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 vaccines, particularly AstraZeneca’s viral vector shot. These decisions pierce the veil of impunity that has shielded governments and pharmaceutical giants across the West.

For years, official narratives insisted the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective,” with serious harms casually dismissed as rare, coincidental, or unworthy of meaningful redress. Yet in Greece, courts are applying constitutional principles of equality and social solidarity to affirm a powerful truth: when the state orchestrates a mass inoculation campaign, it assumes responsibility for the devastating burdens placed on some citizens. This is genuine no-fault accountability rooted in justice, not the pharma-friendly no-fault schemes seen in the UK, US and Australia that routinely deliver pennies on the pound while shielding manufacturers.

The €300,000 Precedent: A Thrombosis Death and State Liability

On 17 April 2026, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens ordered the Greek State to pay €300,000 in total compensation to the family of a woman who died from a thrombotic episode, specifically thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), following AstraZeneca vaccination. The breakdown: €120,000 to her husband and €90,000 to each of two daughters.

The court established a direct causal link with high probability: close temporal proximity, absence of other risk factors, supporting medical evidence, and peer-reviewed literature on this known rare side effect. AstraZeneca itself had admitted in UK court filings that its vaccine “can, in very rare cases, cause TTS.”

Crucially, the judges rejected the government’s defence that vaccination was “voluntary.” They recognised the totality of pressures, including mandates for over-60s with fines, healthcare worker requirements, and vaccine passports restricting daily life, which rendered participation effectively coercive in practice. The harm was deemed an “excessive sacrifice” for the collective good, violating constitutional equality (Article 4) and the principle that public burdens must be shared, not disproportionately inflicted on individuals.

Regional authorities escaped liability for merely following central directives, and AstraZeneca was cleared because no “product defect” was proven in this specific case. The State, as the orchestrator and promoter of the campaign, bore the responsibility.

Earlier Victory: €50,000 for Serious Side Effects

This builds on a 2025 ruling, where the same court awarded €50,000 in moral damages to a 40-year-old man who suffered thrombosis and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) post-AstraZeneca. Causation was deemed “probable” via temporal link, Yellow Card-style reports, and WHO criteria. The plaintiff sought far more, but the award affirmed the State’s constitutional duty.

These cases rest on a 2021 Council of State precedent, which established that serious side effects from state-sponsored vaccines trigger compensation obligations, even without proof of negligence or defect.

International Echoes: Other Courts Holding States Accountable

Greece is not alone. In Germany, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that liability for vaccine injuries under public programmes rests with the state, not individual doctors. In South Korea, courts have ordered compensation in multiple cases, including a fatal brain haemorrhage linked to vaccination. In India, the Supreme Court has directed the government to establish a proper no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events.

In the UK, however, courts have stopped short of holding the State directly liable. Dozens of families are pursuing product liability claims against AstraZeneca in the High Court, where the company has admitted its vaccine can cause TTS in “rare cases.” Yet here lies the elephant in the room: governments granted manufacturers sweeping indemnity, meaning any successful claims against AstraZeneca would ultimately be paid by taxpayers, not the company. The government indemnified AstraZeneca during rollout, shielding Big Pharma from meaningful financial risk while ordinary citizens bear the devastating costs. Meanwhile, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme remains woefully inadequate, a flat £120,000 payout only for those deemed at least 60 percent disabled, with thousands of claims rejected. The UK COVID-19 Inquiry has called for urgent reform, but no constitutional-style rulings forcing direct state compensation have emerged.

In the United States, sweeping PREP Act immunity has largely protected manufacturers and providers from direct liability lawsuits, funnelling injured parties into the notoriously inadequate Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). Because the Covid shots were rushed out under the PREP Act as “countermeasures” during the declared public health emergency, victims are denied access to the far better Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). With over 14,000 claims filed, only a tiny fraction have received compensation, often just a few thousand dollars. Courts have consistently upheld this broad federal shield, with no rulings imposing constitutional-style state accountability akin to Greece. Efforts to move COVID vaccines into the regular Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) continue through litigation, but manufacturers remain largely insulated.

Why This Matters: Cracks in the Global Impunity Wall

Greece lacks a dedicated no-fault compensation fund like America’s VICP. Claims proceed through administrative courts, demanding rigorous evidence of causation. Success is not guaranteed, but these precedents are potent.

This Greek case law mirrors precisely what I exposed in my book 3/11 Viral Takeover: the rushed authorisations despite clear safety signals, the systematic suppression of harms, and the cynical weaponisation of “public good” to dismantle informed consent and individual rights. Regulators and governments aggressively promoted these novel products under emergency conditions, with woefully inadequate safety data while actively silencing dissenting voices and the vaccine-injured.

The Greek rulings (and parallel decisions abroad) acknowledge what inquiries like the UK’s Module 4 Report whitewash: when states exert massive pressure to vaccinate, they cannot wash their hands of the consequences. The “small minority” harmed were not mere statistical noise. They were real people, often healthy before the jab, whose lives were upended or ended.

Broader Implications and the Road Ahead

These decisions could embolden claims across Europe and beyond. They challenge the liability shields granted to manufacturers and force governments to confront the human cost of their policies. AstraZeneca and other producers may face indirect pressure even if not directly liable here.

For the vaccine-injured and bereaved families worldwide, these Greek rulings arrive as a painfully belated flicker of hope — long overdue, and tragically insufficient for the thousands whose lives were already shattered or stolen. Still, they offer a rare model for justice: compelling evidence through temporal association, exclusion of alternative causes, and constitutional arguments that finally force the state to confront the devastating human cost of its own policies.

My book 3/11 Viral Takeover is dedicated to those who perished from the catastrophic COVID countermeasures: lockdowns that destroyed lives and livelihoods, deadly hospital protocols, the deliberate suppression of early treatments, and the experimental shots pushed under emergency authorisation. It is a testament to their memory and to every injured survivor still fighting for recognition and justice.

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

• 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 full interview here.

00:00 Meet Sonia Elijah

00:18 Book Thesis and Censorship

01:17 Research Depth and Purpose

02:49 Will It Happen Again

04:40 Why 3 11 Matters

06:01 Pandemic Drills and mRNA Push

10:53 Bat Database Goes Dark

12:18 FOIA Emails and Lab Leak

15:04 Cracks and Conflicts

18:10 Lockdowns Driven by Models

19:19 PCR Testing Anomalies

25:31 Harms and Care Homes

26:37 Testing Kit Profiteering

29:40 Fear Messaging and Propaganda

32:10 Dancing Nurses and Empty Wards

33:39 Trusted News Initiative

37:17 Natural Immunity Censored

38:17 Lancet Study Fallout

40:13 Ivermectin Smear Campaign

41:57 Silencing Doctors Online

43:30 Hospital Protocol Controversies

45:09 Redefining Vaccinated Data

46:38 Retracted Myocarditis Research

48:46 Missing Safety Reports

53:31 Pfizer Papers Deep Dive

58:13 Vaccine Injured Silenced

59:52 Pregnancy Harms Revealed

01:04:40 Justice and Accountability

01:07:32 Closing Thoughts on the Book

3/11 Viral Takeover is available in Kindle eBook, paperback, and hardcover!

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

Share

There are books that comfort, books that entertain, and books that disturb — in the most necessary way. Sonia Elijah’s debut, 3/11: Viral Takeover, belongs firmly in the third category. Released on the sixth anniversary of the date that gives it its title, this is an ambitious, forensically researched account of what Elijah argues was not simply a public health emergency, but a civilizational turning point.

The title is deliberate. Elijah frames March 11, 2020 as “3/11”: a biological sequel to “9/11,” where the earlier event gave rise to mass surveillance and endless war, and this one ushered in what she characterizes as an age of biosecurity management, censorship, and algorithmic control. It’s a provocative thesis, and the book does not shy away from its implications.

The Author and Her Method

Elijah is an independent investigative journalist and former BBC researcher with a background in economics, renowned for her forensic-style reporting into the COVID-19 response, including detailed analyses of Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial documents, vaccine safety concerns, regulatory failures, and institutional conflicts of interest. 3/11: Viral Takeover is the culmination of five years of that work, and it shows in both the depth of sourcing and the clear sense of moral purpose driving every chapter.

What the Book Covers

The 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. It reveals how unelected scientists and pharma-linked philanthropies took control of policy, while a single deeply flawed epidemiological model drove global lockdowns in lockstep, inflicting catastrophic harms through school closures, care-home neglect, and suppressed ethics.

Elijah also uncovers an unvalidated PCR protocol she argues became a multi-billion-dollar engine perpetuating lockdowns, traces mRNA technology’s rapid rise despite longstanding safety hurdles, documents the suppression of treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and delivers deep dives into Pfizer’s clinical trial data and post-authorization adverse event reports. One particularly striking example involves a myocarditis study: Elijah documents how a published study examining myocarditis risk in younger males was forcibly withdrawn just days before an FDA vote on authorizing the Pfizer vaccine for children ages 5 to 11.

Approach and Perspective

The book’s most compelling attribute lies in its evidentiary ambition. Drawing on thousands of pages of FOIA documents, leaked emails, scientific papers, and whistleblower interviews, Sonia Elijah offers a detailed examination of how unelected scientists, intelligence-linked philanthropies, and regulatory bodies contributed to shaping the official narrative. For readers who value primary source material, this depth of documentation is likely to be particularly engaging.

At the same time, the author’s perspective is clearly defined. The narrative leans toward advocacy, with less emphasis placed on exploring counterarguments or the public health rationale behind many of the decisions discussed. Readers seeking a more fully rounded analysis may benefit from engaging with additional sources alongside this work.

Why It Still Matters

Whatever one’s priors about the pandemic, the questions Sonia Elijah raises—about regulatory processes under emergency conditions, philanthropic influence on public health, suppressed research, and the consolidation of institutional authority—are legitimate concerns. 3/11: Viral Takeover presents one of the most comprehensive document-based inquiries into these issues to date. It is a substantive and at times disquieting work that rewards thoughtful engagement and measured reflection. How these issues are engaged in the years ahead may prove pivotal in shaping both future public health policy and the integrity of the institutions entrusted with it.

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

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon Australia

Amazon Canada

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 t…

Read more

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 pl…

Read more

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

Read more

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 …

Read more

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