Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed

Bigfoot Parchments book cover by Richard Rensberry

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed

Secret Document #13 Photo

     Deciding to spend a relaxing day fishing, I unburdened myself from the matrix.  I parked my truck in a small grove of cedars and tossed my cell phone onto the front seat before heading down to the Big Creek stream bottom where I hoped the trout would be feeding.  This was near one of the Big Creek portals where I had several Bigfoot encounters in the past.  On my trek to the creek, I noticed the forest around me was eerily still.  There were no raucous scoldings from neither bluejays nor disturbed squirrels irritated by my intrusion.  Even the mosquitos had bugged out.

     As I walked I had my wish for being alone, but the relaxing scenario I had envisioned was lost in the silence.  The quiet was so unnatural it raised the goose flesh on my arms.  It was a sure sign that there were some Sasquatch nearby.  Knowing they were there and staying hidden put me on edge.

     I hadn't traveled all that far when I heard a huge commotion of loud laughter emanating from the spot where I had parked my truck.  I leaned my fishing pole and creel up against a tree and began backtracking to investigate.  Knowing you can't sneak up on a Bigfoot, I didn't even try.

     To my surprise I caught them unawares.  This group of Sasquatch were having such a good time they didn't see nor hear me when I walked out of the trees.  There were five of them congregating near the open door of my truck.  One of the smaller ones was holding up my cell phone for his buddies to look at.  All their heads were crammed together to see the phone.  They watched for a few seconds then they all burst out into wracking guffaws as they pounded their thighs with their fists.  I could never have predicted a Sasquatch would behave in such a free spirited manner.  Then they did it again and again.  Look, laugh.  Look, laugh.  

     I realized they were watching a video that was putting them in stitches.

Welcome to the Forum

 Welcome to the Forum

The stork, the frog and the moth

Enter into a cartoon credit agreement.

The stork turns to the philanthropist

Bill Gates, and in the heat of the moment

Spears him in the eye for no apparent reason.

The frog is quick to leap into the fray,

Knee-jerk as a mafioso bill collector,

He pokes his tongue into the ear

Of the once honorable fake doctor

Fauci.  Anthony screams he’s a hero.

The moth flutters in the flickering glow

Of the forum’s faltering candle.  Greta stands there

Still arm and arm with old man Gore.

Klaus Schwab rasps for a breath of fresh air.

Senile Joe deploys America's best in support.  

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed #12 10/28/22

The following Sasquatch Secret Document Revealed was presented to me while talking to Dr. Walker in Cross Over where Sasquatch General Demarcus is conducting transmigration and cloaking exercises.  These important documents are heavily suppressed by the inhuman news media and deleted by the Facebook “Fact Checkers” who are the ones being sued and deposed in this document.  This is not an easy read but a very important one regarding Freedom of Speech, Covid 19 and Facebook.  I hope everyone has the determinism to get through it to an understanding of what is important to understand.  We are in a spiritual and philosophical war like no other.  Just remember, the Sasquatch are on our side.

The Plaintiffs are the good guys.  The defendants are as evil as they come.  

So that you aren’t hoodwinked by the defendants initial flap-trap and blatant disregard for the law, this judge has ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs (the good guys and gals) on all counts.  

Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 90 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 3915 



This Court granted [Doc. No. 34] Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery [Doc. No. 17] and set an expedited discovery schedule. The discovery schedule required the parties to meet and confer in good faith regarding any deposition requests. The parties were required to file a joint statement as to their position on depositions if they could not come to an agreement. The parties have done so and have submitted the pending Joint Statement Regarding Witness Depositions [Doc. No. 86]. This ruling addresses the witness depositions.


On May 5, 2022, Plaintiffs1 filed a Complaint2 against Defendants.3 In the Complaint and Amended Complaint,4 Plaintiffs allege Defendants have colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information.

1 Plaintiffs consist of the State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Jim Hoft, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Jill Hines. 

2 [Doc. No. 1] 

3 Defendants consist of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vivek H. Murthy, Xavier Becerra, Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Alejandro Mayorkas, Department of Homeland Security, Jen Easterly, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, and Nina Jankowicz, Karine Jean-Pierre, Carol Y. Crawford, Jennifer Shopkorn, U.S. Census Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce, Robert Silvers, Samantha Vinograd and Gina McCarthy. 

4 [Doc. No. 45] 

Plaintiffs allege the suppression of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government action and violates Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the Complaint5 and Amended Complaint6 Plaintiffs set forth examples of suppression of free speech which include: 1) the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; 2) speech about the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; 3) speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; 4) speech about election integrity and the security of voting by mail; 5) censorship and suppression of speech by Plaintiffs Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration; 6) censorship and suppression of Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit, on social-media platforms; and 7) censorship and suppression of Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana and Reopen Louisiana on social-media platforms. 

5 [Doc. No. 1] 

6 [Doc. No. 45] 

Plaintiffs move for the following government officials to be deposed as a part of their limited preliminary injunction discovery. These are: 

  1. (1)NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, (2) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, (3) former White House Senior COVID-19 Advisory Andrew Slavitt, (4) former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, (5) FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, (6) CISA Director Jen Easterly, (7) CISA official Lauren Protentis, (8) Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, (9) CDC Chief of the Digital Media Branch Carol Crawford, and (10) Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center Daniel Kimmage. 

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ deposing of all of them. 


Expedited discovery is not the norm. Courts only allow it in limited circumstances. Wilson v. Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC, 2014 WL 2949457 at 2 (W.D. La. 2014). In the prior ruling,7 which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery, the Court employed a “good cause” analysis, which took into consideration such factors as the breadth of discovery requests, the purpose for requesting expedited discovery, the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests, and how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made. GHX Industrial, LLC v. Servco Hose and Supply, LLC, 2020 WL 1492920 (W.D. La. Feb. 5, 2020). 

7 [Doc. No. 72] 

8 [Doc. No. 34 at 12] 

9 [Id., p. 2] 

10 [Id., p. 1] 

In addressing the necessity of depositions, the Court previously stated, “whether depositions will be taken will be addressed later.”8 The party seeking expedited discovery has the burden of establishing that “the scope of the requests” is narrowly tailored to the necessary information sought.9 The Court must also consider the “burden on the defendants to comply with the requests.”10 

Top executive department officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding the reasons for taking official actions. In re Office of Inspector Gen. R.R. Ret. Bd., 933 F.2d 276, 278 (5th Cir. 1991). Compelling the testimony of high-ranking government officials is justified only in “extraordinary instances.” Vill. Of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977). This requirement is commonly referred to as the “apex doctrine.” United States v. Newman, 531 F. Supp. 3d 181, 188 (D.D.C. 2021). 

The “extraordinary circumstances” limitation on the compelled testimony of high-ranking officials is necessary because such orders raise separation of powers concerns. In re United States (Jackson), 624 F.3d 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2010). Additionally, requiring high-ranking officials to appear for depositions also threatens to “disrupt the functioning of the Executive Branch.” In re Cheney, 544 F.3d 311, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2008). High-level executives and government officials need some measure of protection from the courts because they are vulnerable to numerous, repetitive, harassing, and abusive depositions. Asberry v. Sch. Bd. Of Pasco Cnty. Fla., 2019 WL 12383128 at 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2019). The general rule prohibiting depositions of high-ranking government officials also applies to former high-ranking officials. In re United States (Bernanke), 542 F. App’x 944, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

As a preliminary requirement for an “exceptional circumstances” analysis, the proponent of the deposition must show “that the official has first-hand knowledge related to the claims being litigated that is unobtainable from other sources.” In re Bryant, 745 F. App’x 215, 218 n 2. (5th Cir. 2018). After the “first-hand knowledge” threshold is crossed in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a deposition, a court must consider (1) the high-ranking status of the deponents; (2) the potential burden that the depositions would impose on them; and (3) the substantive reasons for taking the depositions. Bryant, 745 F. App’x at 220. 

A. Defendants’ Opposition to Depositions 

Defendants have objected to Plaintiffs’ request to depose all ten government officials. Mainly, Defendants’ objections are that Plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden of demonstrating that depositions are warranted at this stage because: (1) some of the officials sought to be deposed were not named in the Original Complaint and are outside of the Court-authorized expedited discovery; (2) Plaintiffs’ have not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” required for the depositions of high ranking officials; and (3) former officials could not be taken during the thirty-day time period due to the requirements in FED. R. CIV. P. 45. 

Each proposed deponent must be examined to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist. Additionally, in its prior Ruling,11 the Court did not allow additional interrogatories to Defendants added in the Amended Complaint12 because of the compressed expedited discovery schedule. However, the Court did not intend to prohibit depositions of newly added Defendants, because they can be taken within the expedited discovery schedule. 

11 [Doc. No. 72] 

12 [Doc. No. 45] 

As it relates to former government officials (i.e., Andrew Slavitt and Jennifer Psaki), FED. R. CIV. P. 45 does not prohibit depositions to be conducted within thirty days. Despite Defendants’ threat to file a Motion to Quash the subpoenas, the Court finds that FRCP 45 requirements do not prohibit depositions being taken in a timely manner. Any depositions authorized by this Court of former government officials will have already taken into consideration the burden of the deponent. In the event that these depositions exceed the thirty-day restraint set out in FRCP 45, an extension may be warranted. 

Defendants have essentially adopted the same arguments they made in their opposition to Plaintiffs conducting any form of discovery as it related to the preliminary injunction motion. While the Court agrees that obtaining the depositions of high-ranking officials such as the ones requested here is an exceptional circumstance, it will analyze each person that the Plaintiffs requested under the factors laid out in Bryant. 

B. Plaintiffs’ Arguments 

Plaintiffs argue that the depositions of the ten aforementioned officials are necessary for the following reasons. 

  1. Dr. Anthony Fauci—NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor 

Dr. Anthony Fauci (“Dr. Fauci”), who is a Defendant in this case, is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Chief Medical Advisor to the President. Plaintiffs move to depose Dr. Fauci for substantial reasons. The Court will discuss them all. 

First, Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Fauci is directly involved with multiple social media censorship campaigns against COVID-19 misinformation. Plaintiffs argue that “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” that contradicted Dr. Fauci’s views was censored on social media, and it was most likely censored because of the insistence of Dr. Fauci. 

The first example of this is Dr. Fauci’s efforts to discredit any theory that COVID-19 was the result of a “lab leak.” