It is very rare for physicians to conceal information from Congress. Most doctors who are called to testify give veracious statements to the best of their ability. Fauci is only the second doctor to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights before Congress and only the third physician to be held in contempt.

🏛️ Invoking the Right to Remain Silent

🩺 Dr. Kevin O’Connor — July 2025

Biden’s own White House physician. On July 9, 2025, Dr. Kevin O’Connor appeared before the House Oversight Committee under subpoena for their investigation into Biden’s mental fitness during his presidency. He pled the Fifth and refused to answer questions — including whether he ever believed Biden was unfit for office and whether he was ever asked to lie about Biden’s health.

His repeated line during the deposition: “I must respectfully decline to answer based on physician-patient privilege and the reliance of my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

The committee had subpoenaed him after he declined a voluntary interview. His lawyer, David Schertler — who, incidentally, also represents Fauci — said O’Connor had “no choice” but to invoke the Fifth given the committee’s refusal to limit the scope of questioning. The deposition lasted about 20 minutes, with O’Connor sticking to his script the entire time. There was no contempt vote and no consequences.

🏛️ Held in Contempt of Congress

⚕️ Dr. Edward Barsky (1947) — Physician by Training

Another case, though less direct: Dr. Edward Barsky, a surgeon, was convicted in 1947 under the criminal contempt statute (2 U.S.C. § 192) for refusing to produce subpoenaed documents to the House Un-American Activities Committee. He served five months in federal prison. New York then suspended his medical license for six months on the basis of that conviction — a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court (Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442).

The Supreme Court upheld the license suspension. Justice Black dissented, noting that Barsky’s offense involved “no moral turpitude whatever” and that he’d been exercising what he believed were constitutional rights. Sound familiar?

🏛️ The Most Direct Precedent: Dr. Miles Jones (1999)

In 1999, the House of Representatives held Dr. Miles Jones, a pathologist by training, in contempt of Congress. He ran a company called Opening Lines that procured and sold human fetal tissue to researchers. The House Commerce Committee, then chaired by Rep. Tom Bliley, subpoenaed him to testify about whether fetal body parts were being bought and sold in violation of federal law (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2(a), which makes it a felony to knowingly acquire or transfer human fetal tissue for valuable consideration).

Undercover video had captured Jones admitting to making up to $40,000 in a single week buying and selling fetal tissue, and explicitly stating that “market forces” — not actual costs — determined his prices. He was served a lawful subpoena and simply refused to appear. The House adopted a contempt resolution, and the case was referred for prosecution. What Jones was facing — The statute carried a sentence of no less than one month and no more than one year in prison, plus fines up to $100,000.

The Speaker’s certification was delivered to the U.S. Attorney General, but the DOJ did not take up action.

🔬 How Fauci’s Case Differs

A few things make Fauci’s situation unusual:

• The pardon complication. Biden’s preemptive pardon in January 2025 covers federal prosecutions from 2014–2025, but contempt of Congress occurring after that date falls outside its scope. Rand Paul explicitly noted this during the hearing. Fauci’s lawyer called the whole thing a “crude political stunt.”

• Fifth Amendment invocation. Fauci pled the Fifth over 100 times during his testimony last week. That’s his constitutional right, but it also means he gave the committee nothing. The committee’s position is straightforward: a witness who’s already received a blanket pardon can’t credibly claim fear of self-incrimination for matters covered by that pardon, yet he refused to answer anyway.

• Party-line vote. The Homeland Security Committee voted 8-7 along party lines. Democrats filed five motions to delay the vote, all of which failed on identical party-line splits.

• The full Senate hurdle. Normally, contempt resolutions go to the full Senate and require 60 votes. Republicans hold 53 seats. Rand Paul bypassed the full Senate vote procedure, calling it a waste of time — but that may create procedural challenges if the DOJ decides to prosecute.

📊 The Big Picture

Contempt of Congress prosecutions are genuinely rare. Before Bannon and Navarro got convicted and jailed in 2024, the last successful contempt convictions were back in the 1980s. Congress has asserted its contempt power since 1795, but actual prosecutions leading to jail time are few and far between.

Whether the DOJ under the current administration pursues charges against Fauci remains an open question. The committee referral is one thing — actual prosecution is another matter entirely, and historically, the Justice Department has been reluctant to act on congressional contempt referrals, especially in politically charged cases.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

FOCAL POINTS has partnered with AlterAI to defend your medical freedom. Subscribe to AlterAI today and get a discount on unbiased and accurate AI!

For how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation. —Machiavelli, The Prince

Perusing reader comments to my post this morning, Can a State Attorney General Successfully Prosecute Anthony Fauci?, it appears that many readers somehow (by some miracle of misinterpretation) managed to interpret the post as me stating that a State Attorney General should not prosecute Anthony Fauci.

The point of the post is not to elucidate whether a state AG should prosecute, but the reality that doing so will face enormous hurdles, and that the proper venue for prosecuting him is federal court.

The comments reminded me of the above passage from The Prince in which Machiavelli touched on a key element of his (perfectly accurate) understanding of human nature.

We suffer enormously in life from our expectation that people—and especially politicians—be steadfast, faithful, and virtuous in their conduct. A better way to live is accept that people are self-serving, hungry for gain, and avoidant of principled conduct that comes at a personal cost or impediment to the gain they seek. This isn’t cynicism—it’s absolute realism. In my opinion, Machiavelli was not a wicked man, but one of the wisest men who has ever lived.

The US government is NOT in the business of serving the interests of We the People. It IS in the business of protecting and advancing the interests of the powerful oligarchs—the great lords of this earth—that it serves and enriches.

For a decade I was under the mistaken impression that Donald Trump had arrived a point in his life in which he genuinely wanted to serve and to protect “We the People”—that is, the working and middle classes of this country who are not represented by a lobby or interest group in Washington.

Since he was reelected for his second term, he has revealed himself to be—without a doubt—what you might call the “Oligarchian Candidate” or the “Epstein Class Candidate.” The fact that the Democrats challenged him with the raving imbecile Kamala Harris should be regarded as strong circumstantial evidence that they are in on the act.

Kamala played a key role in the “race to the bottom” drama that led us to believe that Donald Trump was our only hope. Now that he is in office for his second term, we are facing major wars on multiple fronts, a doubling of the federal money sent to the military-industrial complex, accelerating national debt, unqualified support for the Great Lords of Tech who are rolling out AI with reckless abandon, and still no removal of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from the market.

Anthony Fauci’s entire mission during the pandemic was to serve as the midwife of bringing mRNA technology into use on a global scale. This was the entire point of Operation Warp Speed in all of its wild extravagance.

Until President Trump publicly revises his assessment of Warp Speed and declares that it was the work of an organized crime syndicate (of which Fauci was the public face), there is no way his administration could even consider bringing Fauci to justice.

This is the way things are, not how they should be, and until people recognize this, they will remain confused about how the US government actually works.

Subscribe now

Share

In a dark day for MAHA, the FDA has approved Moderna’s mFLUSIVA for adults 50 and older, making it the first seasonal mRNA influenza injection authorized in the United States. Adults ages 50–64 received traditional approval, while adults 65 and older received accelerated approval based largely on antibody responses.

The FDA’s own briefing document reveals that 75.3% of senior mRNA-vaccine recipients experienced at least one solicited adverse reaction within seven days, compared with 49.3% of those receiving Fluzone High-Dose.

Even more concerning, severe (Grade 3) systemic reactions occurred in 6.7% of mRNA recipients versus 1.7% with the traditional high-dose flu vaccine—nearly four times as frequently.

Even worse, the pivotal efficacy trial contained no placebo group. Instead, Moderna compared mFLUSIVA against traditional flu vaccines.

A novel mRNA injection produced adverse reactions in three out of four recipients, induced severe systemic reactions nearly four times as often as the traditional high-dose vaccine, lacked a placebo-controlled pivotal efficacy trial, and the FDA approved it anyway.

Our regulatory agencies remain CAPTURED.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

At the outset of this essay, I would like to reiterate my belief that Anthony Fauci should be prosecuted, and that federal court is the proper venue. In my recent interview with Alex Newman, I attempted to present my argument in the rhetorical style of a federal prosecutor’s summation of what I believe are the main elements of the crime. If the reader has not yet watched this interview, he will, I believe, find it compelling.

A State Attorneys General has limited authority to prosecute Anthony Fauci for alleged state-law crimes allegedly committed during his tenure as NIAID director. State AG authority is subject to strict requirements of jurisdiction, a valid state offense, evidence, and the absence of Supremacy Clause immunity. This being the case, success in this matter faces substantial practical and legal hurdles.

To be sure, Biden’s ridiculous “preemptive presidential pardon” covers only federal offenses and does not bar state prosecutions for distinct violations of state law.

Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the same conduct can theoretically violate both federal and state law, allowing independent state action. Several state attorneys general (notably in Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana, with earlier interest from a broader group of Republican AGs) have publicly announced or joined investigations into possible state charges related to Fauci’s COVID-19 statements, funding decisions, or testimony (including depositions given to states). No charges have been filed as of the available information.

• State AGs possess standing to enforce their own criminal laws within the state’s territory. They cannot prosecute pure federal crimes such as lying to Congress under federal statutes.

• Any case requires identification of a specific state criminal statute (for example, perjury in a state deposition or proceeding, fraud, or other offenses under state law), admissible evidence of a violation, and personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

• Personal jurisdiction requires that the alleged offense occurred in the state or that the defendant has adequate minimum contacts with it.

• Purely federal policy advice or public statements originating from Washington, D.C., present significant jurisdictional challenges unless tied to concrete state-specific acts or harms that a court would recognize as establishing venue and jurisdiction.

• Even where a state offense and jurisdiction exist, federal officials enjoy Supremacy Clause immunity for actions that were authorized by federal law and “necessary and proper” to the performance of their official duties.

• This doctrine, rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Neagle (1890) and subsequent case law, prevents states from using criminal prosecution to obstruct legitimate federal functions.

• Immunity is not absolute or blanket: it does not shield conduct outside the scope of federal duties, actions that violate federal law, or behavior that is unreasonable or egregious.

• Courts—often federal courts after removal of the case—decide these questions, frequently resolving factual disputes about reasonableness or authorization.

• Applied to Fauci, prosecution would require showing that particular acts constituted state crimes rather than discretionary federal public-health judgments, scientific communications, or congressional testimony.

• Allegations centered on disputed scientific advice, funding oversight, or statements about origins, masks, or lockdowns face high evidentiary and legal barriers.

• Claims of perjury based on “I do not recall” answers are notoriously difficult to sustain. Overcoming Supremacy Clause immunity would demand proof that the challenged conduct fell outside authorized federal responsibilities or was not necessary and proper—an uphill showing for actions taken in an official capacity during a purported national emergency.

• Procedural realities compound the difficulty: some state AGs lack unilateral charging authority and must coordinate with local prosecutors; any indictment could be removed to federal court; and statutes of limitations, evidentiary rules, and defense challenges would apply.

To reiterate, I fear that all the hurly burly about Anthony Fauci in the Forum Americanum is a distraction from the salient fact the Trump’s Attorney General isn’t doing it, and from the equally salient fact that Trump still touts the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as one of the great achievements of his first term.

Subscribe now

Share

In a major victory, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8–5 to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. The vote followed Fauci’s refusal to answer more than 100 questions while testifying under subpoena, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment despite receiving a sweeping autopen pardon from President Biden.

Committee Chairman Rand Paul intends to send the committee’s criminal contempt recommendation and legal brief directly to the Department of Justice. Paul is pursuing this route rather than allowing the case to be buried by a likely filibuster or failed 60-vote battle on the Senate floor. The referral is expected to be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

If convicted of contempt of Congress, Fauci could face between one month and one year in prison.

Contempt of Congress is only one small aspect of Fauci’s illicit activities. He forced deadly mRNA shots on millions through illegal mandates, suppressed life-saving treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, promoted lethal hospital protocols involving remdesivir and ventilators, imposed country-destroying lockdowns that devastated millions, oversaw the destruction of federal records, and funded gain-of-function experiments that contributed to the pandemic… before working to cover it up with the CIA.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Please enjoy this brief panel discussion where I am joined by two legal experts discussing the validity of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon for potential crimes he committed for ten years. Amir Beno is a former prosecutor and a constitutional law attorney and Grace Reilly is the host of Restoring America with Grace Reilly Podcast.

Of, note on the ethics of Fauci using NIH resources to apply for and receive cash prizes during the pandemic, his wife, Christine Grady should be questioned. She was the person responsible for breaches in NIH ethics during this time and technically would have either direct or have assigned oversight over her now disgraced husband.

Dr Christine Grady was the chief bioethicist at the NIH Clinical Center — meaning she literally ran the ethics department for the nation's premier research hospital. Her husband, Anthony Fauci, was simultaneously raking in cash prizes during the pandemic, some approaching $1 million from foreign foundations. Rand Paul's committee released emails showing NIH staff — taxpayer-funded employees — helping assemble nomination packages and navigating ethics reviews for Fauci's awards. Grady's position created an obvious conflict: the chief bioethicist's spouse was enriching himself (and her) through prizes vetted by the very ethics apparatus she oversees. She is currently enjoying a cushy job as senior advisor and professor at Georgetown.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

It is not that I despise men. If I did I should have no right, and no reason, to try to govern. I know them to be vain, ignorant, greedy, and timorous, capable of almost anything for the sake of success, or for raising themselves in esteem (even in their own eyes), or simply for avoidance of suffering. I know, for I am like them, at least from time to time, or could have been. . . .

I see an objection to every effort toward ameliorating man’s condition on earth, namely that mankind is perhaps not worthy of such exertion. But I meet the objection easily enough: so long as Caligula’s dream remains impossible of fulfillment, and the entire human race is not reduced to a single head destined for the axe, we shall have to bear with humanity, keeping it within bounds but utilizing it to the utmost; our interest, in the best sense of the term, will be to serve it.

—The Memoirs of Hadrian, Marguerite Yourcenar,

Out for a walk this evening with one of my oldest friends, he asked (in a gentle and sincere way):

“Why did those Republican Senators insist on humiliating Fauci in the Senate? Don’t you think it’s cruel and unbecoming to put a frail old man through a struggle session like that?”

“Well,” I said, “In addition to wanting their questions answered for the Senate record, they believe—I suppose—that a Senate hearing with public shaming is the best that can be done in their legislative branch to bring Fauci to some kind of justice”

“Justice for what?” my friend asked. “What laws did he break?”

I replied by asking my friend if he was aware of Fauci’s role in the lab creation and the fraudulent concealment of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. He confessed that he’d never heard anything about it, and wanted me to tell him about it.

I relate this story not to criticize my old friend, of whom I am extremely fond. I mention the anecdote because I believe that he (who receives most of his information from the New York Times) is representative of about half the country.

While I have been preoccupied with this story since 2020, he’s never even heard of most of it, nor had he heard of RFK, Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci. The New York Times did a thorough job of not mentioning it.

The situation reminded me of a brief romance I had on the Greek island of Paros in the summer of 1993 with a charming girl from Glasgow, Scotland. She was great fun, always laughing, and always in a good mood, but her Glaswegian accent was so thick that I couldn’t understand half of what she said.

Sometimes at dinner she would muse about something. I would nod along, smiling, pretending to understand, but would then be caught out as an imposter when she would suddenly ask, “What do you think?”

“Uh, well, I think that I, uh, totally agree with you.”

The great Viennese philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously pointed out that most arguments are between two people who think they are speaking the same language, but are actually attributing different meaning and significance to the same statements.

And so, it seems that to be human is, to a large degree, to be unable to arrive at a mutual understanding of the world with many of one’s fellow men and women. In matters that are important to us, we are often separated from others by a chasm of mutual incomprehension.

As Hadrian pointed out, we must strive not to be irritable and impatient, but to bear with humanity.

I knew the Senate hearing would be gratifying for those who believe that Fauci is a villain and infuriating for those who believe he is saint.

As I stated in a recent interview with Alex Newman, the existing documentary evidence is sufficient to prosecute Fauci in federal court. The Attorney General should challenge President Biden’s ridiculous preemptive pardon and get on with it.

Subscribe now

Share

This news comes along with reports that the US is running out of interceptor missiles as President Trump continues to flounder around in his moronic war with Iran.

History is full of emperors, kings, and presidents who chose to throw away peace and prosperity with the roll of military dice. The following are just a few of the cases that came to mind over morning coffee.

Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 BC) conquered the Persian Empire with extraordinary speed and tactical brilliance, but continued eastward into India and Central Asia long after the core objective was secured. Supply lines stretched across thousands of miles; his army mutinied at the Hyphasis River; and his death left an ungovernable empire that fragmented almost immediately among the Diadochi. The pursuit of universal dominion outran administrative capacity and the loyalty of exhausted troops.

Trajan (reigned 98–117 AD) pushed Rome’s frontiers to their greatest extent by conquering Dacia and briefly occupying Mesopotamia. The eastern campaigns yielded prestige and treasure but created indefensible salients. Within years of his death, Hadrian abandoned most of the Mesopotamian gains, recognizing that the empire lacked the manpower and resources to hold them against Parthian recovery and internal strain.

Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor 1519–1556) inherited vast Habsburg territories and fought almost continuously against France, the Ottomans, German Protestants, and rebellious subjects. The sheer geographic dispersion of his domains—Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, and the Americas—made simultaneous defense impossible. Constant warfare bankrupted the Spanish treasury and left his successor, Philip II, with an overextended and debt-ridden inheritance.

Lord George Germain, British Secretary of State for the American Department during the Revolutionary War, directed strategy from London with insufficient grasp of colonial geography, logistics, and political realities. Orders for the 1777 Saratoga campaign were poorly coordinated; Burgoyne’s advance from Canada was left unsupported. The resulting British defeat encouraged French intervention and turned a manageable colonial revolt into a global war Britain ultimately lost.

Napoleon (Emperor 1804–1814/15) repeatedly overreached after early victories. The 1812 invasion of Russia ignored distance, climate, and Russian scorched-earth tactics; the Grande Armée disintegrated. Subsequent campaigns in Germany and the Hundred Days further depleted French manpower and invited the Sixth Coalition to finish him. Ambition for continental hegemony exceeded France’s demographic and industrial base.

Leopold Berchtold, Austro-Hungarian foreign minister in 1914, responded to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by issuing an intentionally unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia and securing German backing for war. The gamble assumed a short, localized conflict that would restore Habsburg prestige. Instead it triggered the alliance system, producing a multi-front war that destroyed the Dual Monarchy.

Adolf Hitler (German Chancellor 1933-1945) decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), while still fighting Britain and later declaring war on the United States, constitutes the classic modern case of strategic overreach. Ideological goals of Lebensraum and racial conquest ignored logistical realities, winter conditions, and the vast depth of Soviet territory. The resulting two-front war, combined with the earlier failure to neutralize Britain, doomed the Third Reich.

Lyndon B. Johnson (US President 1963-1969) escalated US involvement in Vietnam after Gulf of Tonkin incidents of 1964,, thereby rising U.S. troop levels from 23,000 in 1964 to more than 500,000 by 1968. American forces conducted large-scale search-and-destroy operations, intensive aerial bombing of the North (Operation Rolling Thunder), and efforts to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The goal was attrition—to inflict such heavy losses on the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong that Hanoi would abandon its campaign to reunify the country under communist rule. The US did not prevail and hastily abandoned Vietnam in 1975.

George W. Bush (US President 2001-2009) decision to invade Iraq in 2003, after the relatively successful Afghanistan campaign, rested on flawed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and optimistic assumptions about post-invasion stability. The occupation stretched American forces, generated a prolonged insurgency, empowered regional rivals, and consumed resources that might otherwise have focused on the original Afghan theater or homeland security. The long-term strategic costs far exceeded the initial military success.

Donald Trump (US President, 2017-2021 and 2025 to today) attacked Iran on February 28, 2026 and is now in the 6th month of what was initially proclaimed to be a 4-week war to get rid of “a nuclear program” that was “obliterated” in 2025.

In each case the pattern is similar: the conviction of military dominance encouraged expansion beyond the point where political will, logistics, alliances, or domestic resources could sustain the effort. Overreach squandered advantage and resulted in significant costs and lasting liability.

It’s an astonishing thing that so many leaders in history have ignored the disasters of overreach in the past. At an event at the German Bundestag this summer, I fell into a conversation with a military historian about Germany’s current collision course with Russia. I asked him if the current German government is aware of the disasters of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941.

“Acutely,” he replied, “just at the German general staff was acutely aware of Napoleon’s disastrous 1812 invasion.”

Why do the vainglorious men who ascend to political power persistently believe that they needn’t heed the lessons of history and geography? Why do they embrace the irrational belief that “this time it’s different?”

As someone who is very mindful of what history teaches us — especially the primary lesson that coercive power is inherently limited —I find this recurring pattern perplexing in the extreme.

Please let me know what you think in the comments.

Subscribe now

Share

In a sweeping nationwide criminal-accountability campaign, criminal referral requests have been sent to the attorneys general of all 50 states seeking investigations and prosecutions of Anthony Fauci and other top public-health officials for their roles in the “COVID Criminal Enterprise.”

The 50-state campaign was launched by Vires Law Group and Florida gubernatorial candidate Rachel Rodriguez through the Federal Accountability Freedom Operation. It represents the culmination of years of victim collection, witness testimony, legal analysis, and evidence gathering tied to COVID-era hospital policies and treatment protocols.

The requests cite potential offenses including murder, terrorism, racketeering, manslaughter, human trafficking, elder abuse, false imprisonment, kidnapping, aggravated assault, battery, and reckless conduct. They call on state prosecutors to examine senior public-health officials, hospital administrators, healthcare providers, and institutions accused of participating in policies that caused preventable deaths and serious injuries.

The Officials Named

The individuals identified for investigation include Anthony Fauci, Cliff Lane, David Morens, Francis Collins, Deborah Birx, Rochelle Walensky, Stephen Hahn, Janet Woodcock, Rick Bright, Peter Hotez, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, and Christine Grady.

Hospital administrators and healthcare providers are also named as potential subjects of investigation for implementing the policies and protocols at the center of the allegations.

The central legal argument is that senior officials cannot escape scrutiny simply because many of the disputed policies were carried out by hospitals and medical personnel further down the chain. The requests ask prosecutors to examine who designed the policies, who enforced them, who benefited financially, and who was harmed.

A Case Built Around Victims

The nationwide action is rooted in testimony from families who say their loved ones entered hospitals seeking care and were instead isolated, denied requested treatment, subjected to rigid protocols, and ultimately killed or seriously harmed.

The materials collected include identified victims, family statements, witness information, legal briefs, sworn declarations, financial records, and testimony from medical professionals and whistleblowers.

One major victim filing includes 75 identified patients and 31 written statements from surviving family members. More than 40 additional victims came forward after the original effort began, expanding the body of evidence and testimony available to investigators.

These families describe a recurring pattern: patients separated from loved ones, denied access to advocates, prevented from receiving requested medications, pressured into unwanted interventions, and placed on standardized protocols despite individual medical concerns.

What Happened Inside Hospitals

The filings describe a top-down system in which federal health agencies shaped COVID policy, hospital systems enforced it, and physicians and patients lost control over individualized medical decisions.

They allege that hospitals received financial incentives connected to COVID diagnoses, admissions, treatments, and institutional compliance. At the same time, patients were denied meaningful informed consent and physicians who challenged the protocols faced retaliation, termination, or threats against their licenses.

The materials specifically raise concerns about the use of remdesivir, the suppression of alternative treatments, the isolation of patients from family members, and the denial of requested care.

A sworn declaration from a former trauma and critical-care surgeon describes retaliation against dissenting physicians, manipulation of COVID diagnoses and death records, denial of care to unvaccinated patients, suppression of alternative treatments, and intense institutional pressure tied to federal requirements and hospital finances.

The Financial Incentive Structure

The requests place major emphasis on the financial system surrounding COVID hospital care.

They allege that hospitals and administrators received financial benefits for following standardized COVID protocols while physicians were discouraged from using individualized treatment plans. The legal theory is that these incentives helped create a system in which financial and institutional interests took priority over patient autonomy and survival.

The evidence packages include material intended to help prosecutors examine the relationship between government policy, hospital reimbursement, protocol enforcement, and patient outcomes.

Why the States Matter

The strategy is centered on state and county prosecution because the deaths, injuries, and alleged unlawful acts occurred within state jurisdictions.

State prosecutors have authority over crimes including homicide, manslaughter, abuse, kidnapping, false imprisonment, human trafficking, terrorism, and racketeering. The requests argue that federal titles, former government positions, and federal pardons do not automatically prevent investigation of potential state crimes.

Each attorney general is being asked to examine the evidence, identify victims and responsible parties within the state, interview witnesses and surviving family members, and pursue charges wherever the evidence supports criminal liability.

A Nationwide Demand for Accountability

This is not a symbolic appeal or a generalized demand for answers. It is a coordinated legal campaign involving named individuals, identified victims, sworn testimony, state criminal statutes, and requests for prosecution across the entire country.

For years, victims’ families have sought criminal investigations into the policies and protocols that caused the deaths of their loved ones.

Their evidence has now been placed before authorities in all 50 states.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Many have said the most shocking revelation from the July 29, 2026 US Senate HSGAC examination of Dr Anthony Fauci was the obvious political theatre by democratic senators who overlooked Fauci’s diary, pardon, and refusal to answer questions and gushed praise on the disgraced bureaucrat. Dr McCullough gave reaction on Just the News, Real America’s Voice just hours after the hearing.

📋 The Scene

Anthony Fauci appeared before the Senate, flanked by heavy security, trembling and visibly shaken — body language that Dr. McCullough described as “guilt with a capital G.” Over the course of the hearing, Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times, refusing to answer questions about:

• The COVID-19 response he orchestrated

• His publicly-accessible government diary revealing private beliefs that directly contradicted his public pronouncements

• The preemptive 10-year pardon shielding him from accountability

• The origins of the pandemic and his role in shaping the narrative

This is the same man who once declared: “If you question the science, you question me.” Now, when finally questioned under oath, he had nothing to say.

🏛️ The Political Chasm

The Republican Interrogators

Senators Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Bernie Moreno, and Josh Hawley came prepared. Johnson brought roughly six inches of studies demonstrating ivermectin’s efficacy — including the ICON study from Florida showing over 50% reduction in mortality for acute COVID-19. They pressed on:

• Why hospitals continued administering remdesivir against WHO guidance (the WHO said in November 2020: do not use it)

• Why patients had to hire attorneys just to force hospitals to administer ivermectin

• Why shared decision-making and patient autonomy were discarded

• How Fauci manipulated media coverage while undermining the Trump White House Task Force

McCullough’s assessment: “Our Republican standards for truth really held up strong.”

The Democrat Absolution Ceremony

This is where the transcript paints a damning picture — though the document doesn’t provide verbatim quotes from every Democrat senator, McCullough’s reaction is unambiguous:

“I was shocked that the Democrats, instead of asking questions and wanting to learn about what happened through the pandemic, what Fauci knew — instead, they just heaped praise on him.”

The Democrats treated a man who:

• Left his diary on government servers for years, revealing he privately believed things he publicly denied

• Orchestrated policies that McCullough argues led to deaths from both COVID illness AND the vaccines

• Spent the pandemic in self-aggrandizement — applying for cash prizes, celebrating media appearances, expressing zero concern for actual patients

• Never treated a single patient during the entire crisis

Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey literally read Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech to praise Fauci — the same Fauci who just invoked the Fifth Amendment over a hundred times rather than answer for his pandemic decisions.

The “man in the arena” speech is about the person who dares greatly, who strives valiantly, who spends himself in a worthy cause. Roosevelt wrote it to honor those who step into the fray and risk failure in pursuit of something meaningful.

Kim applied it to a bureaucrat who:

• Refused to answer a single substantive question

• Hid behind a preemptive pardon from Biden

• Left a diary on government servers revealing he privately believed things he publicly denied

• Never treated a single COVID patient while amassing media appearances and receiving cash prizes at taxpayers expense

The irony is almost too perfect. The speech Kim read is about showing up and being accountable — the exact opposite of what Fauci did. It was pure political theater, designed to reframe cowardice as courage and evasion as persecution. Kim wasn’t honoring a man in the arena. He was eulogizing the very concept of accountability that has been applied to Dr McCullough and the small group of brave doctors who stood in the arena, risked their lives, and treated patients early at home to prevent hospitalization and death.

🔍 The Diary: A Window Into Duplicity

Fauci’s diary wasn’t leaked or stolen — he left it on government servers, essentially public, for years. When finally discovered, it revealed:

• Private musings that contradicted his public statements

• Knowledge that the scientists he’d later ask to sign the “natural origins” letter didn’t believe what they were writing

• An obsessive focus on media manipulation and personal accolades rather than patient welfare

McCullough’s verdict: “This is despicable.” He contrasted Fauci’s behavior with his own during the pandemic — hundreds of national TV appearances while simultaneously treating patients, developing protocols, and ultimately founding The Wellness Company to provide honest medical guidance.

💊 Ivermectin: The Treatment They Knew Worked

Senator Johnson’s stack of studies made the case that’s now undeniable: ivermectin was safe, effective, and deliberately suppressed. Key points:

• The ICON study demonstrated over 50% mortality reduction

• Patients were forced to obtain legal representation just to access a FDA-approved medication

• Even with court orders, some hospital physicians still refused

• The medical establishment looked to Fauci and placed institutional loyalty above the Hippocratic Oath

McCullough notes the public is finally waking up — not just to ivermectin for infectious disease, but to its off-label anti-neoplastic (anti-cancer) properties as well.

🧪 The One Real Victory: Gain-of-Function Research Terminated

Amid the Fauci spectacle, the Trump administration formally ended gain-of-function research the night before the hearing. McCullough called it “very important” but stressed it needs to go beyond just government funding — all such research must end:

“It’s like having mad scientists trying to create nuclear bombs in academic laboratories. We can’t have it.”

All experts now agree: if another pandemic emerges, it will come from an academic biolab — just like the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

🏥 The Unfinished Business: Hospital Accountability

McCullough emphasized that the next frontier is dragging hospital CEOs and chief medical officers before Congress to answer:

• Why they continued using remdesivir against explicit WHO guidance — and still use it today

• Why patient and family wishes were systematically ignored

• Why shared decision-making was abandoned in favor of coercive protocols

• How they plan to win back public trust after, as McCullough put it, failing miserably through the pandemic

🎯 The Bottom Line

The Democrats’ performance at this hearing wasn’t just partisan loyalty — it was a declaration that institutional power, once wielded, is beyond reproach. Fauci could plead the Fifth 111 times, leave his duplicitous diary on a government server, accept a preemptive pardon, and still receive standing ovations from one half of the political class.

The message is clear: accountability is for people without the right party affiliation. For everyone else, there’s always the Fifth Amendment — and a room full of Democrats ready to call you a hero for using it.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Chief Scientific Officer, The Wellness Company

www.twc.health/focalpoints

I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the comments on my post today (The Microphone Under Charlie Kirk’s Shirt).

For months I have refrained from commenting on the “microphone theory”— despite my awareness of it — because I have perceived it to be too speculative.

The only reason why I commented on it today was because several readers requested that I state my opinion about it.

For over twenty years I have studied and written about remarkable violent crimes that have struck me as inadequately explained by the authorities. In all these cases, the authorities made representations about the crimes that struck me as incongruous with the observable elements of the crimes.

On the face of it, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and the official explanation of it, strike me as very odd. This has prompted me to ask questions that should—it seems to me—be asked by the accused’s defense attorneys.

And so I presented these questions in my post today. IF there are plausible answers to these questions, then let them be answered in court. The whole point of a trial is examine the evidence that the accused is guilty of committing the crime and also to evaluate circumstances and facts that may be exculpating or point to a different culprit. We the People have an interest in maintaining the correct judicial process, even if we believe in the guilt of the accused before the trial is conducted.

I’ll conclude by offering an account of how I view public affairs as a citizen of the United States, and as an author who investigates the increasingly strange and disordered public life of this Republic.

1). I do NOT blindly trust the men who occupy positions of federal and state authority to tell us the truth about anything. I don’t care what the particular subject matter happens to be, or the political party of the politician or agent who is making the representations.

2). If federal and state authorities make representations that square with my knowledge and perception of reality, I won’t waste my time questioning them. However, if they make statements that strike me as implausible, I will question their assertions.

3). Though I believe I am a good citizen and am grateful to be an American, my primary interest is in ascertaining and reporting reality, NOT in maintaining an affiliation or protecting the interests of a political party, region, fraternity, club, or religious congregation.

4). I am an individualist and therefore regard all group identities and interest groups with the suspicion that they do not reliably act for the common good, but more often in the interest of their group.

5). I prefer to be alone than to conform to the pressures of a group or tribal identity.

Subscribe now

Share

I was already familiar with the theory that it was this device that inflicted Kirk’s fatal neck wound.

Upon hearing this theory, I naturally thought of the exploding pagers that were clandestinely deployed on Hezbollah agents on September 17-18, 2024.

Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have alluded to these exploding pagers when he gifted President Trump a gold-plated pager on February 4, 2025.

In this incident, the pager batteries were packed with six grams of military grade high explosive that created a high energy blast, killing or maiming the Hezbollah agents who wore the pagers and anyone else who happened to be around them at the time they exploded.

Initially, it seemed to me that, IF Charlie Kirk was equipped with a similar exploding device, it would have produced an explosive blast radiating from the device. IF it were equipped with a lens device to direct the blast, it would—it seemed to me—injure the chest area to which the device was fixed, and not produce the wound that appears on Kirk’s neck.

Nevertheless, my reader comments yesterday prompted me to examine this theory and my initial assumptions about it.

Coincidentally, last night I got a last-minute invitation to join an old friend for dinner who happens to be a collector of all kinds of military grade weapons.

“You should take a closer look at the microphone,” he advised me. “I too think it looks pretty weird.”

This morning I asked a professional audio and video technician to look at a video of Charlie Kirk being shot.

He made the following observations:

1). There appears to be an unusually bulky device fixed to the left side (facing Charlie) of his upper chest.

2). It seems odd that this device appears to be fixed — probably taped to his chest — on the left side and angling up in a diagonal direction instead of being fixed in the middle of his chest in vertical position, with the microphone receiver directly under his mouth.

3). Advancing the video frame by frame, the first thing that moves is the t-shirt, which seems to billow up before the wound on the neck appears.

To see what the audio-video technician is referring to, watch the video below. Place it in full screen mode and advance the timer frame by frame.

CAUTION: The video is very upsetting to watch, so viewer discretion is strongly advised.

From working with forensic scientists on my previous books, I have learned to be extremely cautious in my interpretations of photo, video, and audio recordings. Thus, I want to emphasize that I am NOT drawing any conclusions from watching this video.

However, reviewing this video prompts me to believe that Tyler Robinson’s defense attorneys should carefully consider the following questions.

Question 1: Is it possible that the purported audio-recording device fixed to Kirk’s upper chest was fashioned into a gun-like device that could fire a small projectile a few inches with enough velocity to pierce the carotid artery and jugular vein on the right side (facing Kirk) of his neck?

Question 2: Can the prosecutor rule out this possibility? If so, by what means?

Question 3: Was the device fixed to Kirk’s chest immediately presented to law enforcement for forensic examination with a documented chain of custody? If so, how exactly was the chain of custody documented?

Question 4: Was proper first aid applied in an attempt to staunch the massively bleeding wound on Kirk’s neck?

Question 5: How much time elapsed between Kirk sustaining the neck injury and being examined by an independent medical doctor with sufficient training to analyze the wound and form an opinion about what caused it?

Question 6: Was Kirk still alive at the time his security team placed him in the backseat of the suburban?

Question 7: If so, at what time did Kirk die? Was he dead on arrival at the hospital?

Question 8: Who, apart from the Medical Examiner (who did NOT appear at the preliminary hearing) conducted a full examination of the wound? Did a doctor at the hospital document the characteristics of the wound?

I ask these questions because they pertain to another (rather diabolical thought) that I had while contemplating this theory — namely, IF the microphone was indeed fashioned into a gun-like device, it wasn’t necessary for this device to kill Kirk, only to induce the spectacle of heavy bleeding from his neck.

IF the device failed to kill Kirk, he could have been allowed to bleed out or additionally suffocated in the suburban before it reached the hospital.

IF I were orchestrating this crime with a gun-like device fixed to Kirk’s upper chest and pointed at his throat, I would consider diverting attention from the true murder weapon by having a diversionary actor fire a rifle at the same time from the roof of the Losee student center, provided the rooftop wasn’t secured.

With the use of radio or hand signals visible through a telescopic sight, the shooter could time the shot to coincide with the microphone-gun firing. The shooter could fire either a blank cartridge or a loaded cartridge at a high elevation so that the bullet would fly over the crowd and land on Utah Lake 1.5 miles to the west.

And indeed, upon closer analysis of the audio track, I believe I hear an initial bang that sounds like it is propagated near Kirk, instantly followed by what sounds like a heavy caliber gunshot—not the report of a supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier, but the shot itself—fired in the direction of the recording microphone.

IF I am hearing what I think I am hearing, it is consistent with a rifle cartridge discharging a fraction of a second later from a position in the open air over a hundred yards away.

Because the shooter would play the role of a diversionary actor and not the killer, he could be any impressionable fruitcake young man who could be manipulated—as distinct from a trained assassin whose identity would raise red flags if he were caught.

In addition to serving as a diversionary actor, the impressionable young man could, if caught, serve as a patsy.

If I were Tyler Robinson’s defense attorney, I would consider that something along the following lines happened to my client.

—Robinson was somehow persuaded to participate NOT as the killer, but as a diversionary actor who received assurances that he would escape.

—Was told not to bring his cell phone with him onto the roof because his cell phone position could be subsequently pinpointed if he later fell under suspicion.

—Was told to leave his cell phone at a designated place to serve as his alibi for a designated period of time before, during, and after the murder.

—His cell phone was used by another actor to send incriminating text messages to his intimate friend after the murder was perpetrated.

Again, I am NOT concluding that this is what happened. I am merely proposing that defense counsel should consider that Tyler Robinson was in some way manipulated to participate as a diversionary actor and then framed for the actual murder.

I present these reflections as a starting point for additional analysis and discussion. Please let me know what you think in the comments, and please like and share this post with your friends.

Subscribe now

Share

A few readers—including a couple of angry readers—have asked me to explain why Kennedy just stated on Fox News that Lyme disease “almost certainty came from these [Gain-of-Function] experiments.”

Some readers may recall that, last November, in a conversation on the PBD Podcast, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated that “with a high degree of probability,” Lyme disease came from the U.S. biodefense “Lab 257 on Plum Island just outside of Connecticut.”

Makary elaborated that the pathogenic agent was developed primarily by the German veterinarian and animal virus specialist, Dr. Erich Traub, who previously conducted biological warfare research for Nazi Germany and was brought to the United States after the war as part of Operation Paperclip to acquire German scientific research while denying it to the Soviets.

As evidence, Makary cited the published literature on the U.S. bioweapons program to develop insects and arachnids as disease vectors. He specifically mentioned the book, Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons, by Kris Newby.

I was already familiar with the theory that the causative agent of Lyme disease—a spiral-shaped bacteria (spirochetes) from the Borrelia genus, primarily Borrelia burgdorferi—came out of Lab 257 on Plum Island. The bacteria was first isolated and described in 1982 by Wilhelm Burgdorfer, a Swiss-American medical entomologist who worked at NIAID.

The first cluster of Lyme disease cases in humans was identified in 1975 in Old Lyme, Connecticut, after two mothers noticed their children's unusual arthritis symptoms.

I hadn’t given this theory much thought until I saw the reflexive, widespread, and lockstep proclamations that Dr. Makary’s statement is a “debunked conspiracy theory.”

Whenever I hear loud cries that a statement is a “conspiracy theory!” I am inclined to believe that he who is making the statement is on target. He may not know all of the particulars, and he may be wrong about certain details, but he is likely barking up the right tree.

Surveying the literature on the internet and doing an AI search yields a feeble “debunking” of this “conspiracy theory”—namely, that after Borrelia burgdorferi was isolated in 1982, researchers found evidence that the bacteria had been circulating for thousands of years in animals and humans. This argument is so childish and flimsy that only a hack propagandist would write it.

To assert that the bacteria was around long before Dr. Erich Traub served as a consultant at the U.S. biodefense lab on Plum Island in the 1950s in no way debunks the theory. The bacteria readily infects lab monkeys, especially rhesus macaques, which develop symptoms similar to humans, including arthritis, carditis, and neurological issues.

It is therefore a perfectly plausible theory that Traub et al. conducted serial passage experiments of Borrelia burgdorferi on rhesus macaques to make it more virulent to primates.

This is consistent with the OspC type A genotype of Borrelia burgdorferi being linked to more severe inflammation and arthritis in Lyme disease cases. This is the genotype that is prevalent in the Northeast, starting around Connecticut, characterized by specific, conserved amino acid sequences in its variable loop regions, making it a key marker for pathogenic strains.

The entire biodefense industry justifies the billions of dollars it receives from the US government by claiming that nature—or specific human habitations in the world such as China—are constantly producing new bacteria and viruses against which the human organism is defenseless.

Infectious diseases posed an enormous problem for human civilization between 1347 and 1900—a period of rapid global exploration, trade, population growth and urbanization accompanied by appalling hygienic conditions and nutrition among the urban poor. However, living standards in the modern, industrialized nations of the West are not comparable to those that prevailed prior to 1900.

\Consider that London—the largest and wealthiest country in the world during the 19th century—didn’t even have a functioning sewer system until the 1880s.

Because nature isn’t producing the pathogens that are the justification of the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex and its bloated funding, biodefense/bioweapons lab scientists and vaccine developers have been obliged to create pathogens such as virulent Borrelia burgdorferi, human transmissible H5N1, and SARS-CoV-2.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please become a paid Subscriber to our newsletter. For just $5.00 per month, you can help us to make a living at the business of researching and reporting the nefarious activities of creepy lab scientists, many of whom will ignore Secretary Kennedy’s prohibition of their research.

Subscribe now

Share

Please enjoy this long-format interview I had with Nathan Fitzsimmons, Director of Operations, The Bitcoin Mentor.

Nathan is a decade-long advocate for sound money, specializing in Austrian Economics and Libertarian Philosophy. Since 2007, he has been working in medical research, but after falling deep down the Bitcoin rabbit hole in 2020, he’s pivoted to educating others on Bitcoin, the importance of self-custody, and best practices for security. With an academic background in Business, Biology, Philosophy, and Computer Science, he is uniquely equipped to communicate the complexities of the Bitcoin ecosystem to a wide audience.

“I save in bitcoin to provide a more abundant future for my family. I educate people about bitcoin to build a more prosperous community. Reach out, let’s chat, so you can do the same.”

Bitcoin processes roughly 1–2% of global financial transactions and its market capitalization currently sits at approximately 3–4% of US GDP, but growing at a pace that terrifies central planners.

I see the Bitcoin community as a major disruptor, similar to the work done at the McCullough Foundation which has exceeded advancements from the medical establishment during the pandemic years. Please donate to the McCullough Foundation to keep our work alive in bringing the world critical insights and medical truth.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

Instead of a clarifying statement from the medical examiner, we got the following weird statement from Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet on October 21, 2025.

“I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.

“The fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know,” Kolvet continued, explaining that he had spoken with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.

“He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc,’” he recalled.

“But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” he added.

When he mentioned to the doctor that there were “dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie” when he was shot, the doctor reportedly replied, “It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.”

“His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel,” Kolvet recalls the doctor saying.

This is not a credible statement, and it raises a number of concerns.

It strikes me as very perplexing that a “surgeon operated on Kirk,” because in the video of the shooting, Charlie reacted with a decorticate posture—that is, an abnormal body posture characterized by flexion of the upper limbs—caused by severe trauma to the central nervous system. This indicates that the bullet either directly struck his cervical spinal cord, or the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing near his spinal cord traumatized it.

A 150-grain, .30-06 bullet’s energy at 150 yards from the muzzle varies by ammunition, but a common hunting cartridge has an estimated value of approximately 3,000 foot-pounds (with the bullet traveling at about 2500 feet per second). In other words, the .30 caliber (.30 inch diameter) metal projectile struck his neck with sufficient kinetic energy to move a 3,000 pound mass a linear distance of one foot.

According to the police and prosector, the shot was fired from the roof of the Losee student center, which is about 80 feet above and 426 feet away from Charlie’s position on stage. If this was indeed the case, the bullet struck Charlie in the neck at a downward angle of about 10.65 degrees.

In video footage taken less than a second before he was shot, he is sitting upright.

The wound then appears on his neck slightly to the right (facing him) of the vertical midline of his throat.

If the angle of the shot was indeed 10.65 degrees from front to back, the bullet path would approximately resemble the following drawing.

If a the bullet that damaged Charlie’s cervical spinal cord was a .30-06 fired from 150 yards away, it seems very likely that it would have:

1). Severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly.

2). Passed through his neck.

And yet:

1). According to Andrew Kolvet, he spoke to a trauma surgeon “who worked on Charlie at the hospital.”

2). There was no exit wound.

Note that the cervical vertebrae are supported by strong muscles and have high compressive strength, but are far too delicate to stop a .30-06 bullet traveling at 2,500 feet per second.

If ALL of the kinetic energy of a 3,000 foot-pound projectile was absorbed by Charlie’s neck—as distinct from the bullet passing through the neck—it would have done spectacular trauma to his neck, as distinct from producing the clean hole visible in the video footage that apparently ruptured his carotid artery and jugular vein.

This makes me wonder if the fatal shot was fired from a pistol cartridge with a higher caliber bullet but much lower velocity and kinetic energy. It strikes me as far more likely that the cervical spine and neck muscles could stop a bullet from a handgun cartridge and absorb all its kinetic energy.

And so I have been waiting for word from the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner. I figured we would get it at Tyler Robinson’s trial, but the medical examiner in this case continues to act in a wonky way.

So far, we have been told that the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner produced an autopsy report on Charlie Kirk that was admitted as evidence (Exhibit 11) in Tyler Robinson’s July 2026 preliminary hearing.

However, the medical examiner did NOT testify, and still we have received no public disclosure of wound specifics. The full report remains non-public under Utah law and court restrictions.

The Utah State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Hull testified about the medical examiner’s report under rules allowing reliable hearsay at that stage. Hull stated that the report listed the manner of death as homicide and the immediate cause as a gunshot wound of the neck (correcting an initial misstatement of “murder”).

Why didn’t the medical examiner testify about his findings?

I find this very weird.

Defense counsel objected to the admission of this testimony without the examiner present and to publication of its contents; the judge admitted it but barred public display out of respect for the family’s privacy and the sensitive medical information.

The authorities have stated that bullet fragments (one jacket fragment and multiple lead fragments) were recovered from Kirk’s body during the autopsy and later examined by the ATF, and that tool mark comparison to the recovered rifle was inconclusive due to damage/deformation.

No detailed public testimony from the pathologist has described the precise internal wound track, exact direction of the shot beyond the overall circumstances of a rooftop shot to the neck, or a pinpoint location of every fragment.

Secondary accounts (including from security personnel who treated Kirk and hospital staff) have circulated claims of no visible exit wound, fragmentation upon striking cervical vertebrae, and recovery of material in the neck area. However, these are not the official, publicly released ME findings.

The complete ME’s report is confidential under Utah statute (limited to authorized parties such as next of kin, law enforcement, and counsel) and was not published in open court. In the preliminary hearing, presentation of the medical evidence was second-hand.

And so, I await full cross-examination of the medical examiner.

The murder of Charlie Kirk is yet another example of state authorities failing to clarify things, which necessarily results in confusion and speculation.

I am very familiar with this state of affairs, as I have written two works of true crime (Cold a Long Time and The Meaning of Malice) in which I performed the forensic investigations (with the assistance of independent forensic experts) that the medical examiners failed to conduct.

In both books, I showed how the acting medical examiners either deliberately concealed the true cause of death, or they overlooked key pieces of evidence that could have solved the crimes.

I presented the forensic evidence for Cold a Long Time on my website (Duncan MacPherson’s Death: Forensics) and I made a short documentary film about my forensic investigation for The Meaning of Malice (see below). Both are case studies of why we should NOT put blind faith in medical examiners, who are not only fallible, but also often subjected to political pressure and financial temptation.

As we have seen in our current era of COVID-19 vaccine injuries, almost the entire medical examiner profession has turned a blind eye to deaths caused by the vaccine.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting, PLEASE like it and share it with your friends, and please become a paid subscriber to the Focal Points. Performing this kind of investigative work requires a lot of time, energy, and money.

Subscribe now

Share

In the last few years I have often heard about young people in my extended social circle suffering strange and unexpected illnesses that I’d never heard about anyone in my extended social circle experiencing before 2021.

I didn’t mention to my mother the case studies of optic neuritis appearing shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, such as those documented in the 2022 study COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Optic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review of 45 Patients.

I kept this to myself because I don’t know if the girl in this case received the shot. Even if she did, I presume it’s been a long time, meaning there is no temporal association.

The devilish trouble with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is that it seems to trigger, aggravate, or accelerate diseases from which humanity was known to suffer before the vaccine was introduced. This is what enables so many patients and doctors to maintain a state of ignorance about COVID-19 vaccine harms.

I know several cases of vaccinated people in their fifties being struck by illnesses that are strongly associated with significantly older age. I suspect that—had they not received the shots—they would have eventually been struck by these illnesses, but much later in life. I reckon it is likely that the shots accelerated underlying disease processes that would not have manifested as acute clinical illnesses for another twenty years.

This state of affairs reminds me of Robert Frost’s famous poem, “The Road Not Taken,” which every American schoolboy and schoolgirl used to read.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

The apparent simplicity of the poem is deceptive, and millions of readers have misinterpreted it.

The key to the poem is the couplet:

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

We have no way of knowing if the decisions we make in life are for the better, because we have no way of knowing how our lives would have turned out if we’d taken the other path.

What should I study, what occupation should I pursue, in what state should I live, what sort of partner should I choose, how many kids should I have? With each choice you make, your way leads on to way, and you can’t undo it, go back and try the other path, and compare the two outcomes. The final couplet ends with the platitude “And that has made all the difference.” This was Frost’s subtle and ironic expression of how we rationalize the decisions we’ve made.

So it is with the COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign. Unless there is a tight temporal association, hundreds of thousands of people who received the shots and who develop strange and unexpected illnesses have no surefire means of knowing if they would have avoided these illnesses if they had avoided the shots.

In 2020-2021, when I observed weirdo monopolists like Bill Gates pushing the new mRNA vaccine—and the bizarre religiosity with which the program was embraced—I got the overwhelming impression that our “scientific-technological elite” (as Eisenhower called it) was suffering from severe hubris.

This hubris compelled them to intervene in the complex system of the human body about which they possessed limited understanding. Thus, I feared that all kinds of strange and unexpected ills would likely result from their dangerous experiment on all of humanity.

I also got the overwhelming impression that the fanatical pursuit of vaccination for EVERYONE was so that these Luciferian ghouls could eliminate the existence of a large control group of unvaccinated people. They understood that a large control group would make it significantly harder for them to obscure the true result of their experiment.

I recently had a conversation with an Alzheimer’s researcher who devotes much of her intellectual labor to studying brain scans that show the progression of brain damage. She submitted an application to her major medical center to perform a study in which she cross-referenced each patient’s brain scans and cognitive test results since 2021 with their COVID-19 vaccine records to see if there is a correlation between receiving the shots and the acceleration of disease progression.

Her study proposal was rejected. No way Jose would a major hospital system want to reveal such a correlation. Better to leave humanity NOT knowing if, in the matter of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, they made the wrong choice.

Author’s Note: If you found this essay interesting and informative, please become a paid subscriber. For just $5.00 per month, you can help me to pay my steadily increasing cost of living!

Subscribe now

Share

The work of a doctor is to carefully observe. Always.

🧬 Familial Spasmodic Dysphonia

I noticed last week on a news segment that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s younger sister, Kerry, is developing the same vocal disorder as RFK. Voices can sound remarkably similar among family members because they share the same biological anatomy, inherited neurological patterns, and behavioral habits. On a physical level, relatives inherit a nearly identical structural "instrument," meaning the size, shape, and thickness of their vocal cords, sinus cavities, and throat shape the acoustic resonance and baseline pitch in the exact same way. This genetic blueprint also dictates the neurological pathways that control speech, which is why familial voice disorders like spasmodic dysphonia can cause matching strained or shaky vocal qualities across multiple family members. Finally, this shared foundation is reinforced by lifelong behavioral mimicry, as children unconsciously imitate the unique cadence, speech rhythms, and accent inflections of their parents and siblings from infancy.

📋 Introduction: A Tale of Two Siblings, One Voice Disorder

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (age 72) began experiencing the strained, strangled vocal quality of spasmodic dysphonia in his 40s. His sister Kerry Kennedy (age 66) — a prominent vaccine advocate — developed the same condition in her 50s. Two siblings, same rare neurological disorder, decades apart in onset. The conventional response is to shrug and call it coincidence or “idiopathic.” But that answer, as is so often the case, represents a failure of curiosity rather than a satisfying conclusion.

The far more compelling question is: What shared genetic architecture made two Kennedy siblings vulnerable to the same focal dystonia, and what environmental trigger — potentially a repeated one — pushed that vulnerability into clinical expression?

Subscribe now

Read more

The interview reminded me of the deliberations of the FDA Advisory Committee’s meeting on October 29, 2021 to approve of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for children.

As we related this infamous incident in our book, Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality.

On October 29, 2021, [the FDA] authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in children five through eleven years of age (revised in June 2022 to include all children six months and older).^[i] By then it had become abundantly clear from the CDC’s own data that COVID-19 illness posed virtually zero risk of hospitalization and death to young children. Indeed, I repeatedly observed children, who have a large and very active thymus, completely recover from COVID-19 infection less than forty-eight hours after the onset of symptoms.

Likewise, by the beginning of 2021, it had become abundantly clear that COVID-19 illness posed virtually zero risk to young athletes in top cardiovascular condition. Nevertheless, most college and professional leagues forced them to receive the experimental injections to participate in their sports. As a cardiologist, I found it the cruelest of ironies that, while such athletes were at the lowest risk of suffering severe COVID-19 illness, they (especially young males) were the highest risk cohort for suffering vaccine-induced myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle. The first case of fatal, autopsy proven mRNA COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, August 18, 2021.^[ii] This should have put a hold on the entire vaccine campaign until vaccine myocarditis was thoroughly investigated.

A few days after the FDA announced it had approved the vaccine for children, I received a report on the deliberations of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee about the decision. Attending the meeting was committee member, Dr. Eric Rubin, an adjunct professor of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard University and editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. As was revealed in the transcript, Rubin said the following:

This is a much tougher one, I think, than we had expected coming into it. The data show that this vaccine works and it’s pretty safe. . . . And yet, we’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real. And we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups.^[iii]

The “side effect” is myocarditis. By then, significant data had emerged that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines presented an elevated risk for young people, especially male adolescents. I was already seeing it in my clinical practice. “A benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups” was Rubin’s mealy-mouthed way of saying that young people have a much lower risk of severe Covid illness. After acknowledging the myocarditis risk, Dr. Rubin made the following statement:

So, for me, I think it’s going to revolve around two questions, whether there is going to be a use for this vaccine in this age group, and then how the decision gets made within this age group. It’s a very, sort of, personal choice. If I had a child who was a transplant recipient, I would really want to be able to use a vaccine. And there are certainly kids who probably should be vaccinated. The question of how broadly to use it, though, I think is a substantial one. . . . But I do think that it’s a relatively close call . . . But we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines like the rotavirus vaccine. And I do think we should vote to approve it.^[iv]

“But we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.” What kind of reasoning was this? The statement struck me as reckless bordering on criminally insane, and as I read it, I’d never been so appalled.

What could account for this monomaniacal desire for everyone, regardless of their risk profile, to get the shot? It was as though the public health agencies, medical profession, and public were in the grip of some wild enthusiasm for a new and untested technology. Often, I was struck by the thought that this mania was akin to a new religion.

^[i] Pfizer and BioNTech Receive First U.S. FDA Emergency Use Authorization of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Children Ages 5 Through 11 Years, Pfizer Company Press Release, October 29, 2021. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-first-us-fda-emergency-use

^[ii]Amanda K. Verma, Kory J. Lavine, Chieh-Yu Lin. Myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination. New England Journal of Medicine, P. 1332-1333, V 385 N 14 doi:10.1056/NEJMc2109975. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2109975

^[iii] Tom Kertscher. In Context: ‘Never going to learn how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it,” Politfact, November 1, 2021. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/nov/01/context-never-going-learn-how-safe-vaccine-unless-/

^[iv]Ibid.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please like and share it, and please become a paid subscriber to our newsletter.For just $5.00 per month, you can help us to make a living in our ceaseless effort to investigate and report the reality of our world dominated by lying villains.

Subscribe now

Share

At the time he told about Samizdat, the necessity of such an enterprise struck me as outlandishly bizarre. How, I wondered, could the beautiful, literate, and cultured city of Prague fall into the hands of such tyrannical philistines? Surely, I thought, this could NEVER happen in the United States.

Thirty years later, what was unthinkable became a reality. The same sort of tyrannical philistines who ran Czechoslovakia during the Soviet period infested American institutions of academia, government, and yes, even New York City trade publishing.

Reviewing Roger’s book, Notes from the Underground, about Prague in the eighties, Daniel Mahoney wrote of the novel’s character, Bob Heilbronn:

Heilbronn could only think (much like contemporary mainstream ‘political science’) in superficial terms about democracy versus dictatorship. . . . He failed to see what Havel had taught in his great dissident essays: everyone was complicit in the web of lies at the heart of ideocratic despotism. External coercion was matched by an inner tyranny that suffocated the soul and humankind’s natural moral conscience.

Like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel understood that tyranny is not only imposed from the top down, it is widely embraced by the majority of people who crave to conform and to signal their ideological virtue. The subject of ideological conformity and the subversion of reality is a major theme in my latest book, Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions, also published by Tony Lyons.

The descent of an intellectual culture into vulgar, childish, stultifying conformity has been happening right before our eyes in the United States. This is why the New York Times is now largely a waste of wood pulp. This is why so much of New York City trade publishing is apparently more interested in ideological conformity than reality.

For those of us who still love true intellectual and literary culture, thank God we have Tony Lyons, the proprietor of Skyhorse Publishing. When no other major New York house would even consider publishing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Tony Lyons had the vision and courage to publish it and promote it in the face of it being blacklisted by all trade industry publications and book reviews.

The following year, when I wrote my first book with Dr. Peter McCullough— The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex — Tony brought it out in a handsome hardcover with a Forward by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., with whom he has a longstanding friendship. Both men are Classical Liberals, dedicated to defending free speech.

Tony just published an essay titled “Why Censorship Never Works” on the occasion of Anthony Fauci’s diaries being published. As Tony notes:

Those [Anthony Fauci’s] diaries confirm, point for point, exactly what Bobby Kennedy wrote [in his 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci]. This was never a story about honest scientific disagreement. It was about one man using the power of government to enforce orthodoxy and crush dissent. Anybody who didn’t give complete blind faith to the so-called experts got marginalized, vilified, demonized, and censored. Kennedy lived it himself: he pointed out that Covid almost certainly came from the Wuhan lab, and Instagram erased him, millions of followers gone overnight, for so-called misinformation.

Please take a few minutes to read the full essay, published on The MAHA Report, by clicking on image below, and please like it and share it with your friends.

Subscribe now

Share

Salmonella and cyclospora cause two very different dysenteric syndromes.

🥚 7-month Salmonella Outbreak, 4 months of Cyclosporiasis — Double Diarrhea Jeopardy

📋 The Interview at a Glance

Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and Chief Scientific Officer at The Wellness Company, sat down with Steve Gruber on Real America’s Voice to break down two parallel foodborne outbreaks — and delivered a blunt lesson most doctors won’t tell you.

🦠 Salmonella (from eggs)

Source: Midwest Poultry operations in Texas — cage-free brown eggs sold under Kroger and Brookshire Farms brands.

Scale: 98 confirmed cases, 26 hospitalizations. The outbreak ran for seven months before federal agencies got it under control.

The mechanism: Salmonella is physically inside the eggs — meaning it’s in the chickens themselves. You can’t wash it off the shell.

Who’s at risk: People eating runny eggs — sunny side up, raw eggs in smoothies, undercooked scrambles. Properly cooked scrambled eggs kill it.

The key clinical takeaway McCullough emphasized:

For otherwise healthy adults: do NOT treat the diarrhea. Let it rip. Fluids and electrolytes only. The pathogen clears fast on its own.

Why? Because salmonella gastroenteritis is a self-limiting infection. Antidiarrheals trap the pathogen in your gut and prolong the illness. This is basic medicine that most people never hear because nobody bothers to explain it.

Exceptions — when to use antibiotics (Emergency Medical Kit, The Wellness Company):

• Adults over 65 who are frail → azithromycin or ciprofloxacin

• Children → azithromycin

🥬 Cyclosporiasis (from lettuce and raw vegetables)

McCullough drew a sharp distinction here: cyclospora is a different beast entirely. Unlike salmonella’s rapid-fire course, cyclosporiasis is a parasitic infection contracted from contaminated produce — lettuce, raw veggies — and it doesn’t resolve the same way.

📣 Different Management for Salmonella Versus Cyclosporiasis

He noted both conditions are addressable with what’s in the TWC emergency medical kits, but the clinical approach differs. Salmonella should be allowed to run its course over 24-48 hours unless the patient is a child or senior > 65 years, then antibiotics (AZM) should be used. Cyclospora after eating lettuce or raw vegetables should be treated with 7-10 days of the antibiotic TMP-SMX. Both are in the Emergency Medical Kit.

🔥 The Bigger Indictment

The salmonella outbreak ran seven months before containment. McCullough didn’t hide his disgust:

“This is shocking that our agencies haven’t gotten control over this.”

The subtext is clear: the FDA and CDC are broken not by accident but by design. Regulatory capture, revolving-door corruption, and a culture that punishes competence while rewarding media celebrity.

🎬 Fauci Sidebar

The interview pivoted hard at the end to Fauci pleading the Fifth before the Senate Homeland Security Committee — a stark contrast to his 2022 promise to “answer any questions at any time from any oversight committee.”

McCullough’s take: the Biden preemptive pardon must be challenged. Circumstances have changed. The information we have now — on SARS-CoV-2’s origins, the suppression of early treatment, and the harms of the vaccines — couldn’t possibly have been known by whoever signed that pardon. Crimes against humanity, fraudulent concealment, negligent homicide. Let the probe move forward.

🧠 What to Actually Do for Gastroenteritis after Eating Eggs

Have an emergency medical kit on hand Eggs in your fridge Check lot numbers. If recalled, return them. Cook eggs thoroughly.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. AlterAI may be used to assist in searches, synthesis, and review.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Chief Scientific Officer, The Wellness Company

www.twc.health/focalpoints