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 Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and former Chief Medical Advisor to the President, covering December 2019 through December 2022, along with additional Slack messages from the Proximal Origin authors and related records.

The release comes just days before Fauci is due to testify under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29.

The headlines are striking: as early as 31 January 2020, Fauci was privately told by leading virologists that the furin cleavage site raised serious doubts about a natural origin, with roughly half the scientists on the key call believing the virus looked “constructed.” His own notes record that the wet market was already viewed as an “amplifier,” not the source. Privately, he and his allies grappled with lab-origin possibilities; publicly, they insisted the science was settled against it.

These revelations are important. They are also not new.

In the opening chapters of my book, 3/11: Viral Takeover, I provide a forensic reconstruction of exactly this critical window (late January to mid-February 2020) when a small group of elite scientists, funders, and senior health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, privately confronted evidence that the virus looked engineered, then publicly shut the debate down. Drawing on thousands of pages of FOIA-released emails, Slack messages, scientific papers, and contemporaneous records, Chapters 1 and 2 document the private communications that shaped the official narrative months before the diary entries were made public.

The Three Pillar Papers

Chapter One, “Locking in the Narrative,” dissects the three foundational publications that cemented the zoonotic hypothesis:

• The 19 February 2020 Lancet joint statement condemning “conspiracy theories” of a non-natural origin (signed by 27 scientists, 26 of whom had ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or its funders).

• Nature Medicine’s “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” (17 March 2020), which declared: “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

• The September 2021 Cell review by many of the same authors, reiterating there was “currently no evidence” of a laboratory origin.

These papers were not produced in isolation. Behind them lies a trove of private communications that paint a very different picture.

The Emails and Slack Messages

On 31 January 2020, Kristian Andersen, who would become lead author of Proximal Origin, wrote to Fauci and Jeremy Farrar:

“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered. … Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

The next day, an emergency teleconference was convened by Farrar (then director of the Wellcome Trust). Participants included Fauci, Francis Collins, Andersen, Robert Garry, Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Christian Drosten, Ron Fouchier, and others. Slack messages exchanged immediately afterward between Rambaut and Andersen are revealing. Rambaut wrote:

“Given the shit show that would happen if anyone seriously accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape, so we are content with ascribing it to a natural process.”

Andersen replied:

“I hate when politics is injected into science—but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances.”

Farrar himself later admitted privately (in an unredacted email to Fauci and Collins on 2 February):

“On a spectrum if 0 is nature and 100 is released—I am honestly at 50!”

Yet within weeks, the Proximal Origin paper, whose drafting Farrar actively “micro-managed” and edited, changing wording from “unlikely” to “improbable,” became the scientific gold standard used by Fauci, the media, and governments worldwide to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis.

Fauci’s own emails from those days are equally striking. On 1 February he urgently forwarded the 2015 Baric-Shi Nature Medicine gain-of-function paper (renaming the attachment “Baric, Shi et al- Nature medicine-SARS Gain of function”) to his deputy Hugh Auchincloss with the subject line “IMPORTANT,” noting a conference call with HHS Secretary Azar. He expressed concern about the furin cleavage site and even raised the possibility of involving intelligence agencies. These are not cherry-picked fragments. They form a coherent pattern of private acknowledgment followed by public foreclosure of debate. Exactly the kind of coordinated narrative management I document throughout Chapters One and Two.

Why It Still Matters

Chapter Two, “Cracks in the Narrative,” examines the simultaneous appearance and rapid withdrawal of the Pradhan et al. preprint identifying HIV-like inserts (including the novel furin cleavage site), the subsequent scientific pushback, and the continuing revelations about EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal, NIAID funding of WIV-related work, and conflicts of interest that were never fully disclosed at the time. The point is not to claim final proof of laboratory origin. It is to show that the natural-origin story was not the product of open scientific inquiry. It was manufactured through politics, conflicts of interest, institutional self-protection, and then enforced as orthodoxy.

3/11: Viral Takeover is five years of investigative work. It is grounded in primary documents, FOIA releases, exclusive interviews, and rigorous sourcing. The first two chapters alone contain one of the most detailed public reconstruction yet of the emails and Slack messages that shaped the origins debate.

The book is available in paperback, hardcover, eBook.

An audio version is also available for those who prefer to listen.

Share

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

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 Misleading Information: An Evidence Summary and Map for Policy and Practice” was commissioned by the Government Office for Science and conducted as part of Behavioural Research UK (BR-UK).

Notably, BR-UK Co-Director Professor Susan Michie was a leading voice in Independent SAGE and the Government’s SPI-B group during COVID-19, consistently advocating prolonged lockdowns and behavioural controls that caused catastrophic social, educational and economic damage.

The report was authored primarily by academics from the University of Sheffield and the University of Edinburgh. It synthesises (or claims to) 228 academic papers while admitting that not all full texts were reviewed due to time constraints. Ironically, while the report identifies AI-generated content as a major and growing source of false and misleading information, the authors themselves used AI chatbots to help produce the summaries of the evidence they cite.

Its central argument is that “the spread of false and misleading information… is one of the most pressing challenges facing governments and societies worldwide.” The report underscores the scale of this concern by citing the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report (2026), which draws on the views of over 1,300 experts, leaders, and policymakers. Certain narratives, it argues, should be treated as “false and misleading information” capable of “causing harm,” and the state should prioritise tackling those harms rather than focusing on the speaker’s intent. Among the categories flagged are “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives,” including claims that schools and public authorities have been captured by gender ideology, or questions about biological males in women’s sport.

Source: The Telegraph

Other targets include electoral fraud claims, “institutional delegitimisation” of the EU, and immigration-related statements about migrant entitlements or crime. It is worth pointing out that while the report casts statements about migrant crime as potential “misinformation,” the Ministry of Justice has been working to block the publication of official data on convictions by nationality. Following a Freedom of Information request by the Centre for Migration Control for breakdowns of convictions (including violence, sexual offences, and other serious crimes) by nationality between 2018 and 2024, the Information Commissioner’s Office ordered the data to be disclosed. However, the MoJ appealed that ruling, prompting accusations of a cover-up.

The report’s own data underscores how central some of these topics have become. Table 4.3 (seen below) shows that “LGBTQ+ & gender issues” appeared in 43 out of 56 months (76.8% prevalence) and is classified as “High,” while “Immigration” featured in 50 out of 56 months (89.3%) and is labelled “Constant.” Health-related content (including COVID-19) was present every single month.

This framing turns high-frequency public debate on gender and immigration into evidence of a persistent “misinformation” problem requiring state attention.

The report also places particular emphasis on individual-level harms, especially those linked to health. It states: “Vaccine hesitancy represents one of the most extensively documented individual-level harms. The WHO named vaccine hesitancy one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019 (Löffler, 2021). Zhao et al. (2023), synthesising 91 observational and 11 interventional studies, found that COVID-19 vaccine misinformation prevalence ranged from 2.5% to 55.4% in the general population, rising to 6.0% to 96.7% among vaccine-hesitant groups, illustrating how misinformation exposure concentrates among already-vulnerable populations.”

This framing continues the pandemic-era approach of treating scepticism or dissent on medical interventions as a primary public-health threat, even as the report itself notes that false and misleading content has now expanded far beyond COVID-19.

It structures the issue of false and misleading information around three main pillars, as shown in its own evidence map.

Source: Evidence map from False and Misleading Information: An Evidence Summary and Map for Policy and Practice (May 2026).

The recent Government report is not neutral science. It is a selective, ideologically loaded framework that reframes legitimate debate as a “systemic national risk.” The authors call for new “statutory frameworks,” greater monitoring, and a shift toward policing effects rather than intent. “11 experts working in the field of false and misleading information” reviewed the report beforehand. However, none appear to have challenged its alarmist assumptions or its willingness to draw on research from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the infamous Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

CCDH: The NGO That Specialises in Weaponising “Hate” and “Misinformation”

CCDH presents itself as a non-partisan fighter against online hate and disinformation. In reality, it has a documented history of producing flawed, high-impact reports that pressure platforms into deplatforming dissenters, often with political connections that should raise alarm bells.

Co-founded with involvement from Morgan McSweeney, CCDH has deep Labour ties. McSweeney, a longtime Labour strategist who later became Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, served as a founding director of CCDH. The organisation has also shared a London address with Labour Together, the influential group McSweeney previously directed.

In February 2026, McSweeney resigned from his role as Sir Keir’s chief of staff after taking “full responsibility” for advising the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States. Mandelson was later removed from the post once the depth of his links to the Jeffrey Epstein (the American financier and convicted sex offender who ran a sex-trafficking network involving underage girls) became clearer.

The CCDH has long focused on branding critics of official narratives as dangerous. Its infamous 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” report claimed a tiny group of individuals , including RFK Jr., produced the bulk of “anti-vaxx” content online.

Notably, Meta’s own subsequent audit found the true figure was orders of magnitude lower, a 1,300-fold exaggeration. That report nevertheless helped trigger mass deplatforming, White House rhetoric about people “killing” others with speech, and even domestic terrorism framing by US authorities.

Source: BBC News

Leaked internal documents later revealed CCDH’s strategic priority of “Kill Musk’s Twitter,” shorthand for campaigns to starve X of advertising revenue and pressure regulators.

CCDH has openly taken credit for its role in shaping major online regulation. In a January 2024 blog post titled “Our campaigning resulted in the Online Safety Act in the UK,” the organisation stated that it campaigned for the legislation from the beginning and that its CEO Imran Ahmed was the first witness to the parliamentary pre-legislative committee. CCDH has also been active in advocacy around the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), focusing on its implementation and enforcement.

Inoculating against dissent

Notably, the government report strongly endorses “prebunking,” describing it as a “first line of defence.” Table 6.3 (shown below) defines it as:

“Proactively building cognitive resistance before exposure to false and misleading information by using weakened forms of misleading arguments, alongside preemptive refutations or clear guidance on how to identify propaganda.”

It elaborates that this typically involves a forewarning that manipulation will be attempted, plus a preemptive counter-argument. The report presents both “passive” and “active” forms of psychological inoculation and cites multiple meta-analyses claiming positive effects.

Of particular note is the report’s reference to Go Viral, a game-based inoculation tool that was “developed in collaboration with the UK Government Communication Service as part of a public health misinformation response to COVID-19.” This is the same psychological inoculation approach, including the Go Viral game itself, I examined in detail in my earlier investigation, NATO’s Mind “Games”—Inoculating Dissent? My report detailed how NATO and aligned institutions have long promoted “inoculating” the public against narratives they classify as misinformation.

What began as a strategic communications and military-influenced technique for “inoculating” populations against inconvenient narratives has now been formally recommended in a UK government evidence review as domestic policy, complete with calls for “booster” interventions to maintain its effects.

The Pattern Continues

This is all part of a broader and disturbing shift towards institutionalised censorship and narrative control. Just recently, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s green paper Watch This Space proposes forcing social media platforms to prioritise “trustworthy” news sources, explicitly naming the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. In practice, this would hand the state greater influence over which media organisations are amplified and which are marginalised.

What we are seeing in the Government’s latest “evidence review” is not a new phenomenon. It is the institutionalisation of a playbook that has been refined over several years: activist research laundered through official channels, selective definitions of harm, and the steady expansion of state and NGO power over the information space. It is the same machinery of censorship that accelerated after March 11, 2020, which I document in 3/11 Viral Takeover.

When the state decides in advance which observations about biology, migration, elections, or public health constitute “harmful misinformation,” the result is not social cohesion. It is enforced orthodoxy, deep public distrust, and the disturbing criminalisation of dissent.

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

A huge thank you to everyone who tuned in, shared, and supported the conversation. Your engagement made a real difference.

In the interview we dig into the core themes of the book: the coordinated narrative that justified unprecedented lockdowns, the behavioural science and fear messaging used to drive compliance, the flawed testing protocols, the rushed novel gene-based injections, the censorship networks that targeted dissenting scientists and alternative voices, and the broader push toward digital ID, vaccine passports and what I call digital authoritarianism.

We also examine the UK COVID Inquiry as an expensive illusion of accountability, the involvement of units such as the Counter Disinformation Unit and the 77th Brigade, the massive transfer of wealth during those years, and why proper scrutiny of the decisions made since March 2020 is still essential.

Watch the full interview here:

3/11: Viral Takeover is five years of forensic investigative work distilled into an evidence-based chronicle (over 900 citations from primary sources). It is not a postmortem but a live indictment of events that continue to unfold.

The book is available on Amazon and from all major online booksellers.

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon US

Amazon Canada

If this work resonates with you, please share the interview and leave a review for the book.

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

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 targeted critics of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and passports.

Drawing on extensive FOI requests, subject access reports, whistleblower testimony and internal documents, Silkie Carlo’s statement reveals how the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), Rapid Response Unit (RRU) and the 77th Brigade (a British Army unit focused on information operations and psychological warfare) targeted elected MPs, scientists, journalists, human rights advocates, and ordinary citizens.

Carlo, Director of Big Brother Watch, submitted the evidence on 19 November 2024. Yet the Inquiry only published it on 30 June 2026. A delay of nearly 20 months. Even more shocking, her statement was neither referenced nor included in Baroness Hallett’s Module 4 report on vaccines and therapeutics (published in April 2026). When challenged, the Inquiry called it an “administrative oversight.” Carlo has accused them of deliberately “burying” the evidence to maintain the illusion of accountability.

Logically AI: The Controversial Contractor at the Heart of the Surveillance

At the heart of the revelations in Silkie Carlo’s witness statement lies the UK government’s use of the British firm Logically (an AI-assisted disinformation monitoring company), which secured millions in taxpayer-funded contracts, including over £1.2 million from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) to support the Counter Disinformation Unit’s covert monitoring operations aimed at building “a comprehensive picture of potentially harmful misinformation and disinformation.”

The company produced regular “Covid Mis/Disinformation” reports that monitored and recorded lawful speech. Carlo’s statement highlights how Logically’s reports captured Big Brother Watch staff criticising COVID vaccine passports and mandatory certification. One example involved a talkRADIO interview clip and a parliamentary petition, both entirely lawful advocacy.

Carlo writes:

“It is an abuse of ‘counter disinformation’ remit for a private company to secretly monitor, record and report to government officials mainstream, lawful and accurate political dissent from recognised human rights advocates, or indeed anyone, under the guise of tackling ‘disinformation’.”

The RRU and 77th Brigade: Behavioural Nudging Meets Military Surveillance

Carlo’s witness statement further exposes the role of the Rapid Response Unit (RRU), which operated out of the Cabinet Office and worked hand-in-glove with contractors to coordinate the flagging of content to social media platforms while running behavioural influence operations targeting “vaccine hesitancy.”

Internal emails show officials pressuring newspapers not for factual inaccuracies, but for potential effects on “compliance.” Journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer was wrongly branded a “vaccine sceptic” in an RRU report shared internationally.

Military involvement through the 77th Brigade was particularly alarming. The unit, which conducts information operations, publicly supported Covid-19 counter-misinformation efforts following an announcement by General Sir Nick Carter in April 2020. By November 2020, it was revealed to be assisting the RRU on vaccination-related work. After public scrutiny, the Ministry of Defence claimed soldiers were not deployed against UK citizens:

“Defence are supporting the Cabinet Office to tackle disinformation and hostile state narratives which seek to undermine the UK’s reputation. All work is internationally focused, and the military do not and have never conducted any kind of action against British citizens.”

Carlo’s investigation, however, proved otherwise. A 77th Brigade whistleblower described the operation as unskilled and oriented around “the day’s political news and public opinions of the government’s performance.” He recounted how team leaders dictated Twitter keyword searches, often based on that day’s newspapers. Screenshots of tweets expressing domestic dissatisfaction, such as Labour activists criticising inadequate ventilator supplies, were compiled into slide packs and sent to the Cabinet Office. Feedback from the Cabinet Office then directed the next day’s searches, creating a clear political feedback loop.

The whistleblower stated these posts “did not contain information that was untrue or co-ordinated — it was simply fear and domestic dissent.” He further alleged that legal concerns were bypassed through “wilful ignorance,” treating UK-based accounts as potential foreign agents unless they explicitly stated their nationality. FOI documents and a March 2020 presentation confirmed UK citizens were monitored, directly contradicting the Ministry of Defence’s assurances.

Flagging for Backdoor Censorship

These secretive units acted as “trusted flaggers,” escalating content to platforms for removal. X (formerly Twitter) later confirmed that 58% of CDU referrals during the pandemic did not breach its terms of service. Yet the system generated a strong presumption of enforcement.

Carlo states:

“It is my belief, based on research spanning over two years, that the Government carried out a system of de facto secret, extrajudicial censorship of lawful domestic speech… in a manner similar to the way the Government deals with illegal terror content.”

This bypassed judicial oversight and UK human rights protections (Articles 8 and 10 ECHR) by outsourcing censorship to foreign corporations, with vague definitions of “harmful” content and almost no independent oversight.

As Carlo powerfully concludes in her statement:

“Censorship never benefits science, rather, it benefits power… An informed and lawful approach to mis/disinformation must start with an understanding of the importance of freedom of speech both for democracy and public health — such an understanding was missing during the pandemic.”

Broader Context: High-Profile Targets and Political Connections

The surveillance apparatus described in Carlo’s statement extended to high-profile sceptics and commentators critical of official pandemic policies. Logically’s UK head of investigations, Joe Ondrack, provided quotes to multiple major outlets framing Russell Brand as a dangerous spreader of misinformation. This occurred in the same period that Caroline Dinenage (then Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee) wrote to platforms expressing concern about Brand’s ability to “profit” from his content, shortly after the 2023 Sunday Times / Channel 4 Dispatches documentary “Russell Brand: In Plain Sight”.

Her letter to the Director of Government Relations at TikTok can be read below.

Later, in response to constituents who raised concerns about her intervention, Dinenage insisted: “I did not request or suggest that other media sites demonetise Mr Brand.”

An example of her response can be read below.

It is worth pointing out that Dinenage, who served as Digital and Culture Minister during the height of the pandemic (directly overseeing the Counter Disinformation Unit), is married to Lord Mark Lancaster, a former senior British Army officer who served as Deputy Commander of the 77th Brigade. The very unit whose covert domestic surveillance of lockdown and vaccine critics is exposed in Carlo’s statement and Big Brother Watch’s investigations.

The Deeper Pattern Exposed

All of these revelations form part of a much larger story. In my book 3/11 Viral Takeover: On March 11, 2020, a Pandemic was Declared and Our World Changed Forever, I forensically document how the WHO’s pandemic declaration on 3/11 unleashed a coordinated global infrastructure of narrative control, behavioural manipulation, and the systematic silencing of dissent.

The long-delayed publication of Carlo’s statement, and its complete omission from the official Module 4 report, is itself a stark example of the very problem I exposed. From the earliest suppression of lab-leak questions and alternative treatments to the aggressive shielding and promotion of the rapid mRNA “vaccine” rollout and the weaponisation of “misinformation” labels, this was never merely about public health.

It was always about power and control.

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

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 NHS staff poorly protected at the height of the crisis.

The Module 5 Report reads: “Of the approximately £14.9 billion spent on PPE by the UK government and devolved administrations, nearly two-thirds – almost £10 billion – was wasted.”

It also lays bare the scale of the failures. Pre-pandemic contingency plans were never properly stress-tested. Officials were forced to improvise emergency systems in days. A “VIP lane” (high priority lane) gave preferential treatment to suppliers with political connections. However, the Chair, Baroness Hallett, stated there was “no evidence of cronyism or corruption” by ministers or other officials when awarding the final contracts. There is clear irony in this statement, given that under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiry’s own remit, Baroness Hallett’s team cannot make any findings of civil or criminal liability. They are structurally prevented from assigning legal fault.

Notably, despite Module 5 explicitly including the procurement of testing equipment (PCR and rapid antigen tests), the final report contains no mention whatsoever of Innova Medical Group, the single largest and most controversial Covid testing contract of the entire pandemic. This is a striking omission, especially considering the Inquiry itself has already cost the taxpayer over £100 million so far, with the final bill expected to climb much higher.

The Innova Scandal the Inquiry Completely Ignored

In my book 3/11 Viral Takeover, I detail how an unknown company set up conveniently around the time of 3/11 (March 2020), Innova Medical Group, founded by Chinese-American businessman Dr. Charles Huang (wanted for economic crimes in China) through his private equity vehicle Pasaca Capital, secured over £4 billion in UK government contracts for rapid antigen tests.

• Huang’s firm supplied hundreds of millions (eventually over a billion) of Chinese-manufactured tests via fast-tracked deals.

• These were rolled out for mass asymptomatic screening despite emerging evidence of poor real-world performance and before the UK government even knew they worked.

• In June 2021, the US FDA issued a Class 1 recall, urging the public to “place them in the trash” due to inadequate performance validation and risks of false results. The UK, by contrast, doubled down, extending approvals and continuing widespread use.

Huang has claimed the UK contracts generated around £1.6 billion in profits for his companies. However, he and Pasaca have faced significant scrutiny and legal accusations, including claims of squandering millions on luxury private jets, high-end properties, and other personal investments while questions swirled about value for money to UK taxpayers. Multiple court cases have involved Innova/Pasaca and Huang related to these contracts and business dealings.

This represents one of the most extraordinary transfers of public money during the pandemic, enabled by the same VIP-lane urgency now criticised in the PPE inquiry.

Five years ago, I was on TalkTV discussing with Mark Dolan this major scandal that I first uncovered in my original investigative series on Innova for The Conservative Woman. The interview can be watched below.

If this investigative reporting matters to you, please support me with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

Order your copy of 3/11 Viral Takeover (available in Kindle eBook, paperback, and hardcover) here:

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Recently, I sat down in person with Bret Weinstein on the DarkHorse Podcast for an in depth discussion. We explored the parallels between 9/11 and 3/11, the mechanisms of mass compliance, the blueprint for censorship, and the enduring questions about origins, policies, and accountability.

Watch the full DarkHorse episode for the unfiltered conversation. Bret’s insights add tremendous depth.

Buy your copy of 3/11 Viral Takeover (available in Kindle eBook, paperback, and hardcover)

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Share

The tragic knife attacks and subsequent unrest are providing the perfect pretext for tighter online controls, expanded censorship, and rushed amendments to the Online Safety Act. What’s framed as “public protection” is rapidly becoming real-time monitoring, faster takedowns, and broader labelling of dissent as “incitement” or “disinformation.”

This isn’t just about protecting children. It’s laying the groundwork for mandatory age verification, biometric data collection, digital IDs, and pervasive state surveillance across the population. Once the infrastructure is built for “youth safety,” it expands.

Together, these two issues reveal a coordinated push: use public outrage and genuine safety concerns to justify unprecedented levels of online control and identification.

The COVID-era censorship playbook is being updated for the 2026 “public order” era.

Watch the full interview.

If this investigative reporting matters to you, please support independent journalism with a paid subscription or buy me a coffee!

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee

Share

Buy your copy of 3/11 Viral Takeover (available in Kindle eBook, paperback, and hardcover)

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

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

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 …

Read more

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…

Read more