: a coordinated effort to silence inconvenient truths about these experimental shots.

The Discovery: DNA Fragments in the Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine Vials

The interview begins with the origins of their research. Kevin McKernan, a genomics expert, first identified DNA contamination in vaccine vials back in April 2023. This led to a preprint paper in October 2023, which faced criticism for using anonymous samples.

Kevin McKernan: “We got some anonymous vials and did some initial work on those. The number one critique was that you don’t know the source, someone could have contaminated them. So we got in touch with David [Speicher] and Maria [Gutschi], who had vials from Canada that were all cold-chained and tracked.”

To address concerns, the team expanded their study, testing more vials and using advanced methods. Their findings showed DNA levels far exceeding regulatory limits: up to 600 times higher in some cases, particularly in Moderna vials.

The paper, titled “Quantification of Residual Plasmid DNA in SV40 Promoter Enhancer Sequences in Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Mod RNA COVID-19 Vaccines from Ontario, Canada,” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Autoimmunity on September 6, 2025.

Measuring DNA: qPCR vs. Fluorometry Explained

A key point of contention is how DNA is measured. Regulators often use qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction), which targets specific DNA sequences, while the team used fluorometry for a broader view.

Sonia Elijah: “What is qPCR versus fluorometry? Regulators say there’s no issue because it’s under the 10 nanograms per dose limit.”

Kevin McKernan: “Fluorometry binds any double-stranded DNA. It will detect all sequences, including E. coli DNA. qPCR only targets specific pieces, like the kanamycin resistance gene, then extrapolates based on plasmid size but it misses E. coli DNA. David’s work showed varying levels across the plasmid: kanamycin or origin regions give one number, spike DNA is 100 times higher! You can’t assume uniform distribution. Regulators use qPCR on the kanamycin gene, which is lower than spike DNA, even though they have a spike assay.”

Fluorometry revealed higher contamination, even after treating samples with RNase to remove RNA interference. Critics argued about “crosstalk” (where dyes might detect RNA as DNA), but the team addressed this by validating their methods.

David Speicher: “Fluorometry is used to measure the RNA dose in the vaccines, so why frown upon it for DNA? We showed the dyes have low crosstalk, but we still used RNase to confirm.”

The SV40 promoter sequence, known for nuclear targeting and potential cancer risks, was a major concern. The team emphasized that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) protect DNA, making the old 10 ng limit outdated.

The Retraction Saga: PubPeer (PubSmear), Retraction Watch, and Conflicts of Interest

Just 11 days after publication, the paper came under investigation due to comments on PubPeer (dubbed “PubSmear” by the group) and complaints from reviewer Rolf Marschalek. The team uncovered a network involving PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and individuals with ties to vaccine funding. Retraction Watch leaked a review PDF, revealing Marschalek as the author, despite his conflict of interest, as their paper critiqued his work (Kaiser et al., Vaccine 2025, 55:127022).

Jessica Rose: “We got an email saying the paper was under investigation because of a PubPeer commenter. Ironically, the comment was fabricated, a made-up quote from a referenced paper by Klinman et al. The probe was prompted by that and Rolf Marschalek. It’s ongoing; on the 22nd, they added an ‘under investigation’ note.

On November 20, Retraction Watch emailed us, accidentally revealing they’d received a review (against COPE guidelines) and attached another PDF. Metadata showed [Rolf] Marschalek as author. It’s a scandal! A network paying $5,000 for retractions, targeting narrative-challenging papers. We have timelines and receipts showing guideline violations.”

Kevin McKernan: “Marschalek works at DFG in Germany, which invested 30 million euros in BioNTech and 300 million in COVAX. He shouldn’t have reviewed us. He claimed he rejected the paper, but the editor said he only suggested modifications.”

Funding links were exposed: PubPeer and Retraction Watch share backing from the Arnold Foundation (Enron ties).

Kevin McKernan: “They’re in cahoots. Retraction Watch points to PubPeer’s anonymous complaints, allowing sock-puppet attacks, and some critics boast about payments for retractions.”

David Speicher: “All this is U.S. tax-deductible. It’s a cartel. PubPeer rips papers apart anonymously, Retraction Watch publicizes it.”

The team responded with a 22-page rebuttal, but the process remains opaque. They suspect ideological bias, as similar scrutiny is not applied to pro-vaccine studies.

A Pattern of Suppression: From Retractions to Cyber Sabotage

The scientists discussed systemic issues, including how peer review originated from intelligence-linked figures like Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell’s father).

Kevin McKernan: “Peer review was a mechanism for influence capture. It’s a $40 billion market with better margins than Google, but it’s captured by pharma ads.”

They criticized regulators like Australia’s TGA for using flawed qPCR assays and ignoring spike DNA. Recent findings show methylated DNA and RNA-DNA hybrids, explaining high contamination.

Jessica Rose: “Every rock turned over reveals another issue. Attacks make our work better: they motivate us.”

The group proposes a decentralized alternative: peer-to-peer review on blockchain platforms like Nostr or Bitcoin, where reviewers are paid directly, bypassing gatekeepers.

Kevin McKernan: “Put papers on immutable ledgers. Pay reviewers the $3,000 journal fee instead. It creates competition and quality.”

They hope the new U.S. administration, including RFK Jr. and Sen. Ron Johnson, will investigate via RICO laws for racketeering.

The team is divided on retraction odds but united in resolve. Two follow-up papers are in progress, reinforcing their findings.

David Speicher: “It’s on the U.S. Congressional record. Retracting it now would expose bias.”

Jessica Rose: “If it gets retracted, it’ll raise a stink. We’re real scientists. We’ll keep publishing.”

Kevin McKernan: “Reproduction is key. Attacks breed distrust, but our data stands.”

As if to underscore the depths of this corruption, consider the recent cyberattack on the journal Oncotarget, which published a peer-reviewed paper by eminent Browns University cancer researcher Dr. Wafik El-Deiry and Tufts University cancer researcher Charlotte Kuperwasser.

Their study, released in early January 2026, reviewed global evidence from 2020–2025 linking COVID-19 vaccinations and infections to cancer signals, including 333 cases across 27 countries, where cancers were newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened shortly after vaccination.

Titled “Evaluation of Cancer Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination and Infection,” the paper challenged the narrative around vaccine safety by highlighting potential oncogenic (cancer-causing) risks, such as “turbo cancers.”

Mere days after publication, Oncotarget was hit by a sophisticated cyberattack that took the entire site offline, effectively censoring the paper. The journal reported the incident to the FBI, describing it as a “malicious cyberattack.” The attacks disrupted online publications and website access, with the journal alleging possible involvement from individuals linked to PubPeer (the so-called “PubSmear” network) in hacking, offline disruptions, and search result manipulation.

Dr. Wafik El-Deiry took to X to condemn the incident:

“Freedom of the Press is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
But Censorship is alive and well in the US and has come into medicine in a big awful way. The future is bleak if weaponized censorship in medicine continues to suppress any narratives that stand up to pharma, that expose inconvenient or suppressed truth.”

Critics, including those in the “PubSmear” network, have not only been quick to dismiss El-Deiry’s findings as unproven but have reportedly harassed him with daily attacks.

This is not isolated; it echoes the tactics we have seen in the suppression of vaccine-critical research. As with the interviewees’ work, this incident exposes how far powerful interests will go to protect the multi-billion-dollar mRNA technology narrative, resorting even to digital sabotage.

Furthermore, these disturbing findings on DNA contamination (including the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequences) do not stand in isolation. They directly intersect with the emerging evidence of cancer risks highlighted in Dr. El-Deiry’s groundbreaking review.

El-Deiry’s analysis of 333 temporal cancer cases post-vaccination strongly suggests that such contaminants warrant serious investigation as a plausible contributor to rapid-onset or progressive malignancies, often termed “turbo cancers.”

Together, these studies demand urgent, independent replication and scrutiny, far beyond the reach of smears, retractions, or cyberattacks.

If you appreciate the work I do as an investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

The CCDH report that made him infamous claimed that 13 (actually mislabelled as the “Disinformation Dozen”) individuals produced 65% of all anti-vaccine content. Meta’s own audit later found the true number was 0.05% – a 1,300-fold lie. President Biden accused them of “killing people,” the Surgeon General called them dangerous, and the Department of Homeland Security classified vaccine-safety dissent as potential domestic terrorism.

Ji’s journey began decades earlier. A chronically ill child saved by natural medicine, he spent years managing health-food stores in Florida and collating peer-reviewed research showing natural compounds often outperform drugs. In 2008 he launched GreenMedInfo.com, which now hosts ~100,000 studies on 10,000+ topics. As early as 2013, UNICEF and U.S. military IPs were monitoring the site; by 2020 the BBC-led Trusted News Initiative had ranked GreenMedInfo among “far-right extremist” outlets exploiting COVID.

In mid-2021, within months of the CCDH report, Ji and most of the listed individuals were simultaneously deplatformed from every major social network (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, even Linktree) despite audiences totalling millions. He describes this as the moment the open, organic Web 2.0 era ended and algorithmic narrative control was fully weaponized. Behind the censorship, Ji says, was transatlantic coordination:

• August 2021: the UK Foreign Office gave a censorship “masterclass” inside the Biden White House–revealed in documents obtained by American First Legal in its litigation against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

• NATO’s 2019 “tanks and tweets” doctrine officially equated dissenting speech with physical warfare.

• 2024 leaked CCDH documents revealed the organisation ran literal “black ops” against RFK Jr. during the U.S. election.

On a personal level, Ji and his then-wife (holistic psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Brogan, also on the list) were targeted by Charles Kriel’s 2022 “Dis/Informed” documentary. Kriel, who has deep ties to NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE), used photos of their child and portrayed maskless breathing as a terrorist threat. He describes death threats, reputational warfare, and pressure on loved ones so severe he still cannot fully disclose it.

“The more coherent and loving you remain, the less it works… Non-violent non-compliance and speaking truthfully is how we win.”

He sees the ultimate stakes as bodily and cognitive sovereignty. The multi-trillion-dollar biomedical–military–media complex cannot tolerate the message that the human body can largely heal itself. Vaccine passports, digital IDs, the UK Online Safety Act, EU Digital Services Act, and the breaking of end-to-end encryption are all steps toward a biosecurity control grid where medical compliance enforces total surveillance.

“We are in another 1776 moment… Humanity can still choose regeneration over control.”

Yet, Ji ends on a hopeful note: the United States remains the biggest obstacle to this new world order because of its founding principles. The 2024 election was a second 1776 moment. With transparency and accountability (starting with figures like CCDH’s Imran Ahmed, whom he accuses of acting as an unregistered foreign agent), a healthy, post-imperial US–UK relationship is still possible, and humanity can choose regeneration over control.

You can read all of Sayer’s highly informative articles on his Substack

If you appreciate the hard work I do as an independent investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

Source: Regional patterns of excess mortality in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: a state-level analysis

As the world grapples with surges in all-cause mortality, a disturbing pattern emerges: go…

Read more

Dr Clare Craig, a medical doctor, diagnostic pathologist and co-chair of the HART Group (Health Advisory & Recovery Team), has spent nearly three years attempting to obtain the data through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. In an exclusive interview, she laid bare the extraordinary lengths to which government bodies went to prevent public scrutiny.

What data was requested?

Dr Craig asked for nothing that could identify any individual:

• Only adults aged 20 and over

• 10-year age bands (the same used in official publications)

• Vaccination dates and death dates randomly shifted by a few days (a standard anonymisation technique)

• No names, no exact dates of birth, no postcodes, no causes of death

“This is about a population-level problem,” Dr Craig emphasised. “There is literally no way any individual could be identified from this dataset.”

The shifting excuses

The UKHSA initially refused on the grounds that randomising dates constituted “creating new data” – an argument demolished by existing case law. When that failed, the agency pivoted repeatedly:

• First: privacy concerns and risk of “jigsaw identification”

• Then: public safety – claiming release could cause “mental distress” to bereaved families or incite violence against doctors and scientists

• Finally: the surreal assertion that checking the data for re-identification risks would take one person 76 years to complete (a figure eerily identical to the FDA’s excuse for delaying Pfizer trial documents)

The tribunal ultimately accepted the “health and safety” argument – that the spreadsheet, if released, could somehow be misused by “anti-vaxxers” to harass relatives or fuel threats – despite no evidence being presented that this has ever happened anywhere in the world where similar data is public.

Secret hearings and cherry-picked evidence

Some parts of the case were heard in closed sessions from which Dr Craig was excluded. She were given only “gists” of the secret evidence presented to the judge. Most controversially, a witness statement from eminent psychotherapist Dr Christian Buckland – arguing that truth and transparency are psychologically protective and that openness prevents, rather than causes, distress – was ruled inadmissible and excluded from the official bundle. Astonishingly, the judge later quoted from the excluded statement in his written decision, selectively stitching together phrases to suggest the exact opposite of Dr Buckland’s professional opinion.

International comparisons expose the absurdity

While British authorities claim the data is too “dangerous” to release, other countries have published far more detailed record-level information without incident:

• The Czech Republic has had fully public, highly granular vaccination–death data available for years. Independent analyses have been conducted; no harassment, no violence, no mental-health crisis among the bereaved has ensued.

• A brand-new Royal Society Open Science paper (November 2025) on German regional data – where vaccination rates varied dramatically – clearly demonstrates higher all-cause mortality in highly vaccinated areas after 2021, using districts as their own historical controls.

Excess deaths and the disappearing statistics

Dr Craig highlighted the suspicious timing:

• In 2023 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) abruptly stopped publishing deaths by vaccination status – data that had started to show concerning trends.

• At almost exactly the same moment, the ONS introduced a new, highly complex excess-death baseline model that double-counts upward trends in age and region, artificially inflating “expected” deaths. The result: weeks that would previously have been flagged as clear excess now appear normal or even below expectation.

• Identical baseline hikes occurred simultaneously in Australia, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.

“By 2022 the virus was behaving like a common cold, lockdowns were over, and we should have seen a mortality deficit as the frail had sadly already passed away in 2020–21,” Dr Craig explained. “Instead we saw persistent excess deaths – highest in the most heavily vaccinated countries and regions.”

A dam of public suspicion

The Telegraph’s coverage of the tribunal ruling attracted more than 1,500 reader comments – almost unanimously expressing alarm and demanding transparency. The handful defending the official line were drowned out. Dr Craig believes the case may ultimately achieve more through publicity than the data itself would have done:

“I wanted the spreadsheet, but the fact that the government fought this hard, using secret courts and ever-more outlandish excuses, tells its own story. Lack of transparency breeds suspicion. They have made a massive strategic error.”

She remains resolute: “The conversation has to be had now. People are no longer paralysed by fear. They are ready to listen.”

Whether the UK government can continue to suppress basic mortality data in the face of mounting public anger remains to be seen. For now, the door has been slammed shut – but the noise on the other side is growing louder.

If you appreciate the hard work I do as an independent investigative journalist, please consider supporting me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

This article has been updated to include UK tribunal’s 27-page decision in upholding UKHSA’s refusal for data disclosure and my analysis.

The UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has recently been expo…

Read more

This article has been updated.

The UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has recently been exposed for its blatant refusal to release critical data that could reveal a potential link between Covid-19 sh…

Read more

In a pivotal shift, Denmark’s Veterinary and Food Administration has issued new guidance: Farmers can immediately suspend Bovaer administration if they “suspect” it poses…

Read more

Article updated: November 4

Since October 1, 2025, when many Danish dairy farmers began incorporating the synthetic additive Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol) i…

Read more

On 30 July, I submitted the following Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the UK Government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)—the ministry that now houses the rebran…

Read more

Aukema’s innovative dashboards, built to make public pharmacovigilance data accessible and navigable, have empowered patients, doctors, and researchers to uncover critical insights into adverse events linked to medications, including the COVID shots. However, just days before his scheduled presentation, Aukema received a bombshell email from the EMA, demanding he delete his dashboards and all associated data—a move he describes as legal pressure that feels like censorship.

