In a compelling episode of Broken Truth, host John Davidson (@BrokenTruthTV) sat down with attorney Ray Flores, a senior outside counsel for Children's Health Defense (CHD), in an interview co-hosted by Warner Mendenhall of Freedom Counsel. The discussion, aired on Labor Day 2025, delved into Flores' extensive background in natural health advocacy, his transition to law, and his ongoing legal battles against government overreach in public health policies, particularly surrounding vaccines and COVID-19 countermeasures. With a focus on accountability, vaccine injuries, and recent political shifts, the interview highlighted the intersection of medicine, law, and politics in post-pandemic America.

From Natural Health Advocate to Legal Warrior

Flores began by sharing his unique journey, starting in the 1980s as a leader in the natural foods industry. He founded a marketing company representing hundreds of manufacturers and served as national president of the Natural Product Brokers Association. Early on, he witnessed regulatory attacks on effective natural supplements like L-tryptophan and St. John's wort by agencies such as the FDA, which he saw as a precursor to broader assaults on health freedoms.

Recognizing the need for legal expertise to protect the industry, Flores enrolled in law school at age 40 while running his successful business. Admitted to the bar in 2004, he defended natural foods companies in contractual disputes and expanded into criminal and civil law. The COVID-19 era propelled him into high-profile cases, beginning with challenges to vaccine mandates alongside attorneys like Greg Glaser and Rick Jaffe. This led to his role at CHD, where he now handles seven active lawsuits, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and groundbreaking challenges to federal health policies.

Key Lawsuits: Challenging Vaccine Safety and Government Immunity

A centerpiece of the interview was Flores' successful lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (formerly a private attorney who had filed related FOIA requests) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Act mandates a task force to improve vaccine safety through better licensing, manufacturing, testing, and reporting. Flores argued that no such task force had operated effectively since a brief stint from 1990 to 1998, and no biennial reports to Congress had been filed in nearly 40 years.

Using a citizen's action provision, Flores compelled HHS to form the task force within five months and commit to submitting reports every two years. He credits this as a pivotal win, blaming HHS for subsequent vaccine injuries due to their negligence. "I blame HHS for every single vaccine injury that's happened since then," Flores stated, noting the childhood vaccine schedule has ballooned from a handful in 1986 to around 29 vaccines (delivering over 70 doses) today, with minimal safety improvements.

Another highlight was the Watts case, the only willful misconduct lawsuit ever filed under the PREP Act, which grants broad immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures. Representing the estate of George Watts Jr., who died from myocarditis after receiving a Pfizer vaccine in 2021, Flores sued the Department of Defense (DOD) for misleading the public about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. Watts believed he was getting the licensed Comirnaty vaccine, but received an emergency use authorization (EUA) product from a "hot lot."

In a stunning reversal, Judge Carl J. Nichols vacated his own dismissal after Flores pointed out procedural errors— the case required a three-judge panel under the PREP Act. This revival extends the litigation, potentially into a more favorable political climate. Flores emphasized the PREP Act's barriers: only serious injuries or deaths qualify for compensation via the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), leaving most of the 1.5 million VAERS-reported injuries unaddressed.

Flores also touched on his suit against the National Park Service for refusing cash payments at over 30 sites, including Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. He views this as a step toward a surveillance state, where digital payments could enable control over citizens' behaviors, such as denying access for non-vaccination or dissent.

Political Winds: Trump's Shift and Kennedy's Influence

The conversation turned timely with President Trump's recent Truth Social post questioning the success of COVID-19 vaccines and Operation Warp Speed. Flores and Mendenhall interpreted this as a "crack in the dam," suggesting Trump is distancing himself from past endorsements amid mounting evidence of fraud and injuries. They praised Kennedy's role in pushing for the vaccine safety task force, seeing it as a sign of alignment between Trump and Kennedy against entrenched interests.

Mendenhall highlighted whistleblower cases like Brooke Jackson's, revealing hidden adverse events in Pfizer's trials, and stressed the need for Trump to "get ahead of the lie" by holding pharmaceutical companies and officials accountable. Flores agreed, noting Trump's initial enthusiasm for leading vaccine development made him vulnerable to deception.

Recent CDC shakeups, including the departures of Director Susan Monarez and Dimitri Daskalakis (noted for controversial public imagery), were discussed as positive signs of change. The hosts criticized astroturfed protests and government retaliation against genuine dissenters.

Looking Ahead: A Call for Unity and Support

Flores urged support for Kennedy's efforts, emphasizing patience as legal and political processes unfold. He teased upcoming lawsuits but stressed the importance of unified action to save lives and restore freedoms. Mendenhall echoed this, crediting brave plaintiffs and attorneys for creating opportunities for reform.

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

This interview underscores a pivotal moment in the fight for medical freedom, blending personal stories of loss with strategic legal victories. As Flores put it, "We're going to hold them accountable." For those affected by vaccine policies, it offers hope amid ongoing challenges.

Watch the full interview above for in-depth insights, and follow @BrokenTruthTV for more on health, politics, and accountability.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

When COVID captured the world in 2020, we all learned that the fastest way to get around FDA regulations was by using something called “Emergency Use Authorization”. Designed for public health emergencies, this designation gave a green light to every type of therapy, genetic test, and injectable medical drug on Earth to fight a given pathogen. The Secretary of HHS is specifically designated as the legal authority over Emergency Use Authorization.

As we covered in the segments from “Epidemic of Fraud” above, EUA’s can only be granted if there is no other available treatment option for a disease or pathogen. In other words, if HCQ or Ivermectin were beneficial, all of the big money drugs like Remdesivir, Paxlovid and the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ would have never been authorized for use.

Some would say that this provides a motive to discredit Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Today, after being in office 6 months, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that HHS was rescinding the federal EUA status for these drugs.

I promised 4 things:

1. to end covid vaccine mandates.

2. to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.

3. to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies.

4. to end the emergency.

In a series of FDA actions today we accomplished all four goals. The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded.

FDA has now issued marketing authorization for those at higher risk: Moderna (6+ months), Pfizer (5+), and Novavax (12+). These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.

The American people demanded science, safety, and common sense.

This framework delivers all three. Thank you @DrMakaryFDA for your leadership.

While some on X celebrated the move, others were quick to point out factual details, like this week’s cohost of Broken Truth, Jennifer Kennedy, Esq.

And please stop calling them vaccines. They are investigational drug injections.Jennifer Kennedy, Esq. @JenRevere

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Involvement

Bill Gates and his foundation were instrumental in multiple levels of the COVID-19 response, involving themselves in clinical trials, academic research, and governmental policies for these vaccines. The organization has avoided scrutiny from the IRS and DOJ for potential non-profit status violations, and it’s avoided repeated questions about how its influence might affect research. Gates himself was abundantly clear (as stated in the excerpts from our film “Epidemic of Fraud” above) that ONLY a vaccine would be allowed to get the world out of the global pandemic.

Yesterday, August 26, Gates visited the White House personally. Considering the effort to discuss “global health”. Curious timing.

On the same day, it was announced that the Gates Foundation was distancing itself from Arabella Advisors, a political juggernaut that channels significant dark money funds into left-wing causes.

One can’t help but wonder if Gates Foundation’s chickens are finally coming home to roost. We have covered much of their involvement in research, tax avoidance, and public policy. You can read many of these stories below.

For now, those harmed by COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, and other EUA-approved medications like Remdesivir can take some solace that progress is being made. As the old proverb says, “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.”

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

New Lawsuit Challenges CDC's Untested Childhood Vaccine Schedule

In a recent episode of BrokenTruth.TV, host John Davidson and co-host Jennifer Kennedy, Esq., an attorney from California, sat down with Rick Jaffe, Esq., a Connecticut-based lawyer known for his work in health freedom cases. The discussion centered on Jaffe's newly filed lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which alleges that the agency's childhood vaccine schedule—recommending dozens of shots over 18 years—has never been properly tested for cumulative safety. This legal action, filed on August 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, could have far-reaching implications for vaccine mandates, parental rights, and public health policy.

The Core Argument: An Untested Schedule

Jaffe explained that while individual vaccines undergo limited safety testing—often for just a few days—the entire schedule, which includes up to 72 doses containing numerous antigens, has never been evaluated as a whole. "The entire schedule has never been tested together to see whether it's safe and whether it does more good than harm," Jaffe stated during the interview. He highlighted reports from the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) in 2002 and 2012, which recommended comprehensive studies on the schedule's cumulative effects but were ignored by the CDC.

This lack of testing, Jaffe argued, renders the CDC's recommendations "arbitrary and capricious" under administrative law. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief to acknowledge this failure and injunctive relief to downgrade all childhood vaccines from Category A (full recommendation) to Category B (shared decision-making, akin to informed consent). Until proper observational studies are conducted, Jaffe contends, parents and doctors should collaboratively decide on vaccinations, similar to practices in countries like England and Japan where mandates are absent.

Kennedy, drawing from her experience in California—where strict vaccine requirements for school entry exist—emphasized the downstream effects. States largely adopt the CDC's schedule for their mandates, she noted, turning untested recommendations into enforceable laws. "How can they require these of children if they're not even safety tested, not sufficiently individually, and certainly not that entire recommended schedule?" she asked.

The Plaintiffs: Heroes of Health Freedom

The lawsuit, titled Thomas v. Monarez (Civ. Action No. 1:25-cv-02685), features two prominent pediatricians as plaintiffs: Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth Stoller, alongside the organization Stand for Health Freedom.

Dr. Thomas, an Oregon-based physician, conducted a study comparing health outcomes among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children in his practice. His findings suggested that more vaccinations correlated with higher rates of illness, such as frequent office visits for non-wellness issues. Just five days after publishing, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his license, citing him as a public danger—a move Thomas and Jaffe attribute to retaliation. The journal later retracted the study without consulting the authors. Jaffe praised Thomas as a "hero" who "did the study that the IOM called to do" and paid the price.

Dr. Stoller, formerly practicing in California, faced similar persecution. He issued medical exemptions based on genetic markers like MTHFR variants, going beyond the CDC's narrow guidelines. This led to investigations, demands for patient records by San Francisco authorities under a "public nuisance" theory, and eventual license revocation. Jaffe, who represented Stoller in those battles, described him as one of the few doctors willing to predict risks using available tools, even if primitive.

Stand for Health Freedom, an advocacy group, rounds out the plaintiffs, aiming to amplify the call for transparency and parental choice. Jaffe noted that the case is community-funded, with donations accepted through a link on his website.

Broader Implications and Ties to Current Events

The interview delved into potential ripple effects. If successful, the lawsuit could undermine state mandates, as most rely on CDC recommendations. Jaffe referenced a prior case, Cardenas v. HHS, where similar arguments prompted the CDC to shift COVID-19 vaccines for children to shared decision-making and stop requiring them in certain programs—changes announced shortly after filing.

A key discussion point was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent actions as HHS Secretary. Kennedy has threatened the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that following their own recommendations—diverging from a potentially revised CDC schedule—could strip liability immunity under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Jaffe called this "genius," as it might expose manufacturers and doctors to lawsuits, deterring aggressive promotion.

Criticism extended to the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit raising private funds for the agency's mission, which has received over $208 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Davidson and Jaffe questioned its ties, suggesting conflicts of interest, including funding groups that targeted doctors skeptical of vaccines.

The panel also addressed systemic issues, like the broken Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the lack of placebo-controlled trials. Jaffe compared the untested schedule to polypharmacy risks or unstudied cancer drug combinations, noting that even EPA tests toxin mixtures—yet vaccines escape scrutiny.

Challenges Ahead and a Call for Change

Filed in the D.C. Circuit before a Biden-appointed judge, the case avoids a preliminary injunction, anticipating a motion to dismiss from the government. Jaffe challenged the CDC to defend not testing the schedule publicly: "Let them say that it's not important to test whether these 72 medical interventions are safe."With Kennedy at HHS, Jaffe sees a unique opportunity. He predicted revelations from ongoing investigations into COVID vaccines could shift public perception, demanding accountability. Kennedy echoed concerns about religious zeal in vaccine advocacy, citing Dr. Paul Offit's claim that infants could handle 10,000 antigens safely—yet one food at a time is advised to avoid risks.

The interview critiqued Jacobson's 1905 Supreme Court ruling, often misused to justify mandates. Kennedy argued it's overdue for scrutiny, as modern applications ignore whether products like mRNA shots prevent transmission or even qualify as vaccines.

A Turning Point for Vaccine Policy?

Jaffe's lawsuit represents a bold push for evidence-based policy, potentially ending blanket mandates in favor of informed consent. As Davidson concluded, "This is a fight that has legs and could leave a big bruise." With growing skepticism post-COVID, this case could empower parents and challenge entrenched interests, ensuring childhood vaccines are truly safe—not just assumed to be. For updates, follow developments in Thomas v. Monarez and support via health freedom organizations.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

Dr. Helen Chu was a notorious University of Washington Scientist in 2020. In January of 2020, she ‘invented’ her own ‘test’ for COVID, resulting in scores of diagnosis’ in the Seattle region.

Dr. Chu was then enlisted to create a study for Remdesivir. When the study was going to show a negative result for Remdesivir as a treatment, Chu et al changed the endpoint of the study to ‘time to recovery’. Dr. Chu has received funding from NIH, CDC, DARPA, and the Gates Foundation.

In the video clip above from our award winning documentary “Epidemic of Fraud", we cover the story of how Remdesivir caused more deaths from COVID.

When the Trump admin brought Secretary Robert F. Kennedy on board, Chu and others advising the CDC were removed from any further influence in the agency. Chu, who is accused by Dr. Paul Marik and others of committing ‘scientific misconduct’ in her remdesivir study declared in Stat+ that ‘Scientific expertise is no longer of use’.

Before his nomination to Secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy went so far as to say that using Remdesivir in hospitals was ‘homicide’.

University of Washington Delays Releasing Chu’s Emails with Gates Foundation

Because Chu has links to Gates Foundation and we have numerous issues like Gates Foundation researching me when I submitted questions to the organization, on Feb 14, 2025 I submitted a public records request to the University of Washington.

I wanted to see how involved Gates Foundation was in the Remdesivir study in the weeks leading up to Dr. Chu ‘inventing’ her own COVID test. As of August 2025, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given over $1.5 Billion to the University of Washington.

Request Ex-PR_2025_000157All emails between and among Dr. Helen Chu ([email protected]) and any sender, recipient, cc'd or bcc'd whose email address ends in @gatesfoundation.org.Date range: 10/1/2019 - 7/7/2020

The University of Washington has delayed its response multiple times. This is the same University of Washington with links to the Gates Foundation and is one of the largest recipients of the foundation’s substantial wealth. Today’s response indicates the University may be delaying to warn the Gates Foundation that it may be exposed by this public records request.

Previous records requests include Gates Foundation’s direct communication with researchers who claimed HCQ was ineffective for COVID. The Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Deputy Director Peter Dull claiming “Now the fun begins” when David Boulware’s University of Minnesota study was released.

The University of Washington is also linked to the Washington Medical Commission. This is the same commission that considered Scott Miller PA one of the most dangerous men in Washington for his brazen efforts to treat patients before needing to get Remdesivir in a hospital.

The Gates Foundation’s involvement in studies, academia, and government are concerning to many people. For many months we have covered the case of William Scott from Florida, who has repeatedly submitted whistleblower 211 claims to get the IRS and DOJ to investigate whether the Gates Foundation should continue to enjoy the benefits of tax exempt status. The IRS and DOJ are not interested in investigating this issue.

Stay tuned for more as this story is ongoing.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

By BrokenTruth.TV Staff Published August 21, 2025 Updated with Full Transcript Analysis

On August 20, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska, Chief Administrative Law Judge Joan Wilson presided over an appeal hearing concerning the Alaska Medical Board's denial of a physician assistant (PA) license to Scott Miller. Miller, a former PA from Washington state, had his license revoked there in 2023 following allegations of substandard care related to his use of off-label treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as public statements deemed misleading or harmful by the Washington Medical Commission.

The hearing, which lasted approximately eight hours, focused on whether the Alaska Medical Board should reconsider its denial. Miller argued that his actions were clinically justified, supported by patient outcomes, and that Alaska's more permissive approach to medical freedom during the pandemic made him a suitable candidate. The state, represented by attorney Mr. Higgins, relied on the administrative record from Washington, emphasizing statutory grounds for denial under Alaska law, including professional incompetence and prior disciplinary actions.

This article analyzes the full video transcript of the hearing (available on BrokenTruth.TV), highlighting key testimonies from witnesses speaking on Miller's behalf. These individuals provided insights into Miller's character, medical expertise, and the broader context of COVID-era medical practices. We've organized the article into chapters based on each supportive witness, with approximate timecodes from the video re-stream to help viewers navigate directly to relevant sections. Timecodes are in HH:MM:SS format and are estimates based on the transcript's timestamps, which align with the video's runtime.

The hearing underscores ongoing debates about medical autonomy, off-label prescribing, and interstate licensing reciprocity in a post-pandemic world. BrokenTruth.TV obtained the re-stream footage to shed light on what Miller's supporters describe as politically motivated persecution of dissenting medical professionals.

Background: The Case and Hearing Setup (00:00:00 - 00:08:02)

The hearing began at 9:05 AM with Judge Wilson outlining the proceedings. Miller, present in the room, bore the burden of proof to show why the board should reverse its denial. The state invoked Alaska Statute 08.64.240 and related regulations, citing Miller's Washington revocation as grounds for incompetence or unfitness.

Observers included Miller's wife, Shelly Miller, and friend John Davidson, though they did not testify due to the rule excluding witnesses (00:04:17 - 00:04:51). The administrative record (Bates-numbered Division 001-00122) was admitted as evidence, along with Miller's exhibits filed on August 7, 2025. No opening statements were made; the hearing proceeded directly to testimony.

Miller's core argument: His Washington sanctions stemmed from COVID treatments that were effective in practice but clashed with federal narratives at the time. He highlighted Alaska's 2021 medical board statement supporting physician discretion in off-label prescribing, contrasting it with Washington's stricter stance.

Chapter 1: Testimony of Dr. Tom Grissom (00:04:17 - 01:07:26)

Dr. Tom Grissom (full name: John Thomas Grissom, MD), a family practice, anesthesia, and pain medicine specialist with 13 years of experience in Alaska, was the first witness called by Miller. Grissom, testifying remotely, swore to tell the truth at 00:08:14. He spoke glowingly of Miller's skills and encouraged him to apply for an Alaska license despite the Washington suspension.

Key Points from Direct Examination (00:09:33 - 00:33:22)

* Credentials and Relationship: Grissom detailed his residencies and fellowship, noting he met Miller through a mutual friend during the COVID-19 crisis (00:09:42 - 00:10:05). He praised Miller as an "exceptionally good practitioner" who would benefit Alaska, where attracting quality providers is challenging (00:10:54 - 00:11:34).

* Alaska vs. Washington Differences: Grissom highlighted Alaska's freer medical environment, free from the mandates that plagued Washington. He shared his own experience being targeted for prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, noting the FDA's shifted stance and that 78% of medications are used off-label (00:12:10 - 00:15:28).

* Clinical Justification: Responding to Miller's questions, Grissom defended off-label use based on anecdotal (clinical) evidence, citing examples like gabapentin for neuropathy. He argued practitioners should rely on patient outcomes over consensus narratives, especially when told no treatments existed (00:17:43 - 00:20:56).

* Support for Miller: Grissom treated over 1,000 patients with these drugs without hospitalizations, putting high-risk patients on prophylaxis. He reconciled community support for Miller with Washington's findings, asserting Miller posed no threat and was a "patient advocate" (00:21:49 - 00:32:48). He concluded Alaska would be "honored" to have Miller, calling him high-integrity and educated (00:31:46 - 00:33:02).

Cross-Examination by Mr. Higgins (00:33:26 - 00:41:18)

Higgins probed Grissom's relationship with Miller, revealing they met on a golf outing in St. Louis two years prior and had about 20 phone consults (00:34:36 - 00:37:01). Grissom described these as "curbside consults" on patient cases, emphasizing intellectual discussions rather than formal supervision. He defended his opinion of Miller's fitness as based on these interactions, likening it to assessing a junior partner's potential (00:38:15 - 00:40:19). Higgins questioned if Miller was practicing during these calls, but Grissom couldn't specify timelines.

Additional Questions and Responses (00:41:18 - 01:07:26)

Further questioning delved into off-label prescribing practices, with Grissom asserting it's common (78% of prescriptions) and defending it when beneficial (e.g., penicillin for strep throat). He shared his own experiences prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during COVID, emphasizing patient outcomes over FDA approvals at the time. Judge Wilson and Higgins explored ethical aspects, such as misrepresenting prescription reasons to bypass restrictions, with Grissom viewing it as necessary for patient benefit in extraordinary circumstances.

Grissom's testimony painted Miller as a victim of politicized medicine, aligning with BrokenTruth.TV's focus on suppressed COVID narratives.

Chapter 2: Testimony of Pastor Rich Bluhm (01:09:25 - 01:29:21)

Pastor Rich Bluhm (full name: Richard Bluhm), a pastor at Bethel Community Church in Washougal, Washington, testified remotely. He swore to tell the truth at 01:10:23. Bluhm shared how Miller treated his family and congregation during COVID, praising his life-saving care.

Key Points from Direct Examination (01:10:55 - 01:29:21)

* Relationship with Miller: Bluhm met Miller through his son, who was a patient, and later sought his help during COVID for family and church members (01:11:16 - 01:11:40). He noted Miller's positive reputation and success in treating severe cases where hospitals failed (01:12:47 - 01:15:10).

* Community Impact: Bluhm described Miller as a hero who saved lives in his congregation, with only one death occurring when Miller couldn't intervene. He criticized hospital protocols and praised Miller's compassionate, effective care (01:15:33 - 01:16:53).

* Ethical Dilemmas: Discussing misrepresentation on prescriptions, Bluhm likened it to moral choices in extreme situations, emphasizing Miller's actions were for the greater good (01:17:08 - 01:18:20).

* Recommendation for Alaska: Bluhm urged the board to grant Miller a license, highlighting his integrity, sacrifice, and benefit to any community (01:20:23 - 01:28:15). He noted the church's positive outcomes due to Miller's guidance.

Bluhm's testimony emphasized Miller's role as a community savior during COVID, contrasting with Washington's findings.

Chapter 3: Testimony of Christine Hackett (01:30:28 - 02:03:00)

Christine Hackett (now Christine Meskhi, OD), an optometrist specializing in neuro and pediatric optometry, testified remotely. She swore to tell the truth at 01:31:20. Hackett collaborated with Miller on patients and sought his COVID advice.

Key Points from Direct Examination (01:32:27 - 02:03:00)

* Credentials and Relationship: Hackett graduated from Pacific University College of Optometry in 2020 and began practicing in Washington. She met Miller through her boss in 2020 for pediatric collaborations (01:32:42 - 01:35:22).

* Professional Assessment: Hackett praised Miller's clinical acumen, especially in complex pediatric cases. She consulted him for personal and family COVID care, noting rapid recoveries (01:35:22 - 01:37:08).

* COVID Experiences: Hackett described Miller's treatments as life-saving, sharing stories of patients and her friend's father who improved under his guidance. She emphasized his dedication, even at personal cost (01:37:08 - 01:42:07).

* Character and Trust: Emotionally, Hackett called Miller a "foxhole friend" who treats everyone like family. She trusts him completely, naming him her medical power of attorney (01:42:07 - 01:45:04).

* Reconciliation with Charges: Hackett rejected Washington's findings, asserting Miller's actions were ethical and beneficial, not harmful (01:45:04 - 02:03:00).

Cross-Examination and Additional Questions (included in chapter)

Higgins questioned Hackett's use of notes (sustained objection) and prescribing practices. Hackett confirmed off-label use is common and denied misrepresentations. Judge Wilson clarified her background and practice.

Hackett's testimony highlighted Miller's expertise and trustworthiness, countering incompetence claims.

Chapter 4: Testimony of Constance Brewster (02:07:47 - 03:00:00)

Constance Brewster, a dentist with a focus on pediatric sleep, breathing, and craniofacial development, testified remotely. She swore to tell the truth at 02:08:16. Brewster collaborated with Miller on pediatric cases and sought his help during COVID.

Key Points from Direct Examination (02:09:05 - 03:00:00)

* Credentials and Relationship: Brewster graduated from the University of Washington School of Dentistry in 2013. She met Miller around 2016 when treating his daughter for asthma, leading to professional collaboration (02:09:05 - 02:10:40).

* Professional Collaboration: Brewster praised Miller's understanding of complex pediatric issues, noting significant improvements in shared patients, including reduced medication needs (02:10:40 - 02:14:22).

* COVID Experiences: Brewster described Miller's help for her brother-in-law in the ICU, crediting his advice for saving his life. She witnessed Miller's professional, respectful engagement with doctors (02:14:22 - 02:20:39).

* Character and Recommendation: Brewster called Miller a "benefit to any community," emphasizing his dedication and positive outcomes. She noted Washington's loss without him (02:20:39 - 03:00:00).

Brewster's testimony focused on Miller's collaborative skills and life-saving interventions.

Chapter 5: Testimony of Katherine Moon (03:05:23 - 04:00:00)

Katherine Moon, a family nurse practitioner with 35 years of experience, testified remotely. She swore to tell the truth at 03:06:25. Moon shared how Miller's COVID treatments saved lives in her practice.

Key Points from Direct Examination (03:06:42 - 04:00:00)

* Credentials and Relationship: Moon holds a master's from Brigham Young University (1996) and owns Fishers Landing Primary Care in Vancouver, Washington. She learned of Miller through patients praising his COVID success (03:07:06 - 03:37:06).

* Washington Environment: Moon described a "Gestapo-like" atmosphere where providers feared prescribing effective treatments like ivermectin. She consulted Miller for guidance, noting his logic and success (03:37:06 - 03:50:23).

* Personal Impact: Moon felt threatened but admired Miller's courage. She called him a "phenomenal provider" and lamented Washington's loss (03:50:23 - 04:00:00).

Moon's testimony highlighted the oppressive medical climate in Washington and Miller's bravery.

Chapter 6: Testimony of Dr. Jared Zeff (04:06:42 - 04:26:15)

Dr. Jared Zeff, a naturopathic physician licensed in multiple states, testified remotely. He swore to tell the truth at 04:09:32. Zeff praised Miller's COVID handling and criticized political interference.

Key Points from Direct Examination (04:09:42 - 04:26:15)

* Credentials and Relationship: Zeff graduated in 1979, practiced for 45 years, and taught naturopathy. He learned of Miller post-revocation through patients praising his care (04:10:14 - 04:11:04).

* COVID Context: Zeff described political mandates hindering effective treatments like ivermectin, noting Miller's success amid failures (04:11:04 - 04:22:08).

* Ethical Views: Zeff defended misrepresentation on prescriptions as necessary during politicized times, prioritizing patient benefit (04:22:08 - 04:24:07).

* Recommendation: Zeff urged Alaska to license Miller, calling him heroic and exemplary (04:24:07 - 04:26:15).

Zeff's testimony validated Miller's approaches as science-based and effective.

Chapter 7: Testimony of Pastor Mike White (04:46:56 - 05:03:02)

Pastor Mike White (retired), from Hockinson Community Church in Brush Prairie, Washington, testified remotely with his wife. He swore to tell the truth at 04:47:58. White recounted Miller saving his and his wife's lives during COVID.

Key Points from Direct Examination (04:48:36 - 05:03:02)

* Relationship with Miller: White's family were Miller's patients; during COVID, they sought his help after inadequate hospital advice (04:48:38 - 04:49:39).

* Personal Story: Severely ill, they received home treatment from Miller at night, recovering fully. White praised Miller's dedication (04:49:39 - 04:52:03).

* Community Pay-Forward: White helped another patient with Miller's medications, emphasizing human contact's importance (04:52:03 - 05:03:02).

* Recommendation: White urged Alaska to license Miller, calling him a blessing and gift (05:03:02).

White's testimony underscored Miller's compassionate, life-saving care.

Chapter 8: Testimony of Seth Chase (05:06:49 - 05:28:28)

Seth Chase, a master mariner with 40 years in the maritime industry and medical experience aboard ships, testified in person. He swore to tell the truth at 05:07:03. Chase shared how Miller saved his life during COVID in remote Alaska.

Key Points from Direct Examination (05:08:60 - 05:28:28)

* Background and Relationship: Chase, from Anchor Point, Alaska, learned of Miller's protocols pre-COVID and contacted him when ill in Dutch Harbor (05:09:05 - 05:10:54).

* COVID Ordeal: Isolated without local care, Chase's wife coordinated with Miller to fly medications. An ER doctor in Anchorage validated Miller's protocol (05:10:54 - 05:18:14) and explained that his protocol was better than Chase could receive in a hospital.

* Character and Trust: Chase drove eight hours to testify, trusting Miller implicitly and recommending him without hesitation (05:18:14 - 05:28:28).

Chase's testimony highlighted Miller's dedication in rural settings.

Chapter 9: Testimony of Heather Boyd-Roberts (05:34:17 - 06:42:13)

Heather Boyd-Roberts, a naturopathic physician practicing for ~30 years, testified remotely. She swore to tell the truth at 05:35:58. Boyd-Roberts collaborated with Miller during COVID, praising his knowledge.

Key Points from Direct Examination (05:35:58 - 06:42:13)

* Credentials and Relationship: Boyd-Roberts graduated from National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1996) and owns Natural Choice in Vancouver, Washington. She met Miller through church during COVID (05:35:58 - 05:37:45).

* COVID Collaboration: Desperate for help, Boyd-Roberts consulted Miller on treatments, noting his biochemical expertise and success (05:37:45 - 05:48:06).

* Assessment of Miller: Boyd-Roberts called Miller a "visionary" and "genius," trusting him as her medical power of attorney. She rejected Washington's charges as false (05:48:06 - 06:42:13).

Boyd-Roberts' testimony affirmed Miller's superior care and character.

Chapter 10: Testimony of Patti Severiano (06:07:27 - 07:42:44)

Patti Severiano, a nurse practitioner certified in critical care and psychiatry, testified remotely. She swore to tell the truth at 06:08:30. Severiano learned of Miller's COVID success at a conference and collaborated with him.

Key Points from Direct Examination (06:09:15 - 07:42:44)

* Credentials and Relationship: Severiano has been a NP since 2011, practicing in Princeton Junction, New Jersey. She met Miller in 2023 at a COVID conference (06:09:15 - 06:12:04).

* Collaboration: Severiano consulted Miller on non-pharmaceutical pain devices and COVID insights, noting his profound knowledge (06:12:04 - 06:24:34).

* Personal Impact: Her family lost her brother-in-law to COVID; she credits Miller's advice for saving her father's life post-chemotherapy (06:24:34 - 06:41:21).

* Character and Recommendation: Severiano called Miller a "hero" with exceptional empathy, urging Alaska to license him (06:41:21 - 07:42:44).

Severiano's testimony emphasized Miller's innovative, life-saving expertise.

Chapter 11: Testimony of Scott Miller (07:42:44 - 08:17:46)

Scott Miller, the appellant, testified in person at the hearing's end. He swore to tell the truth at 07:44:56. Miller shared his background, COVID experiences, and defense against Washington's findings.

Key Points from Testimony and Cross-Examination (07:42:44 - 08:17:46)

* Personal Background: Miller recounted early tragedies motivating his dedication, leading to successful COVID treatments despite mandates (07:44:56 - 07:58:39).

* Response to Charges: He explained misrepresentations on prescriptions as necessary adaptations to pharmacy restrictions, prioritizing life-saving (07:58:39 - 08:04:38).

* Licensure Attempts: Miller discussed Oklahoma's denial due to Washington's revocation and his Alaska appeal (08:04:38 - 08:17:46).

* Final Plea: Miller urged the board to consider his character, expertise, and community benefit, hoping for licensure (throughout).

Miller's testimony provided context for his actions, emphasizing patient-centered care.

Conclusion: Implications for Medical Freedom

This hearing exposes tensions between state medical boards, federal guidelines, and individual practitioner autonomy. Supporters portray Miller as a hero whose methods saved lives, while critics cite ethical breaches. The Alaska Medical Board's final decision, expected in 30-60 days, could set precedent for licensing professionals sanctioned elsewhere for COVID-related actions.

Watch the full video re-stream on BrokenTruth.TV to form your own opinion. If you have insights or similar stories, share them in the comments—we're committed to uncovering the truths behind medical establishment narratives.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

In an interview with Broken Truth's John Davidson and attorney Warner Mendenhall, Physician Assistant (PA) and author Scott Miller detailed his years-long struggle to retain his medical license after opposing COVID policies. Once a pediatric specialist in Washington State, Miller now appeals a license denial in Alaska.

From Pediatrics to Pandemic Advocacy

Miller, with a dental school background, practiced for 10 years in Vancouver, Washington, focusing on neurology, asthma, allergies, and developmental delays. As a PA, he diagnosed, prescribed, and managed patients independently.

When COVID struck in March 2020, Miller worried about lockdowns' harm to kids' mental health and therapies. He prescribed "park play" to encourage outdoor time and non-compliance with restrictions. He treated COVID at home with ivermectin, avoiding hospitals where ventilation often led to high mortality (80% early on) due to iatrogenic harm.

His public speeches at rallies and the state Capitol drew backlash.

Targeted and License Revoked

Miller was hit by over 100 complaints, many from non-patients via the "Shots Heard Round the World" group, funded by pharma lobbyists like BIO (Pfizer, Moderna). Accusations included misinformation, off-label ivermectin use, and obstructing investigations. One false claim: Undisclosed California felonies (wrong Scott Miller).

The Washington Medical Commission (WMC) suspended his license in 2021, requiring "re-education." Refusal led to permanent revocation in 2023. Expert Dr. Leslie Enzian called his speech "insidious danger." This echoed cases like Drs. Mary Bowden and Ryan Cole.

Free Speech and Medical Consensus Issues

Mendenhall likened it to "re-education camps," questioning First Amendment rights in medicine. Consensus deemed ivermectin "quackery," but FDA's 2024 settlement affirmed off-label use for COVID. Alaska's board in 2021 vowed not to target such practices, contrasting Washington's ongoing restrictions.

Remdesivir was pushed despite flawed trials; consensus on mRNA vaccines is now questioned, with estimates of 500,000-700,000 related deaths.

Alaska Appeal and Lessons

Denied an Alaska license in November 2024, Miller won a pro se appeal against summary judgment. His hearing featured diverse witnesses; outcome pending as of August 2025.

Miller's case lost his practice and forced relocation. He wrote The Most Dangerous Man in Washington and fundraises via GiveSendGo for fees.This highlights politicized medicine: Dissent silenced by boards and funded groups. Miller's fight may drive reform, prioritizing innovation over conformity.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

In a today’s episode of Broken Truth, host John Davidson brings together a panel of experts to delve into the potential risks posed by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to the global blood supply. Joined by attorney Warner Mendenhall, research scientist Kevin McKernan, and R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD, from Safeblood, the discussion uncovers alarming evidence of persistent spike protein production, residual DNA in vaccines, and the urgent need for screening and safe blood alternatives. Drawing from recent studies and personal testimonies, the panel highlights the frustrations of vaccine-injured individuals and calls for immediate action to protect public health.

The episode opens with Davidson setting the stage by playing clips that underscore the controversy. First, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. critiques the mRNA vaccine platform for its ineffectiveness against respiratory viruses and its potential to drive mutations (3:27). Kennedy argues that targeting a single antigen can paradoxically prolong pandemics through antigenic shift. Following this, nurse Michelle Utter shares her harrowing experience as a vaccine-injured individual, revealing she is still producing spike protein 1,629 days post-vaccination (4:38). Utter expresses deep frustration over the lack of medical acknowledgment and support, noting increased health issues, including new diagnoses requiring a "cancer protocol," and the denial of 98% of claims under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

Davidson and Mendenhall express empathy for Utter's plight, emphasizing the broader implications. Mendenhall points to data from Ed Dowd showing approximately 3 million additional disabled individuals in the U.S., likely linked to the vaccines (7:03). He stresses the need for a societal response, as individual lawsuits are overwhelmed by the scale of injuries.

Kevin McKernan's Groundbreaking Research on Vaccine Contaminants

Kevin McKernan, a prominent researcher whose work on mRNA vaccines has garnered widespread attention, provides a detailed summary of his findings. McKernan explains how his team discovered residual DNA in mRNA vaccines years ago, a result replicated by about ten labs worldwide (8:05). This DNA persistence raises questions about why spike protein is detected in patients up to 1,800 days post-vaccination—far longer than typical proteins like keratin (8:37).McKernan reviews key literature: The Yale study found spike protein at 709 days; Patterson's lab detected it at 245 days in long-haul patients (9:32). On the nucleic acid side, studies show DNA/RNA in heart tissue (30 days), lymph nodes (60 days), plasma (28 days), breast milk (5 days), and placenta (10:04). Further analysis of public RNA sequencing data from vaccinated individuals reveals plasmid DNA in blood, slipping through purification processes (10:57).

A critical unanswered question is where this DNA resides—floating in plasma, inside cells, or integrated into the genome (12:01). McKernan hypothesizes it may create a continual reservoir of spike protein, contaminating the blood supply. He warns that without screening, recipients risk inheriting vaccine remnants, echoing the HIV blood crisis where testing was initially resisted (13:55).

When asked if spike protein from vaccines differs from the virus, McKernan confirms it does—two protein mutations make differentiation possible via mass spectrometry, though it's costlier than standard ELISAs (15:04). He notes the protein persists in monocytes, requiring specific blood sorting for detection (16:18).

Safeblood's Mission and the Push for Screening

R. Clinton Ohlers, representing Safeblood—a network connecting unvaccinated donors with recipients—highlights the complete absence of mRNA vaccine screening in blood banks. Despite evidence of vaccine components entering the bloodstream, banks in 2022 claimed otherwise (16:56). Ohlers advocates for on-site testing for informed consent and simple tracking of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated blood as a cost-free solution (17:33).

Ohlers shares anecdotes from nurses observing vaccinated blood coagulating faster, leading to rushed transfusions (19:56). He discusses apheresis (blood cleansing) as a potential treatment and praises McKernan's work on amyloidosis-linked clots (20:41). For emergencies, Ohlers suggests registries of unvaccinated universal donors (O-type blood) via apps like Uber (21:43).The panel addresses shedding concerns: McKernan cites anecdotal evidence and studies showing spike protein on exosomes in sweat and breath, potentially transmissible (25:46). However, he notes risks are likely exponentially lower than direct injection or transfusion (32:16). Ohlers adds that natural COVID infection produces far less persistent spike than vaccines (31:29).Legal and ethical issues surface, with Mendenhall referencing a lawsuit by nurse Michelle Stewart over a 5,000% spike in miscarriages at her hospital post-vaccine rollout (28:07). Ohlers notes increased restrictions on autologous (self-donated) and directed donations in states like Washington and Oregon, forcing patients to travel (37:46). The group suspects coordinated efforts by blood providers to suppress alternatives, possibly to protect their business model (41:29).

Pathways Forward: Testing, Litigation, and Policy Change

The experts propose solutions: Rapid spike protein and nucleic acid screening (13:42), legislation in 11 states to preserve donation rights (39:12), and litigation modeled on HIV cases (57:54). McKernan offers PCR primers to differentiate vaccine brands (48:02) and notes not all vaccinated blood may be contaminated—bad lots account for 78% of adverse events (51:22).

In a breaking development, Ohlers reveals a letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. prioritizing blood supply safety, now third on a health freedom agenda (54:18). Collaborations with figures like Dr. James Thorpe aim to document transfusion injuries for case series (55:37).

The episode closes on a hopeful note, with McKernan emphasizing decentralized platforms for truth-sharing and a potential favorable administration (1:06:05). As Mendenhall urges, "They deserve a rapid response at a national level" (1:05:59).

For more details, watch the full video above. Visit Safeblood for donor resources, and follow Kevin McKernan's Substack for updates on his research. Broken Truth continues to expose these critical issues—stay tuned.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

In our previous coverage, "The Trials of Joby Weeks," published on BrokenTruth.TV, we delved into the protracted legal saga of Joby Weeks, a Colorado-based Bitcoin advocate entangled in the BitClub Network controversy. Weeks, who pleaded guilty in 2020 to tax evasion and conspiracy to sell unregistered securities, has maintained his innocence, asserting that BitClub was a legitimate Bitcoin mining cooperative rather than the $722 million Ponzi scheme alleged by prosecutors. The article highlighted claims of regulatory overreach, evidence suppression, asset seizures, and indefinite delays that have left Weeks under house arrest for nearly six years without a trial. An exclusive interview with Weeks underscored these grievances, painting a picture of a justice system weaponized against cryptocurrency innovators amid unclear regulations.

As a follow-up, on July 25, 2025—mere weeks after the publication of that piece—BrokenTruth.TV submitted a series of pointed questions to the Department of Justice (DOJ). These inquiries sought clarification on the status of Weeks' detention, the handling of the BitClub case, and broader implications for due process in cryptocurrency-related prosecutions. Despite an extension of time to allow a review, the DOJ has not responded, leaving these critical questions unanswered. This silence is particularly striking in light of recent shifts in DOJ policy, including the April 7, 2025, Blanche Memorandum, which signals a retreat from aggressive "regulation by prosecution" in the digital asset space.

Below, we outline the submitted questions, providing context drawn from public records, court documents, and ongoing developments in the case. These queries stem from allegations of systemic injustices, including coercive tactics and selective enforcement, that Weeks and his supporters claim have undermined his rights.

Unanswered Questions to the Department of Justice Submitted on July 25, 2025

1. What was the reason for subjecting Joby Weeks to frequent transfers between prisons—commonly referred to as "Diesel Therapy"—during 2020?

"Diesel Therapy" refers to the practice of repeatedly shuttling inmates between facilities, often under grueling conditions, which can disrupt legal preparations and exert psychological pressure. Court records indicate Weeks was detained pretrial in 2020 following his arrest in December 2019, but specifics on transfers remain opaque. Advocates argue this was punitive, especially given Weeks' non-violent charges related to promoting BitClub. No official explanation has been provided, fueling claims of intentional hardship to coerce a plea.

2. Does the Department of Justice plan to prosecute individuals solely for promoting a product, such as in cases involving cryptocurrency or investment opportunities?

Weeks' role in BitClub was primarily promotional—he was not an owner or manager, yet he faced charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sell unregistered securities. DOJ filings describe him as a key promoter who solicited investments for mining pools. This raises concerns about First Amendment implications, as critics liken it to prosecuting endorsers without evidence of direct fraud. The Blanche Memorandum explicitly discourages prosecutions in areas of regulatory ambiguity, prioritizing "intentional fraud" over promotional activities.

3. How was the Department of Justice able to pursue the BitClub case, given claims that it did not involve U.S. currency and was restricted from accepting American investors?

BitClub operated from 2014 to 2019, mining significant cryptocurrencies like 92,000 Bitcoin and 650,000 Ethereum. Prosecutors alleged it defrauded investors of $722 million, but Weeks contends the network excluded U.S. participants and dealt solely in digital assets, not fiat currency. DOJ jurisdiction stemmed from wire fraud allegations involving U.S. wires, despite the international scope. Questions persist about extraterritorial reach, especially as no verified victims have sought restitution in court.

4. Was Joby Weeks targeted for prosecution due to his political views?

Weeks, a vocal libertarian and Bitcoin evangelist, has suggested his outspoken criticism of government overreach in finance made him a target. Public records show no direct evidence of political motivation, but the case's timing amid early crypto crackdowns invites scrutiny. Similar claims have arisen in other high-profile crypto cases, where defendants argue selective prosecution based on ideology rather than evidence.

5. How does the Department of Justice expect Joby Weeks to effectively pursue a pro se defense when he has reportedly been denied access to funds, cell phones, computers, and the internet?

Under house arrest since his 2020 plea, Weeks faces restrictions including asset freezes that have left him unable to afford counsel or access digital tools essential for a self-represented defense. This includes blockchain records that could exonerate him. Pretrial asset seizures, upheld in court, are criticized as violating Sixth Amendment rights, creating coercive conditions. Weeks' filings highlight over 33 continuances, with sentencing delayed multiple times—the latest to June 2, 2025, as of mid-2025 updates.

6. Mr. Weeks has claimed he was locked in a bathroom for 72 hours without release, which allegedly led to a coerced plea deal. Does the Department of Justice consider plea deals obtained under such circumstances to be valid?

Weeks alleges mistreatment during pretrial detention, including prolonged isolation that pressured him into pleading guilty despite maintaining innocence on fraud charges. DOJ policy requires voluntary pleas, but no investigation into these claims has been disclosed. If substantiated, this could invoke Brady violations for withholding exculpatory evidence, echoing broader critiques of plea bargaining in federal cases.

7. How many currently incarcerated U.S. prisoners (including those under house arrest or in prison) have filed claims alleging lack of due process or coerced pleas?

This question probes systemic issues, as Weeks' case is part of a pattern in crypto prosecutions. While exact figures are not publicly aggregated by the DOJ, prisoner rights groups estimate thousands of annual filings alleging due process violations. In Weeks' counterclaim filed in January 2025, he sought $22.2 billion from the DOJ for alleged overreach, highlighting withheld evidence like blockchain transactions and IRS forms.

8. Did the Department of Justice or any other federal entity continue operating the BitClub mining servers in 2019? If so, who received the cryptocurrency generated by these servers?

Following arrests in December 2019, questions arose about the fate of BitClub's mining operations. Weeks claims servers continued running, generating crypto valued at billions today, yet no accounting has been provided in court. If federal entities oversaw this, it could imply acknowledgment of legitimacy, contradicting Ponzi allegations. DOJ has not addressed asset disposition publicly.

9. Does the existence of these mining servers and the blockchain-verified currency they produced contradict the Department of Justice's claims that BitClub was a Ponzi scheme?

Blockchain records verify substantial mining output, suggesting participants profited rather than suffered losses typical of Ponzis. Prosecutors countered that promises of returns were fraudulent, but Weeks argues the verifiable value undermines the narrative. The lack of identified victims in restitution hearings bolsters this view, yet the DOJ maintains the scheme's fraudulent nature.

10. Is the Department of Justice currently considering dismissing the charges against Mr. Weeks, given that he was not an owner or manager of BitClub and in light of the Blanche memorandum released on April 7, 2025?

The Blanche Memorandum, issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, marks a pivotal shift: disbanding the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and urging focus on embezzlement, scams, and hacking over unclear securities issues. It criticizes past "regulation by prosecution," aligning with Weeks' claims of retroactive enforcement amid 2014-2017 regulatory vagueness. Weeks lobbied Congress and the White House in 2025, and his sentencing delays (continued to February 2025 and beyond) suggest potential review. Dismissal could set a precedent for similar cases.

The DOJ's non-response to these questions perpetuates uncertainty in a case already marred by delays and allegations of injustice. As Weeks approaches what may be his final sentencing—now postponed indefinitely—transparency is paramount. The Blanche Memorandum offers a pathway for reform, yet without answers, doubts linger about fairness in America's handling of cryptocurrency pioneers. BrokenTruth.TV will continue monitoring developments and urges the DOJ to address these concerns for the sake of accountability and due process.

(2024) Epidemic of Fraud explores the bizarre media, medical, and partisan political attacks levied against a class of ancient medications, told from the perspective of a former CNN journalist and Hollywood industry veteran. Why were the people who allowed the fentanyl disaster to go unchecked so eager to discredit a drug that is safer than tonic water? Director John Davidson takes you into an audio/visual time machine back to 2020 to reveal the forbidden knowledge that our medical, academic, and political officials are desperate to hide from you.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

In a compelling episode of the Broken Truth podcast, hosts Warner Mendenhall and John Davidson dive deep into the ongoing fight for medical freedom and personal rights. Recorded on August 4, 2025, this interview features Attorney Russ Barger and Dr. Patrice Quadrel, DDS, who share their harrowing experiences challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandates at Creighton University. What unfolds is a story of coercion, resilience, and the broader legal war against overreaching mandates that continue to impact students, professionals, and society at large.

The Mandate That Shattered Dreams

Dr. Quadrel, a recent dental school graduate, recounts her ordeal at Creighton University's dental program during the height of the COVID-19 era. As a student less than a year from graduation, she faced an ultimatum: comply with the university's vaccine mandate or be barred from campus. "I was basically banned from campus and not able to continue my education," Quadrel explains. "I ended up graduating a year later than I anticipated."

Creighton, a Jesuit institution, imposed strict mandates on students while offering limited exemptions—none for religious reasons initially, despite the school's Catholic roots. Quadrel highlights the irony: "The Pope himself said that you can't make this vaccine mandatory, but then Creighton went off and did their own thing." She was the only known student from Creighton's medical and dental schools to refuse the vaccine and stand her ground, ultimately paying a steep price: an extra $40,000 in tuition for a delayed semester and a year of lost income.

Other students weren't as fortunate. Quadrel describes classmates who reluctantly complied due to family pressures or fears of derailing their careers. One breastfeeding mother, hesitant about the vaccine's risks, felt she had no choice. "For her, the risk of not being able to finish her education on time was too great," Quadrel says. The mandate's timing was particularly punitive—announced just after the drop/add deadline, trapping students into paying full tuition without recourse.

The Legal Fight: Coercion, Deception, and FDA Sleight of Hand

Attorney Russ Barger, from Sullivan Law Firm in Nebraska, represents Quadrel and other students in a lawsuit against Creighton. He details how the university coerced students into agreements allowing them to continue classes only until the FDA "approved" the vaccines in fall 2021. But Barger argues this approval was illusory. "It was sort of this sleight of hand," he says. "The approved drug is not available for marketing in the U.S." Extensive searches revealed no Comirnaty or Spikevax—the purportedly approved versions—were actually available; only Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) shots were distributed.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, negligence, and violations under Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing Creighton's medical expertise should have recognized the deception. Barger notes the university's hypocrisy: mandates applied only to students, not faculty or staff, and religious exemptions were absent despite Creighton's Catholic ethos. "People do not realize that students are probably the most abused class," Barger states. "They do not have the protections of Title VII."

The case, now before the Nebraska Supreme Court after a district judge's terse dismissal, seeks damages for lost tuition, delayed earnings, and emotional harm. Barger also mentions a parallel suit against Southeast Community College, where mandates persisted even after the federal emergency ended. "Whether that mandate was ever legal... and whether the mandate could still be legal" remains in question, he adds.

Attorney and Host Mendenhall, contextualize the struggle. Mendenhall laments the slow grind of justice: "It just takes years to go through the entire process." He references the infamous Jacobson v. Massachusetts case (1905), which upheld smallpox vaccine mandates and has been cited to justify COVID measures. A recent Ninth Circuit reversal reaffirming Jacobson's applicability is "very unfortunate," Mendenhall warns, as it allows governments broad leeway on health interventions.

Personal Resilience and Broader Implications

Quadrel's story is one of faith and fortitude. "100% time has validated my feelings," she says, reflecting on vaccine injuries among peers and the mandates' fallout. Supported by her husband, family, and a "miracle" connection to Barger via a local gym, she credits her Christian faith: "God really handed me them right when I needed them." Now practicing dentistry, Quadrel remains cautious about discussing the case at work but vows to advise future students.

The discussion touches on systemic issues: the erosion of independent medical and legal practices, the exploitation of students as "commodities," and ties between institutions like Creighton and entities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Mendenhall highlights Freedom Council (freedomcouncil.org), a network of nearly 300 attorneys aiding those facing mandates, including ongoing flu vaccine fights in the military and hospitals.

A Historical Echo: The Legacy of Hydroxychloroquine

The episode closes with Davidson's historical segment from “Epidemic of Fraud” on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), tracing its roots from Jesuit's bark (cinchona) to its role in wars like the American Revolution, Civil War, and World Wars. HCQ's restriction has been a warfare tactic for centuries, Davidson argues, drawing parallels to COVID-era suppression of early treatments. "For centuries now, the restriction of access to hydroxychloroquine... has been a standard tactic of warfare," he notes.

The Fight Continues

This interview underscores that the battle for bodily autonomy isn't over. As Barger urges, "Keep your pressure on your elected officials... Congress has essentially done nothing." Quadrel echoes: "Don't have fear and just keep your faith."

Watch the full episode above for unfiltered insights into this pivotal case. If you're facing similar mandates, visit freedomcouncil.org for support. Broken Truth remains committed to exposing injustices and amplifying voices like Quadrel's and Barger's. Stay tuned for more episodes every Monday on BrokenTruth.tv.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe

In a riveting episode of BrokenTruth.TV, host John Davidson brought together a powerhouse panel to dissect the lingering impacts of COVID-19 policies, vaccine mandates, and the fight for accountability. Featuring attorney Jennifer Kennedy, Esq., whistleblower Brook Jackson, and attorney Warner Mendenhall, the discussion delved into personal stories of activism, landmark legal cases, and systemic failures in public health and justice. Aired amid ongoing debates about medical freedom, the podcast highlighted how the pandemic "activated" ordinary citizens into fierce advocates, exposing cracks in institutions from schools to the Department of Defense (DOD).

From Mom to Mandate Litigator: Jennifer Kennedy's Journey

Jennifer Kennedy, a civil litigator and mother of three, opened the episode by recounting her transformation from a part-time attorney to a frontline warrior in health freedom battles. Her awakening began in 2015 when California's SB 277 eliminated personal belief exemptions for childhood vaccinations, forcing her to confront the loss of parental rights. "Overnight, I became a health freedom activist," Kennedy shared, describing how she delved into vaccine education and discovered the realities of injuries and deaths—issues she insists are "real and not rare."

The COVID-19 era amplified her efforts. Kennedy jumped into litigation against Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) mandates, which she argued illegally targeted children with experimental shots to access education. Partnering with fellow attorney Nicole Pearson, she challenged the district's authority, emphasizing that only the state—not individual schools—can set vaccination requirements for entry. Despite initial judicial indifference, a 2022 ruling declared LAUSD's mandate illegal, vindicating their fight after months of excluded students.

Kennedy also spotlighted her appellate work in Peterson v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, representing eight Washington firefighters denied religious accommodations. Placed on indefinite unpaid suspension despite working safely through the pandemic, the firefighters faced arbitrary treatment—highlighted by one plaintiff investigating fires alongside his former colleagues while employed elsewhere. Kennedy, new to appeals, stepped in when no one else would, arguing religious discrimination and irrational policies. Her Ninth Circuit argument, prepped with mock sessions, marked a milestone in her career.

Throughout, Kennedy criticized opposing counsel's tactics and judicial biases, noting how LAUSD's lawyers taunted opponents after arguments, only to drop mandates under pressure. She connected these to broader cases like Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho, where the Ninth Circuit revived a challenge by classifying COVID shots as "medical treatments" rather than traditional vaccines, warranting strict scrutiny over rational basis review.

Brook Jackson: The Whistleblower's Ordeal and DOD Involvement is Proof of a Biological Attack

Mid-episode, Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson joined, sharing her harrowing experience as a clinical trial manager at Ventavia Research Group, a subcontractor in Pfizer's COVID vaccine trials. Hired in September 2020, Jackson witnessed data falsification, protocol violations, and unblinding—issues she reported to the FDA, only to be fired hours later. Her 2021 False Claims Act lawsuit alleged fraud in trials funded by taxpayer dollars, demanding a "refund" for Americans if approvals rested on tainted data.

"This was a Department of Defense project," Mendenhall emphasized, questioning the narrative of natural origins and calling for transparency on the "attack's" source.

Jackson expressed disillusionment with the judicial system, noting delays and the DOJ's motion to dismiss her case as "contrary to public health policy." Now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, the case underscores DOD involvement, framing the vaccines as "countermeasures" to a biological attack rather than standard public health tools. "This was a Department of Defense project," Mendenhall emphasized, questioning the narrative of natural origins and calling for transparency on the "attack's" source. Davidson clarified that the DOD's involvement in Brook's case confirmed that the US government's position is that it was under a biological attack, shifting the debate away from natural origins to deliberate threats.

…Brook's case confirmed that the US government's position is that it was under a biological attack…

Personally, Jackson described the toll: isolation, financial strain, and emotional exhaustion. Yet, encounters with vaccine-injured individuals renew her resolve. "I've broken the cycle for my kids," she said, highlighting lifestyle changes like home gardening and vaccine exemptions. She urged continued dialogue, rejecting mainstream media silence and prioritizing independent outlets.

Systemic Failures: Judicial Indifference, Media Hijacking, and Calls for Accountability

The panel critiqued the judiciary's role, with Kennedy recounting judges' dismissiveness toward child exclusions and Mendenhall decrying unchanged DOJ stances under new administrations. They discussed how mandates violated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) laws requiring voluntary participation, labeling penalties as fraud against the government.

Broader themes emerged: money-driven denial of vaccine injuries, media capture by pharma advertisers, and DOD's "war-like" mindset accepting casualties for readiness against biothreats. Davidson pondered if COVID exposed a "soggy log" of corruption, while the group lamented unaddressed injuries—three million disabled per labor stats—and called for research clinics, compensation programs, and asset seizures from perpetrators.

A chilling close: the American Academy of Pediatrics' push to eliminate non-medical exemptions, signaling renewed threats to parental rights amid awakening post-COVID awareness.

A Call to Action in the Ongoing Battle

This BrokenTruth.TV episode wasn't just a recap of past grievances—it's a rallying cry. Kennedy, Mendenhall, and Jackson embody resilience, urging public scrutiny of clinical trials, mandates, and DOD powers. As cases like Jackson's appeal loom, the fight for truth, justice, and medical freedom persists. For those affected, resources abound through groups like Health Freedom Defense Fund. In Kennedy's words: "This battle is still going on." Listeners are encouraged to engage, question, and support independent voices breaking the silence.

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

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.brokentruth.tv/subscribe