Broken Truth

Exposé: The Dubious Letter from "17,000 Doctors" Against RFK Jr.'s Nomination

Los Angeles, CA - In a startling expose on X, fitness expert and health advocate Jillian Michaels has revealed the questionable foundation of a letter opposing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination, purportedly backed by 17,000 doctors. Organized by the Committee to Protect Healthcare, this document has come under intense scrutiny as Kennedy's confirmation hearings loom.

Michaels questioned the authenticity of the signatures on the letter, stating, "I'm already starting to notice more baloney in the zeitgeist." She demonstrated the lack of verification by signing the letter twice under fictitious names, "Dr. Fake and Dr. BS," and remarked, "See for yourself; anybody anywhere can sign this supposed letter repeatedly."

The letter, which accuses Kennedy of spreading vaccine misinformation, was supposed to have the backing of the medical community. However, Michaels' investigation suggests a manipulation of facts. "A letter that anybody can sign with zero credentials as many times as they want to, that is claiming to have over 17,000 signatures by medical professionals, which I've already shown you is clearly a lie," she said.

Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds shady as s#*t to me.Jillian Michaels

Delving into the funding of the Committee to Protect Healthcare, Michaels uncovered ties to the Arabella Advisors network, known for its "dark money" operations. "They claim not to take money from pharma or insurance, etc., but they're funded by the Arabella network through different shell 501(c)(4) and (c)(3) companies who don't disclose who their donors are," she explained.

Hopewell Fund, one of the entities managed by Arabella Advisors, has board members such as Lee Bodner (board chair and president), Michael Slaby (board secretary and treasurer), Cheryl Contee, and Lori Chatman. This fund, according to Michaels, plays a role in this financial web. You can learn more about the Hopewell Fund at their official site.

Similarly, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, another Arabella-managed entity, has had significant influence in political advocacy. Past board members include Eric Kessler (former board chair), Michael Madnik, Wilbur Priester, Andrew Schulz, Monica Dixon, Cristobal Alex, and Nathaniel Chioke Williams. More about their activities can be found on their website.

Michaels criticized the use of donor-advised funds (DAFs) by these organizations, noting, "This network frequently uses donor-advised funds to funnel money into its projects. While legal, this practice allows donors to remain anonymous, further fueling concerns about transparency and accountability."

The practice of astroturfing, where campaigns are made to look grassroots but are backed by significant funds, was also a point of contention. "Arabella Managed Funds sponsor numerous advocacy campaigns and initiatives that often appear grassroots but are funded by the same network," Michaels pointed out.

This revelation by Michaels not only questions the credibility of the letter against RFK Jr. but also raises broader issues about the influence of undisclosed funding in shaping public policy. As Kennedy's confirmation hearings approach, the integrity of political advocacy is under the microscope.

Jillian Michaels concluded with a sharp critique: "Give me a freaking break. A letter that's supposed to represent the medical community but is so easily manipulated? It's not just about RFK Jr.; it's about how we're allowing politics to be played with our health and democracy."

This incident underscores the need for greater transparency and authenticity in political advocacy, ensuring that the voices influencing policy are genuine and not constructed for political manipulation.

Explore more of this organized effort to block RFK Jr by clicking this little sis map.

Demand Media Tell Your Stories

Crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been properly reported. Click this button to submit audience feedback to all the major networks & studios demanding that the stories they omitted be told.

Add your name to the end of the email and send it. Thank you!

Check out our documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”. Learn how the people who helped bring fentanyl to the market tried to convince the American people that a drug similar to tonic water was deadly. Watch now.

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

Title: A New Dawn in Policy: The Legal Battle Over Vaccine Mandates and Its Broader Implications

In a recent episode of "Broken Truth" hosted by John Davidson, attorneys Scott Street and Warner Mendenhall discussed significant developments in their ongoing legal battle against vaccine mandates, particularly in light of a new policy change by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and their previous lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Background of the Legal Challenges:

* Lawsuit Against the CDC: Previously, Mendenhall and Street, with attorney Leslie Manookian and the Health Freedom Defense Fund, filed a lawsuit against the CDC to challenge the mandate that immigrants seeking green cards must provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. The lawsuit argued that this requirement was unsupported by legal or scientific standards, particularly since COVID-19 was not considered a vaccine-preventable disease under current legal definitions (Broken Truth TV).

* Legal Arguments: The core of their argument was that the mandate was arbitrary, lacked scientific backing, and violated constitutional rights by compelling individuals to undergo medical procedures without sufficient legal or health justification.

Recent Policy Change by USCIS:

* New Policy Announcement: Effective January 22, 2025, the USCIS has waived the requirement for applicants for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents to provide documentation of having received the COVID-19 vaccination. This policy shift means no Requests for Evidence or Notices of Intent to Deny will be issued for lack of vaccination proof, and no application will be denied on this basis.

Impact on the Case and Broader Implications:

* Policy Shift: This change by USCIS directly aligns with the arguments made in the lawsuit against the CDC, suggesting a broader acknowledgment that previous policies might have overstepped legal and scientific boundaries. Scott Street noted this as a victory, signaling a move towards policy-making that is more aligned with legal and scientific evidence.

* Continued Legal Pursuit: Despite this policy change, the legal team emphasized that their broader objectives, including seeking acknowledgment from the CDC that COVID-19 does not meet the legal criteria for a vaccine-preventable disease, remain unfulfilled. This could set precedents for how vaccine mandates are viewed legally.

Broader Legal and Political Context:

* Agency Power: Warner Mendenhall highlighted how these legal battles reflect a reevaluation of agency power, with the Loper decision playing a significant role in redefining the legislative boundaries of agencies like the CDC and USCIS. This policy shift might be interpreted as an alignment with this new legal landscape.

* Public Health Policy: The case and the new policy underscore the necessity for public health policies to be grounded in robust scientific evidence and legal frameworks, ensuring they do not infringe upon individual rights or contravene legal standards.

* Political Reflection: The conversation also touched on the political ramifications, with Street, a former Democrat, expressing disillusionment with how the party has managed health crises, attributing it to a shift away from traditional democratic principles. The policy change was seen as a step towards reclaiming these values.

Future Actions and Challenges:

* Ongoing Litigation: Even with the USCIS policy adjustment, the legal team is committed to continuing their fight, aiming to influence future health policy decisions and ensure that they reflect both scientific accuracy and legal integrity.

* Accountability: The episode stressed the importance of accountability, with mentions of the need to hold officials and agencies responsible for decisions made during the health crisis, potentially affecting how future public health emergencies are managed.

* Public Engagement: The dialogue concluded with a call for active public involvement, through organizations like Freedom Council, to ensure government accountability and influence health policy in a direction that respects both science and civil liberties.

This scenario represents a pivotal moment in the U.S.'s approach to health policy, legal rights, and political accountability, potentially paving the way for significant reforms in how public health directives are formulated and enforced.

Demand Media Tell Your Stories

Crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been properly reported. Click this button to submit audience feedback to all the major networks & studios demanding that the stories they omitted be told.

Add your name to the end of the email and send it. Thank you!

Check out our documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”. Learn how the people who helped bring fentanyl to the market tried to convince the American people that a drug similar to tonic water was deadly. Watch now.

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

Full story at BrokenTruth.TV.

In his second-term inauguration speech on January 20, 2025, former President Donald Trump not only referenced the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 but also made a bold statement about drug cartels:

"I will immediately designate the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. We're going to do it immediately. And we'll unleash the full power of federal law enforcement, ICE, Border Patrol."

This declaration, combined with his mention of invoking the Alien Enemies Act, suggests a multifaceted approach to tackle both illegal immigration and the drug cartels' influence both within and outside the United States.

The Historical Context of the Alien Enemies Act:

Originally enacted to protect the U.S. during the Quasi-War with France, the Alien Enemies Act was designed to give the President the authority to detain or deport individuals from nations considered hostile during wartime. While its historical use was for national security in times of declared war, Trump's proposal hints at a reinterpretation for modern challenges, particularly the threats posed by organized crime and illegal immigration.

Key Provisions and Modern Interpretations:

* Detention and Deportation: This could extend to members of drug cartels or individuals from countries involved in international crime, treating them as threats akin to those from an enemy state.

Trump's Statements and Their Implications:

* Designating Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations:

* Trump's intention to classify Mexican drug cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations" would allow the U.S. to apply terrorism-related laws, leading to stricter measures like financial sanctions, asset freezing, and the criminalization of support for these groups. This move would significantly increase the legal tools available to combat drug trafficking and associated violence, treating cartels with the same severity as groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

* Using the Alien Enemies Act Against Cartels:

* Inside the U.S.: By treating cartel members as alien enemies, Trump could theoretically bypass some due process norms to expedite their detention and deportation, particularly if they are from countries he labels as hostile. This would be contentious legally but could appeal to those advocating for aggressive action against cartels. The act would serve as a mechanism to quickly remove criminal elements without the usual legal proceedings, although this would likely face immediate judicial review and civil rights challenges.

* Outside the U.S.: Although the act itself pertains to actions within U.S. borders, the designation of cartels as terrorist organizations could justify international cooperation or covert actions against cartel infrastructure in countries like Mexico, with or without local government consent. This approach could involve military or intelligence operations, potentially leading to diplomatic tensions or even conflicts with neighboring countries. It raises questions about sovereignty, international law, and the ethics of U.S. intervention in foreign territories.

The Damage Done by Cartels with Drugs Like Fentanyl:

* Fentanyl Overdoses: The impact of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin, has been catastrophic. In 2023 alone, over 73,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses, contributing to a total of 112,000 drug overdose deaths that year. Over the last 20 years, the U.S. has seen a quadrupling in the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths, with synthetic opioids like fentanyl being the primary drivers of this surge.

* Cartel Violence: Beyond drugs, the cartels have contributed to violence within the U.S. through gang-related activities and direct violence. While exact numbers for U.S. deaths directly attributable to cartel violence are harder to quantify due to the covert nature of many operations, the violence associated with cartels has undoubtedly led to numerous deaths, both through direct confrontations and collateral damage from their criminal enterprises.

Criminal Illegal Aliens Harming U.S. Citizens:

* Laken Riley: Her tragic murder by Jose Antonio Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant, has been cited as a stark example of the need for stringent immigration controls. This case has fueled debates about the efficacy of current immigration policies and the potential dangers of not enforcing them more rigorously.

* Cory Alvarez: A Haitian migrant brought to the U.S. under a parole program, Alvarez was accused of raping a disabled girl in Boston. His case underscores the risks associated with inadequate vetting or follow-up of migrants.

* Jesus Ascencio-Molina: Deported in 2013 but returned illegally to Oregon, where he allegedly stabbed an 86-year-old man during an attempted carjacking. This incident highlighted the challenges posed by repeat offenders who re-enter the country.

* Alejandro Cota: With a criminal history over 33 years, Cota's arrest in Illinois for the murder of a mother and her 13-year-old son illustrates the ongoing threat from criminal illegal aliens who manage to avoid deportation.

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

Legal and Practical Implications:

* Legal Challenges: The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context would face significant legal scrutiny due to its original intent for wartime scenarios, not peacetime criminality or organized crime. Critics argue that such an application could violate constitutional rights, leading to potential Supreme Court cases.

* Political Reaction: While there's support for tackling drug cartels and reducing crime by undocumented immigrants, there's also considerable opposition to what some see as overreach or potential human rights abuses. The political landscape could become polarized, with debates over civil liberties, national security, and international law.

* Feasibility: The practical application would require navigating international law, ensuring cooperation or at least non-hostility from countries where cartels operate, and managing domestic legal challenges. It would also necessitate a redefinition of how "war" or "invasion" is interpreted in legal terms.

Conclusion:

Trump's dual focus on invoking the Alien Enemies Act and designating cartels as terrorist organizations marks a potentially transformative approach to dealing with immigration-related crime and the drug trade. The staggering number of lives lost to fentanyl and cartel-related violence underscores the urgency of these measures. However, this strategy would need to carefully balance national security interests with respect for legal norms and international relations. The debate around these moves captures the tension between security, legality, and humanitarian considerations in U.S. policy-making, echoing broader discussions on immigration, crime, national sovereignty, and the global fight against drug cartels. Whether this approach would lead to a safer America or set a precedent for controversial executive overreach remains a subject of intense national and international discourse.

Demand Media Tell Your Stories

Click this button to submit audience feedback to all the major networks & studios demanding that the stories they omitted be told. All the hard work done for you!

Add your name to the end of the email and send it. Thank you!

Check out our documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”. Learn how the people who helped bring fentanyl to the market tried to convince the American people that a drug similar to tonic water was deadly. Watch now.

The Battle for Free Speech in the Digital Age: A Conversation with Jason Fyk

In an enlightening discussion on "Broken Truth," Jason Fyk, founder of the Social Media Freedom Foundation, shared his legal entanglements with tech giants, notably his ongoing case against Meta (formerly known as Facebook). Host John Davidson facilitated the conversation, which unearthed significant insights into the entanglement of law, technology, and free speech. This article encapsulates the powerful statements and critiques from their dialogue.

Early Engagement and Rise:

Fyk described his ascent in the social media landscape, starting around 2010-2011, where he learned to work within the algorithm of platforms like Facebook, eventually building an audience that dwarfed contemporaries like BuzzFeed by 2012. However, this success story soon met with controversy, as he alleges a collusion between government and tech companies to control content dissemination.

The Alleged Conspiracy:

Fyk made a stark claim, stating, "Facebook and government are almost one and the same thing." He argued that from 2013-2014, these entities began to manipulate social media to serve their interests, turning platforms into content regulators rather than neutral hosts, which he sees as a direct assault on free speech and market competition.

Legal Battles and the Misuse of Section 230:

At the heart of Fyk's legal challenges is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which he believes has been misconstrued to protect tech giants beyond what was intended. He criticized, "They decide what stays up and what gets taken down," highlighting how this power equates to editorial control, thereby challenging the very notion of platforms as mere conduits of information.

Courtroom Struggles:

Fyk shared disturbing accounts of judicial bias, including a case where a judge with significant tech stock investments oversaw his lawsuit, leading to rulings Fyk believes were prejudiced. He expressed his dismay, "They've been doing it for two and a half decades because the courts won't fix it."

The Role and Failure of the Judiciary:

Fyk made a profound critique of the judicial system, stating, "We've created a system of judiciary or the justice system that is designed to deny... make as much money as fast as you possibly can without doing as little as you possibly can." This statement reflects his broader view on the inefficiencies and potential corruption within the legal system, particularly when it comes to tech-related cases.

Broader Societal Implications:

The conversation ventured into the societal impact of his legal battles, notably during the COVID-19 era. Fyk accused the government of controlling crucial health information, leading to misinformed public actions. He claimed, "People have died as a direct result of the court's delay in my case," emphasizing the dire consequences of legal procrastination and censorship.

Looking Forward:

Fyk is preparing for yet another appeal to the Supreme Court, aiming to enforce a straightforward interpretation of Section 230. He stated with determination, "I am going to hand the Supreme Court the fix to the entire Internet censorship problem for the third time," underscoring his commitment to this cause.

Conclusion:

Jason Fyk's legal battle, as discussed in this interview, transcends personal grievances, touching on fundamental issues of free speech, government overreach, and corporate accountability in the digital age. His and Davidson's dialogue serves as a clarion call for reevaluating how laws like Section 230 are applied, potentially shaping the future landscape of online freedom and information control.

Demand Media Tell Your Stories

Click this button to submit audience feedback to all the major network & studios demanding that the stories they omitted be told. All the hard work done for you!

Simply add your name to the end of the email and send it. Thank you!

Check out our documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”. The story focuses on the media villainization of a drug similar to tonic water. Watch now.

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

New Developments in Florida Courts Handling of Child Sexual Abuse Case

Forensic Evidence Unveiled

In a case that has now become a beacon for systemic issues within Florida's judicial system, Human Rights Attorney Leigh Dundas has brought to light a harrowing story of child sexual abuse, judicial oversight, and what many are calling a gross miscarriage of justice.

The case centers around a now 14-year-old girl who, at the tender age of four and a half, alleged she was sexually abused by her biological father, a policeman, and her paternal step-grandfather. The step-grandfather, already listed on the offender registry for prior sexual offenses against a teenage, wheelchair-bound patient, added a layer of credibility to the young girl's allegations.

Dundas details the forensic evidence in her video statement, saying, "When the cops went into that basement and turned their special lights on, they found not one or two, but six different stains suspicious for seminal fluid." The subsequent lab analysis was damning: "It was at least one hundred sixty septillion times more likely if it meaning the stain originated from the father than if it originated from an unrelated, unknown contributor. And it was at least 320 quadrillion times more likely if it originated from the grandfather than if it originated from any other unrelated, unknown contributor."

Judicial Oversight and Decisions

The arrest of the father uncovered further incriminating evidence on his electronic devices. Dundas notes, "Not one, but two different law enforcement officers subsequently testified under oath that they found pictures of, quote, naked pictures of both boys and girls that appeared to be possibly prepubescent. And also images of, quote, very young children involved in blank acts with adults and very young children appearing to be blanked and or in bondage."

Despite this overwhelming evidence, the state's decision not to prosecute has led to a cascade of judicial decisions that have stunned observers. The father, released without prosecution, moved for custody, and the courts responded in a manner that has been widely criticized.

Dundas describes the judicial handling with palpable frustration: "The judge in that particular case, in the Florida family courts, prevented the therapist on the case from talking about the abuse with the little girl, prevented the mother from talking about the therapy to the little girl or the abuse with the little girl. And he also ordered the therapist to not report to authorities when they inquired if they should."

The Child's Voice Silenced

In a particularly chilling moment of the transcript, Dundas recounts the child's own words in court: "And when the little girl who was now nine years old told the judge on the record that sometimes, quote, he, meaning dad, would make me take off my clothes and he would videotape me with his cell phone dancing, the judge actually sealed that transcript so it's likely that nobody ever heard about or saw those allegations or could thus follow up."

Legal and Financial Repercussions

The mother, in an attempt to protect her child, was met with punitive measures from the court: "The judge then held the mother in contempt of court and fined her $237,000 for what, you might ask? Well, for the audacity of having taken her child to see therapists and for having cooperated with an ongoing criminal investigation by another state's attorney general department."

Public and Legal Response

This case has not only highlighted the plight of the child but has also drawn significant attention to the judicial process in Florida. Posts on X have shown widespread disbelief and calls for action from higher authorities like Governor DeSantis.

Leigh Dundas has made all this information accessible on her website, leighdundas.com/fl-child-rape-case/, where she provides direct links to crime scene photos, lab reports, and state police documents. She urges public involvement, stating, "You can help the mother by funding her nearly $2 million worth of legal fees she's incurred over the last 10 years. I'm not taking a dime. I'm just helping this case get known."

A Call for Systemic Change

This case is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within the legal system when it comes to protecting children from abuse and ensuring due process. It challenges the community, legal professionals, and policymakers to reassess how these grave issues are handled, advocating for a system where justice is not just an ideal but a reality for every victim.

View our previous coverage of this story below.

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

Watch our award-winning film about public and private corruption during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Epidemic of Fraud” is online now.

The Zachary Young Verdict Against CNN: A Landmark Case in Media Accountability

Introduction

In a landmark defamation lawsuit, Zachary Young, a contractor, was awarded $5 million against CNN, marking a significant moment in the accountability of media organizations. This case highlights the tension between First Amendment protections and the responsibility of media to report accurately without malice. Here, we delve into the details of the case, its implications, and its broader context within contemporary media practices.

Summary of CNN's Actions Against Zachary Young

Zachary Young, a contractor involved in the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, was at the center of CNN's reporting which suggested he was part of a "black market" operation for evacuating people. Specifically, CNN aired segments that accused Young of charging exorbitant fees for evacuation services, portraying him as someone exploiting a desperate situation for personal gain. These reports not only damaged his reputation but also his business, leading to significant financial and personal harm.

Young's lawsuit against CNN was based on the claim that these reports were maliciously false or recklessly disregarded the truth. He argued that CNN did not adequately verify the allegations before broadcasting, which is a critical element in proving "actual malice" under defamation law.

Legal Analysis from Warner Mendenhall

During an interview on Broken Truth with John Davidson, Warner Mendenhall, an attorney from Ohio, provided insights into the legal complexities of the case. Here's an excerpt from the interview:

(00:00:55):

John Davidson: So Warner, can you explain a little bit about this case, defamation with malice?Warner Mendenhall: Yeah, what happens is our press is very protected under the malice standard. And it's actually a fairly high bar that Zachary Young had to overcome because he has to show that they literally lied about him or at least that they recklessly disregarded the truth under a malice standard that was set in the 1960s in the Sullivan versus New York Times case...

Mendenhall emphasized the difficulty in proving actual malice, noting that Young needed to show CNN knew their reports were false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth:

(00:01:30):

...But we cannot have a free press that acts with malice and recklessly disregards the truth. And that's the standard that Zachary Young met, and that's resulted in this $5 million verdict.

The Verdict and Its Implications

The jury's decision to award Young $5 million was not just a financial penalty for CNN but also a broader statement on media ethics. According to the Zero Hedge article, the case was particularly devastating for CNN, with the verdict coming on the heels of other high-profile media lawsuits, including ABC's settlement with Donald Trump. This verdict underscores:

* Public Trust: Mendenhall pointed out the erosion of trust in major news outlets, suggesting that such verdicts might reflect a public pushback against perceived misinformation or biased reporting.

* Legal Precedent: This case could set a precedent for how defamation cases, particularly those involving media, are handled, potentially making news organizations more cautious in their reporting.

* Impact on Media: There's a noted trend where high-profile verdicts like this one might influence how media companies operate, with a possible increase in legal scrutiny over their content.

Broader Context and Related Cases

The Zachary Young case is part of a series of legal challenges facing media organizations:

* ABC Lawsuit: Mendenhall referenced Donald Trump's lawsuit against ABC, which concluded with ABC paying $15 million, indicative of a growing trend where media organizations face significant financial repercussions for their reporting.

* Vaccine Reporting Issues: Mendenhall also touched upon the defamation of individuals claiming vaccine injuries, suggesting another area where media might be legally challenged.

Conclusion

The Zachary Young verdict against CNN underscores a critical moment in media accountability. It serves as a reminder of the balance that must be struck between free speech and truthful reporting. This case, while specific to Young's circumstances, reflects broader societal debates about media integrity, public trust, and the legal frameworks that govern journalism. As media landscapes evolve, cases like these will likely continue to shape the discourse on how news is both produced and consumed.

Sources:

* Zero Hedge article: "Fake Dues: CNN Found Guilty In $5M Defamation Case As CBS Mulls Settlement In Trump Lawsuit"

Learn more about how media and news organizations manipulated the public’s perception of a drug safer than tonic water. Watch our award-winning documentary ‘Epidemic of Fraud.’

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

In a recent episode of "Broken Truth," host John Davidson delved into the implications of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) with guest Kevin McKernan, who has significant expertise in genomics. The discussion shed light on SV40's historical presence in polio vaccines and its possible role in contemporary health issues.

Historical Context of SV40:

McKernan explained that SV40, a monkey virus, was inadvertently included in polio vaccines during the late 1950s and early 1960s due to the use of monkey kidney cells for vaccine production. This virus has been linked to cancer in animal models, stirring concerns about its impact on human health.

Learn about the dark history of SV40 in weapons research in our interview with Judyth Vary Baker here.

Recent Discoveries:

The conversation pivoted to recent findings by McKernan, who, while examining Pfizer's vaccines, discovered undisclosed components of SV40 DNA. This revelation has sparked debates about the safety and transparency of vaccine manufacturing. McKernan highlighted that while the complete SV40 virus isn't present, certain viral components like the promoter and enhancer sequences could have significant biological effects, including potential oncogenic properties.

Rising Cancer Rates:

McKernan pointed out an observed increase in cancer rates, particularly among younger demographics, which he suggests might be connected to these SV40 components. He referenced various data sources:

* Death Records: John Boudwin's work on death records from several states shows an uptick in cancer-related deaths post-vaccination.

* Insurance Data: Ed Dowd's analysis of insurance claims supports the notion of increased cancer incidences.

* Pharmaceutical Acquisitions: Major pharmaceutical companies are aggressively acquiring cancer treatment companies, suggesting an anticipated rise in demand.

Therapeutic Approaches:

The interview also explored potential treatments like ivermectin and fenbendazole, which have shown anecdotal success in managing these "turbo cancers." Ivermectin, notably smeared in public discourse, has mechanisms that could counteract the effects of SV40 by inhibiting nuclear import proteins, potentially preventing DNA integration into the cell nucleus.

The drug’s cancer potential recently went viral after Mel Gibson discussed how several of his friends had been cured of cancer by using the medication.

Challenges and Misinformation:

McKernan discussed the challenges in disseminating this information, including smear campaigns against researchers and the suppression of alternative treatments by mainstream medical bodies. He criticized platforms like PubPeer for what he perceives as biased scrutiny of research that challenges pharmaceutical narratives.

Future Directions:

McKernan, with his background in genomics from his time on the Human Genome Project, emphasized the need for more decentralized research and medical practices. He highlighted his ongoing work with Medicinal Genomics, aimed at applying genomic tools to cannabis for medical use, advocating for a similar approach to other generic drugs like ivermectin to bypass centralized pharmaceutical control.

Conclusion:

The episode with Kevin McKernan on John Davidson's "Broken Truth" serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of vaccine safety, the potential unintended consequences of medical interventions, and the ongoing battle for medical freedom and transparency in research. McKernan's insights invite further scrutiny and discussion on how to manage health in a world where new diseases and treatments are constantly emerging, often with unclear long-term effects.

See how we brought up SV40 in the Polio Vaccine to acting head of the FDA Janet Woodcock in December 2021 by watching our movie ‘Epidemic of Fraud’ now.

Research cited by Kevin in this interview:Thorn et al The journey of a lifetime - development of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccineLim et al. High spontaneous integration rates of end-modified linear DNAs upon mammalian cell transfectionKwon et al The Cytosolic DNA-Sensing cGAS-STING Pathway in Cancer

Drayman et alp53 elevation in human cells halt SV40 infection by inhibiting T-ag expression

Dean et alSequence requirements for plasmid nuclear import

Senigl et alHematologic Cancer after Gene Therapy for Cerebral Adrenoleukodystrophy

Duncan et alPersistent Nonviral Plasmid Vector in Nasal Tissues Causes False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Nucleic Acid Tests

I do this work without much help. Your paid subscription is much appreciated. Thank you!

Dr. Drew has come a long way in the past few years. In the following series of tweets, he explained his experience being censored on the YouTube platform. It just so happened his latest censored episode was also the first episode where Epidemic of Fraud was ever mentioned on Dr. Drew’s show.

Warner Mendenhall is head of the Mendenhall Law Group and co-founder of Freedom Counsel, a non-profit org dedicated to supporting attorneys fighting for the rights of all Americans. In the above clip, I explain the background of why Warner Mendenhall, Dr. Drew’s guest, brings up the film. The clip of the show mentioning the film follows my intro.

This censorshop has caused concern with Dr. Drew, who penned a very impassioned series of X posts regarding the matter.

One can only hope that YouTube is held accountable for the unforgivable position it has taken, censoring doctors, nurses, and injured over the past few years.

Read on for Dr. Drew’s post below which has now hit over 8 million views on X, and watch our movie at EpidemicofFraud.com.

By Dr. Drew on X

This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading "medical misinformation" & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I've been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube's existence. So let's take a closer look at the timestamps they say are "harmful"...

Violation 1: medical misinformation at 22:52. Dr. Kelly Victory shares her professional opinion about young people who were injured by mRNA side effects, saying the "vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. 98% of the population has documentation they've had COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone." The two people on screen – @DrKellyVictory and me – are licensed, board-certified physicians who completed medical school decades ago. I was chief resident at Huntington Hospital, an Assistant Clinical Professor in medicine & psychiatry at Keck USC, and a Director of Addiction Services at Las Encinas Hospital for 25 years. Do I agree with everything Dr. Victory says? I do not. And she wouldn't hesitate to say the same about me (often on my own show). But I have a commitment to free speech and open debate between dissenting experts. It is not medical misinformation for a licensed doctor to provide an opinion on a broadcast.

By the way... here's Dr. Fauci in 2023 insisting "there's no doubt that masks work" despite the data and opposition from public health experts like epidemiologist @DrHarveyRisch (a Yale professor) who told me "in reality, what you’re talking about is putting up a chain link fence and hoping that it blocks mosquitoes.” Dr. Fauci's interview is still fully available on YouTube:

Violation 2: medical misinformation at 38:21. Attorney Warner Mendenhall of @akronlawfirm shares his professional opinion and details about a case he's fighting. "I believe about half a million people have died from taking the shot. We are currently representing one of my clients who is extremely ill. Her spinal cord has been damaged... she's having trouble breathing... she goes by The Coerced Nurse ." Do I agree with everything Mendenhall says? I do not. I haven't seen convincing evidence that 500,000 people died from the shot. But it is not medical misinformation for an attorney to discuss the details of an ongoing case, even if those details do not align with the CDC's preferred narrative at the time (e.g. the Tuskegee Study, Guatemalan STD experiments, Willowbrook Hepatitis study, Camp Lejeune water contamination). It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study. That is his opinion based on evidence from his cases.

By the way... here's Rachel Maddow telling MSNBC viewers "we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people." Maddow's statements are still fully available on @YouTube

These aren't the first warnings or strikes I've received from @YouTube. The first time this happened, my producer got on the phone with them & made peace (it's hard to moderate billions of hours of content and YouTube will make mistakes sometimes). But when it happened again last year, my producer politely asked them if I could do a "provider to provider" call, from one physician to another, so I could have a clinical conversation with the person on their side who is judging my interviews – the hallowed YouTube moderator who graduated medical school, spent time in residency, and treated enough patients to confidently claim my professional opinion is harmful enough to justify censorship. Of course that person couldn't speak to me, because that person does not exist. YouTube doesn't have physicians on their moderation team.

YouTube is free to stay on the wrong side of history. Their house, their rules. But it's times like these when I'm especially grateful that @ElonMusk brought free speech back to the public square. Both @AskDrDrew episodes are still available on X, and I refuse to delete even 1 second of them to appease Google's unqualified, unlicensed, untrained, unidentified censors. 1/10/2025 with @DrKellyVictory https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBgqNOpbKN?t=278s& @HarryFisherEMTP.https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMyZDvqeKQ?t=245s

Watch Epidemic of Fraud now.

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

Florida Court's Handling of Child Abuse Case Sparks Outrage: Unprecedented Silence of a Rape Victim

In an eye-opening press event held on January 6, 2025, in front of the Alachua Family Courthouse in Gainesville, Florida, Human Rights Attorney Leigh Dundas shed light on a chilling case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. The case, which Dundas referred to as a stark example of injustice, involves a young girl, pseudonymously named 'Little Amy,' and her disturbing claims against her father, a police officer, and her step-grandfather, who is already a convicted sex offender.

Allegations and Evidence:

* Initial Claims: At four and a half years old, Little Amy alleged sexual abuse by her biological father and step-grandfather. These allegations were made at a time when there was no apparent acrimony between her parents, who had amicably divorced when she was just 17 months old.

* Medical Evidence: Dundas highlighted a medical history of the child that included rectal bleeding, bloody diapers, vaginal rashes, foul odors, and herpes on her lips, consistent with abuse.

* Forensic Evidence: A search warrant executed at the step-grandfather's home revealed seminal fluid stains in the basement, where the child claimed the abuse occurred. DNA analysis by the Michigan State Police Lab established that the stains were overwhelmingly more likely to belong to the father and step-grandfather than any unrelated individual, with odds described in septillions and quadrillions.

* Electronic Devices: More shockingly, after the father's arrest, his electronic devices were seized by Florida's Internet Crimes Against Children unit. Two officers testified under oath to finding images of naked children, including very young children involved in sexual acts with adults and appearing to be tortured or in bondage.

Court's Response:

* Judicial Orders: Judge James P. Nilon, who initially presided over the case, issued orders preventing further exploration of the abuse allegations by therapists, sealed court transcripts where the child made direct allegations against her father, and even barred the mother from discussing the abuse with her daughter.

* Contempt and Fines: The mother was held in contempt for seeking therapy for her child and for cooperating with the criminal investigation, resulting in a fine of $237,689.

* Current Judge's Stance: The case was handed over to Judge Robert K. Groeb, who, despite acknowledging the child's maturity, declined to allow her testimony in the ongoing custody battle, citing concerns that she might think she was "driving the train" in court decisions.

Implications and Calls for Action:

* Silence of Victim: Dundas described the judicial handling as one of the most effective silencing of a rape victim she had ever witnessed, likening it to practices in less developed judicial systems.

* Public Outcry: The attorney called for a top-down investigation by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, specifically questioning the communication between judges, the failure to report under mandatory laws, and the lack of follow-up on the damning evidence found on the father's devices.

* Legislative Action: Dundas urged for legislative changes to prevent such judicial oversights and to ensure the protection of child victims in future cases.

This case has not only highlighted potential failures within Florida's judicial system but also raised significant questions about how child abuse allegations are handled, particularly when they involve law enforcement personnel and individuals with prior sex offense convictions. Dundas's plea for transparency and justice underscores a broader call for systemic change to shield the vulnerable from further harm within the legal system.

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

Watch our movie “Epidemic of Fraud” now and learn the dark secrets behind the medical establishment’s COVID-19 response.

Children’s Health Defense is a nonprofit started in part by HHS secretary candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A few weeks ago we were asked if we would be interested in an interview and placement of our film on CHD.TV, the organization’s film website. We said ‘sure!’ and the movie was posted today.

Feel free to watch and support our work!

Support us at EpidemicOfFraud.com Paypal: https://EpidemicOfFraud.com/donate. Coinbase: https://epidemicoffraud.com/coinbase Epidemic of Fraud is the award-winning documentary that 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.

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