Aukema’s journey began with a mission to simplify access to the EMA’s EudraVigilance system, a public database housing millions of adverse event reports for medicinal products, including vaccines. Frustrated by the system’s complexity, which restricts users to viewing data for one product at a time, Aukema developed software—initially inspired by a tool from French scientists—to download and aggregate the entire dataset. His Tableau dashboards, a product of this effort, present a holistic view of adverse event reports across 6,000 medicinal products, including the COVID shots.

“The power of the dashboards,” Aukema explained, “is that it shows the reporting on all 6,000 different medicinal products, substances, vaccines, including the COVID vaccines.”

One of his most shocking findings was that the most reported adverse event for the COVID shots in the EudraVigilance system was, astonishingly, COVID-19 itself. Aukema also uncovered that adverse event reports for these vaccines dwarfed those for other drugs and vaccines over the past two decades—a finding he attributes partly to the sheer scale of global vaccination campaigns but one that raises questions about the safety profile of these shots.

Aukema’s dashboards include a “case locator” tool, which allows patients, doctors, or family members who file adverse event reports to verify how their submissions are recorded in the EMA’s system. This tool proved invaluable when Aukema filed a report on behalf of a family member hospitalized with acute pancreatitis following a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. To his dismay, he discovered the case was misclassified in the EMA database, with the critical detail of hospitalization omitted and marked instead as “other,” a far less severe designation. After confronting the Dutch authority, LAREB, they admitted the error and promised to correct it. Aukema revealed that “dozens of people” who used his case locator found similar errors in their reports, ranging from missing side effects to misattributions of who reported the case—issues that could undermine the credibility of pharmacovigilance data.

But Aukema’s efforts to bring transparency to this public data have come at a cost. Just a day before his conference presentation, he discovered an email from the EMA in his spam folder, with a subject line that sent chills: “Request to immediately delete non-public information originating from the EudraVigilance system and made available on the dashboards you have on Tableau Public.”

The EMA claimed that Aukema’s dashboards, which include worldwide unique case identifiers and country-of-origin data, pose an “indirect” risk of identifying patients, a claim he finds baffling. “I have no access to patients’ birth dates or names,” he insisted. “Even if that data was available, I would never have downloaded it. My objective is to gather insights on patterns, not to find people.” The EMA’s letter not only demanded the deletion of Aukema’s dashboards but also urged him to destroy all data collected over years of work and ensure third parties do the same—a responsibility he finds absurd. Forced to comply, Aukema spent hours until 4 a.m. redacting his conference presentation to avoid sharing the contested data, a decision he made out of respect for the EMA’s concerns, even if he doesn’t fully agree.

“It comes across as a form of legal pressure,” he admitted. “My initial reaction is I’m being censored.” This isn’t the first time Aukema has faced pushback. In a 2022 interview on Dutch YouTube channel Blackbox, he highlighted the mysterious disappearance of 40% of serious adverse event cases from the EudraVigilance system over time. The EMA’s press office responded by accusing him of “misleading allegations” without clarifying what he got wrong or engaging in dialogue. “They didn’t correct me,” Aukema said. “They just accused me.”

This pattern of dismissal, coupled with the recent legal letter, raises questions about the EMA’s commitment to transparency, especially when their public database is touted as a hallmark of openness. Aukema contrasts the EMA’s approach with the U.S. pharmacovigilance systems, like VAERS, which freely share detailed case narratives and even state-of-residence data without apparent privacy concerns. “I do not understand why I’m not allowed to know whether a patient came from Germany, Poland, or Holland, whereas in the U.S., they have no problem sharing the state of residence,” he said. The EMA’s insistence that country-of-origin data could indirectly identify patients seems inconsistent, particularly when Aukema’s dashboards require a case identifier—accessible only to the reporter—to be useful. When asked what he believes the EMA’s true fears are, Aukema hesitated to speculate beyond the stated privacy concerns but expressed a willingness to engage in open dialogue. “I’m more than happy to have a debate with them,” he said, noting that his redacted presentation demonstrates his goodwill. Yet, the timing and tone of the EMA’s demands suggest an attempt to silence a researcher whose work has exposed uncomfortable truths about the COVID shots.

The full EMA letter can be viewed below.

If you find value in the work I do, please consider a paid subscription or make a one-off donation.

Share

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee