COVID-19 / Malicious Medical Quackery
[Ed.: FEAR YOUR DOCTOR! Medicine is a disgraced profession. They cannot (and must not) be trusted any longer!
Cultivate Nosocomephobia and iatrophobia. Spread ‘vaccine hesitancy’! How Bad is My Batch? Enter your batch number(s) and find out. Then take action and purge yourself of this shit to the extent possible. It’s do-able!
If you know someone injured by the jabs, direct them to humanitysuit.com to become a plaintiff. Another great legal resource is: Freedom Council https://freedomcounsel.org; For Vaccine Exemptions: https://www.sirillp.com/vaccine-exemption-attorneys/ .
RESOURCE: VACCINE INFO COURSE All material from the course has been transferred to telegram. You can access everything here]
DIED SUDDENLY: Official Documentary Film [1:17:21]
Inside mRNA Vaccines – The Movie [1:00:59]
Premiered Aug 11, 2025
This film explores the unprecedented global rollout of mRNA vaccine technology. www.insidemrnavaccines.com
00:00 Intro
02:53 Surgeon Joel Wallskog’s health issues
06:21 Operation Warp Speed initiative
06:38 Former CDC Director on mRNA vaccines
07:35 Regulators’ safety assessment
08:09 Calls to pause mRNA vaccines
09:32 mRNA researcher Robert Malone
12:56 Pathologist Ryan Cole on COVID vaccination
14:14 Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra on heart health
14:37 Cardiologist Peter McCullough on side effects
17:28 Scientist Jessica Rose on vaccine concerns
18:41 Critical care specialist Paul Marik on patient community
21:17 Explaining mRNA
23:45 How mRNA vaccines work
27:06 Spike protein and possible effects
30:57 Pathologist Arne Burkhardt’s biopsy findings
32:49 Health agencies’ safety stance
33:38 Vaccination in pregnancy and children
34:22 Artist Jessica Sutta’s health issues
39:03 Future uses of mRNA technology
42:55 Tobie Vergara’s health issues
45:12 History of mRNA vaccines
46:44 Modified mRNA technology
48:40 mRNA research status in 2017
49:07 Toxicity concerns in 2017
49:33 Progress in mRNA technology
49:50 mRNA vaccines during the pandemic
55:41 Support for post-vaccination syndrome
57:06 Doctors offering assistance
[Ed.: Other vaccine controversies include:
1. How the vaccines caused the paralysis of polio
2. How vaccines caused sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
3. How vaccines cause brain damage, but we call it autism
4. How we covered up brain damage and made it a mental condition
Journal Nature is planning a hit piece about me. This is my response to their “request for comment”. SASHA LATYPOVA
OCT 01, 2025
Yesterday, I received the following email from Jack Leeming, the editor for Careers section at the very prestigious science journal Nature. It appears that Nature is planning to publish a hit piece on me and other writers critical of covid policies and mRNA injections. Mr. Leeming writes:
Dear Ms. Latypova,
I’m an editor for Nature magazine, working on a story about how Substack has become a popular place for those involved in the anti-vaccine movement and other areas generally considered to be outside of the scientific consensus. You’re mentioned as one of the writers within that movement.
The general thrust of the piece is that Substack has become immensely popular in this area because it lacks content moderation and allows relatively easy monetisation (as well as of course providing a robust newsletter platform). Could you speak to that?
More specifically those we spoke to allege:
- Substack writers including yourself endanger public health through the promotion of anti-vaccine information that isn’t rooted in accepted, peer-reviewed science.
- You and other Substackers are profiting from disseminating this information through Substack’s monetisation mechanisms.
- In general, anti-vaccine stances are supported by a small body of evidence compared to the larger weight of evidence for vaccination.
We describe you as a former pharmaceutical and medical device R&D executive.
Would you be able to respond to these points by Wednesday 8th October, to ensure timely reflection of your responses in the piece?
Do let me know if any questions and thanks for your time.
Best wishes
Jack
—
Jack Leeming
Chief careers editor, Nature
Here is my reply:
Dear Jack,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your upcoming piece. You work at the “Careers” section of Nature, and reviewing your background, it appears that you have limited to no experience in science, pharmaceutical industry, regulatory processes and applicable law. Your lack of knowledge is probably why your employer decided to assign you the task of derogatory name calling of a professional who has decades of relevant expertise on these topics.
First, on your framing me as an alleged member of “anti‑vaccine movement”.
Labeling me as part of a fabricated “movement” is false. I am not part of any movement(s) or organizations and do not have allegiances. I write a personal newsletter on Substack to which 60,000 people in 190 countries chose to subscribe because they find it valuable. Second, labeling my work “anti‑vaccine” is inaccurate and lazy. I write about pharmacovigilance, clinical risk‑benefit, bioethics, and the legal/contracting frameworks that governed COVID‑19 military countermeasures. That includes reading FDA/CDC communications, GAO audits of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), federal PREP Act liability declarations, and the peer‑review literature on both benefits and risks. I analyze primary sources, not rumors.
Substack’s own policy is prominently disclosed to the public as “minimal editorial control” combined with explicit content guidelines and a reader‑choice model. Characterizing the platform as “popular because it lacks moderation” skips these facts and the basic reality that readers subscribe to what they find valuable.
Further, you claim that my writing is “endangering public health.” This claim is demonstrably false. Critiquing products, policies, or mandates is not endangering the public; it’s the point of post‑market safety science. History shows that legitimate critique and vigilance improve safety:
- Rotashield (1999) was withdrawn after VAERS signaled a true intussusception risk.
- Pandemrix (2009–10) was later linked to increased narcolepsy risk in several European populations.
- Vioxx was pulled for excess cardiovascular risk; rigorous critics—inside and outside FDA—were right. I worked in the pharma industry during that time and my company (iCardiac Technologies) contributed to development of more rigorous cardiovascular safety assessment practices at the FDA and withdrawal of Vioxx and several other dangerous drugs from the market.
For COVID‑19, regulators themselves acknowledge the risks. FDA and CDC recognize a causal association between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis/pericarditis which is now reflected in updated U.S. labeling. It is not “anti-vax” to point to the FDA’s own guidance document that, prior to 2020 stated that mRNA platforms have been associated with death, cancer, blindness, strokes, miscarriages and many more serious concerns. No “risky” drug product becomes magically “safe for all” simply by being declared a “vaccine”.
Further you state that my work is “not rooted in accepted, peer‑reviewed science.”
My work routinely links to regulatory documents (FDA, CDC) and government audits (GAO) on how the COVID response actually operated, documents obtained via FOIA and court proceedings, peer‑review on safety and effectiveness, HHS PREP Act declarations and many other primary sources. I do not wish to publish in peer-review because I am not writing science papers. I write on much more important and complex topics of public concern that peer-review literature does not address, being paid and captured by the deeply corrupt pharmaceutical-military complex.
You may disagree with my analyses. That’s fine; disagreement is part of science, and I invite you to point to what you disagree with and offer substantive rebuttal. What’s not fine is conflating any challenge to official narratives with “harm.” Readers deserve to see the primary material and make up their own minds.
You state that I am “profiting from misinformation.” I publish on a reader‑supported platform. Unlike Nature and similar journals, there are no ads, no sponsors, no institutional funders. An annual subscription to my publication is $80, however ALL my new articles are free to access for all readers, paid or unpaid, for 2 months. Annual subscription to Nature is $199 for individuals and many thousands of dollars for corporate accounts. I doubt you are working for free – are you profiteering by writing this piece? Are you trying to profit from the popularity of MY work by attacking it? If your standard is that earning income from journalism or analysis equals “profiting,” then Nature, the major newspapers, and most academics with book deals would fail it too. The relevant question is accuracy and sourcing, not whether the work is paid.
A final point about OWS and the global military operation “covid”. A major share of my recent reporting dissects how military countermeasures, falsely advertised as “safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics” were procured, regulated, indemnified, and distributed under emergency authorities (HHS‑DoD partnership; PREP Act liability shield; use of OTAs). These are matters of law, governance, and public finance—not “medical heresy.” They deserve daylight whether one is pro‑, anti‑, or agnostic about any given product. Please refer to The Covid Dossier for a detailed listing of hundreds of primary sources about this military campaign, and I invite you to refute any of the statements therein.
Finally, I would like to remind you about legal standards for “reckless disregard for truth”. The concept originates from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and subsequent cases. Reckless disregard means that the publisher entertained serious doubts about the truth of a statement, or had a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity, but published it anyway. Courts require clear and convincing evidence of one or more of the following:
- Knowledge of falsity: The publisher actually knew the statement was false at the time of publication.
- Serious doubts about truth: Evidence that the writer/editor strongly suspected the information was false but chose to publish.
- Purposeful avoidance of the truth: Deliberately ignoring contradictory evidence or refusing to investigate obvious red flags.
- Reliance on inherently unreliable sources: Using sources known to be biased, unverified, or untrustworthy without checking.
- Fabrication: Inventing quotations or facts outright.
It appears that you sent an identical email to
Alex Berenson, who is another writer on Substack critical of covid policies and “covid vaccines”. In his response to you Alex Berenson reported that he had been approached by another writer from Nature Hannah Docter-Loeb, in July, with similar questions, to which he replied in detail. His detailed responses were disregarded by you:
This is classic. Your reporter sent me a long list of questions months ago pretending to be fair-minded. I answered them in detail (and published both sides of the conversation on my Substack). Now you pop up, not with any specific questions about my answers, but with the usual smears. Was she, perhaps, too embarrassed to play this game?
As I pointed out to Leeming, he didn’t even mention any of my answers, much less ask follow-up questions about them. He just made a bunch of allegations, including one that frames my ban from and return to Twitter in a way that defames me and recklessly disregards the truth.
The good news is that, if Nature does defame me, its complete disregard for my initial answers will be strong evidence of its malicious intent. And — as James Lawrence points out — Nature is based in Britain, where defamation is far easier to prove.
Given this evidence from Mr. Berenson, and your obvious attempts to disparage my fact-based, meticulously sourced work, it will be straightforward to make a case meeting the legal standards of “reckless disregard for truth” demonstrated by Nature and its publisher. It is evident that:
1) Nature publisher had high degree of awareness of probable falsity of their claims against the critics of the covid campaign and covid “vaccines”; and
2) Nature publisher is purposefully avoiding the truth by deliberately ignoring contradictory evidence or refusing to investigate obvious red flags.
For accurate description of my credentials, please include the following for my professional background. I am a former pharmaceutical/medical‑device R&D executive and business owner. I co‑founded iCardiac Technologies (cardiac safety for clinical trials; R&D alliance with Pfizer) and several other companies in pharmaceutical and medical device R&D, and have worked for decades at the interface of clinical trials, validation, and regulatory acceptance. My industry work intersected with FDA cardiac safety initiatives such as the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC). I hold Masters of Business Administration degree from Dartmouth College.
I’m available to clarify anything before your deadline of Wednesday, 8 October.
Best regards,
Sasha Latypova
Nurse Exposes Explosion in Fetal Deaths Among Covid-Vaxxed Women Frank Bergman
September 30, 2025 – 12:56 pm
A nurse has blown the whistle to expose a bone-chilling cover-up of skyrocketing fetal deaths among pregnant women who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
The explosive allegations were revealed in court filings for a shocking new lawsuit filed by registered California nurse Michelle Spencer.
The lawsuit, filed in California, reveals bombshell claims of institutional misconduct at Community Health System (dba Community Medical Centers, or CMC).
Spencer, a labor and delivery nurse, accuses CMC of concealing a dramatic increase in fetal deaths.
In the legal filings, Spencer provides data showing a staggering 5,000% spike in fetal deaths caused by Covid “vaccines.”
The nurse asserts that the mRNA injections caused the deaths, and the surge began shortly after the hospital’s Covid “vaccine” policies were implemented in 2021.
The lawsuit alleges fraudulent concealment of adverse outcomes, retaliation against whistleblowers, and prioritization of institutional profits over patient safety.
The lawsuit, Spencer v. Community Health System (Case No. 25CECG03557), claims that the health system concealed an alarming rise in fetal deaths after Covid mRNA injections were mandated for pregnant women.
Spencer, who worked at CMC’s Community Regional Medical Center (CRMC), alleges that the hospital failed to investigate Covid shot-related causes for the devastating increase in stillbirths, a move that, according to the lawsuit, violated ethical and legal standards.
According to Spencer, fetal deaths surged by up to 5,000% among pregnant women who received mRNA injections.
Spencer’s complaint alleges that fetal deaths at CRMC surged dramatically starting in the spring of 2021.
She reveals that fetal deaths went from a baseline of 1–2 per month to an average of 4 per week, coinciding with the rollout of the Covid “vaccines.”
Spencer claims that internal hospital data and staff discussions pointed to the fact that nearly all of these deaths occurred in “vaccinated” mothers.
The lawsuit includes evidence from OB/GYN Dr. James A. Thorp.
Dr. Thorpe prepared a stillbirth rate chart to highlight the surge.
The chart shows that the stillbirth rate in one California hospital jumped from the national average of approximately 5.7 per 1,000 births before 2021 to a staggering 29.3 per 1,000 births after July 2021.
The doctor notes that stillbirths skyrocketed following the introduction of the Covid injections.
Spencer accuses CMC of knowingly concealing the vaccine-related harm, while maintaining a public narrative that the mRNA shots were “safe and effective.”
In September 2022, Spencer leaked a hospital-wide email titled “Record High Dead Babies” to media outlets.
Following the leak, Spencer says she faced retaliation from the hospital.
She alleges that she was demoted, denied a $5,000 bonus, and issued a false disciplinary warning based on a supposed HIPAA violation.
Spencer describes the response from hospital management as “gaslighting,” with CMC officials offering alternate, unsubstantiated explanations, such as pesticide exposure, while avoiding any investigation into the role of the “vaccines” in the fetal deaths.
Further allegations in the lawsuit suggest systemic suppression of safety data at CMC:
- The hospital allegedly failed to submit adverse events related to fetal deaths to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), despite legal requirements.
- Death certificates were allegedly falsified to avoid implicating COVID-19 vaccines.
- The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), after receiving Spencer’s complaint, was misled by CMC, resulting in no investigation.
The lawsuit claims that CMC prioritized financial incentives, such as participation in the CDC’s Vaccines for Children (VFC) program and ties to UCSF Fresno, over patient safety.
Spencer argues that this suppression of critical data was intended to protect CMC’s reputation and revenue streams, rather than to protect the lives of its patients.
The whistleblowing nurse’s legal team, led by attorneys John W. Howard and Gregory J. Glaser, is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages for the harm caused to Spencer’s reputation and finances.
The lawsuit also demands a series of reforms, including:
- An independent audit of fetal death data at CMC.
- Mandatory reporting of fetal deaths to VAERS.
- A ban on coercive vaccine policies that do not ensure full informed consent for pregnant women.
Spencer is also seeking the recovery of legal costs under California’s public interest litigation provision, CCP §1021.5.
Spencer argues that the case is not just about the personal harm she suffered but about the systemic failures in the healthcare industry.
The lawsuit underscores what Spencer sees as the ethical breach within a medical system that failed to protect its patients in favor of corporate interests.
She contends that the widespread refusal to investigate the harms caused by the “vaccines” and the suppression of safety data have contributed to preventable fetal deaths.
Spencer has stated that a jury trial is essential to uncover the hidden data and prevent further unethical practices in the medical community, especially when it comes to public health policies involving Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
Community Health System (CHS), the parent organization of CMC, has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit.
CHS operates several facilities in California, including its flagship Community Regional Medical Center.
The system claims to provide “safe, high-quality care” and emphasizes its community focus.
However, this whistleblower case raises serious questions about the integrity of that claim, especially in light of the allegations of cover-up and misconduct surrounding the vaccine rollout.
The case also suggests that a culture of covering up deaths caused by “vaccine” mandates is likely widespread in hospitals across the country.
As this legal battle unfolds, the case could have far-reaching implications not only for CMC but for the broader healthcare system, as those concerned with medical ethics demand greater transparency and accountability from healthcare institutions.
The lawsuit filed by Michelle Spencer brings to light a major public health scandal, one that has been hidden from the public eye.
As the case progresses, many are watching closely to see whether the medical industry will be forced to confront the consequences of its actions and whether vaccine-related harm will finally be fully investigated and acknowledged.
For now, Spencer’s fight continues, as she seeks to uncover the truth behind the dramatic rise in fetal deaths linked to Covid mRNA injections.
READ MORE – Top Doctor Sounds Alarm: Covid ‘Vaccines’ Triggered ‘Sudden Unexpected Death Pandemic’
Canada Orders Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Over Bird Flu, Refuses to Test Surviving Birds for Natural Immunity [Video 37:55] NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
Farmers face fines and jail time for seeking independent testing as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency fights to reinstate the culling order.
MAR 11, 2025
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has ordered the culling of 400 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, citing concerns over H5N1 bird flu. However, this decision is not based on sound science and could have serious consequences for both food security and medical research.
Background on the Culling Order
Universal Ostrich Farm is a research facility focused on studying the unique antibody-producing capabilities of ostriches. Their research has demonstrated potential in neutralizing viruses, bacteria, and even COVID-19, making it an important contribution to medical science.
In December 2024, the CFIA claimed that two deceased ostriches—which had been lying outside for over 16 hours—tested positive for H5N1 via PCR testing. Just 41 minutes after receiving these results, the CFIA signed an order to cull the entire flock.
Concerns Over This Decision
Inconsistent Policy Changes – The CFIA initially granted the farm an exemption, recognizing the birds as “genetically important.” Later, without clear justification, they reversed this decision, ordering their destruction.
Lack of Transparency and Scientific Process – Despite the importance of this research, the CFIA has refused to conduct further testing on the birds and has banned the farm from conducting its own tests, under threat of heavy fines and possible imprisonment. Why is the Canadian government refusing to study the potential antibodies ostriches have developed against H5N1 bird flu?
Legal Challenges and the Fight to Save the Ostriches
Temporary Legal Victory – On January 31, 2025, a court granted a temporary stay of execution, halting the cull. However, the CFIA is appealing this decision, which means the culling could still proceed.
Final Court Hearing in April – The final judicial review is scheduled for April 17, 2025. This will be a pivotal moment in determining whether the farm will be allowed to continue its work or if the culling order will be upheld.
Why This Matters
This case is not just about one farm—it raises important questions about how governments handle disease outbreaks, the role of independent scientific research, and the future of food security.
- If ostrich antibodies hold medical promise, why aren’t they being studied further?
- Why is the CFIA restricting independent testing instead of working with the farm?
- What precedent does this set for other farms and researchers facing similar government actions?
This case marks a pivotal moment in the discussion on natural immunity, agricultural independence, and the future of disease management. Halting this culling order is essential to prevent reckless mass culling policies from continuing unchecked.
H5N1 bird flu is now widespread among migratory waterfowl, ensuring that farms will continue to face reinfection despite mass culling efforts. Governments must recognize this reality and put an end to the “Mass Culling Cycle of Devastation”, which only exacerbates the problem rather than solving it:
pic
In this interview, Katie Pasitney of Universal Ostrich and Connie Shields discuss the alarming implications of the CFIA’s culling order and the urgent fight to save the ostriches.
To Find Out More:
To Help with Their Legal Fees:
GiveSendGo: https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu
BREAKING: Second Massive Population Study Finds COVID-19 “Vaccines” Increase Risk of 6 Major Cancers NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
South Korea study of 8.4 million adults finds higher risks of overall, lung, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colorectal, and breast cancers — across both mRNA and viral-vector platforms.
SEP 27, 2025
About a month ago, the first-ever population cohort study reported increased cancer risks following COVID-19 vaccination. In Italy, nearly 300,000 residents were tracked for 30 months, showing that mRNA shots significantly increased the risk of overall cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and colorectal cancer.
BREAKING: First Population-Wide Study Finds COVID-19 “Vaccines” Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH AUG 30, 2025 Read full story
Now, a second—and far larger—population-based cohort study by Kim et al from South Korea has corroborated and expanded upon those findings. Drawing on a massive sample of more than 8.4 million people, this is one of the most powerful cancer-safety datasets ever analyzed.
The results are striking. After accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, income level, and prior COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 vaccination was linked to significant increases in multiple major cancers, with the signal consistent across all vaccine platforms, both sexes, and age groups:
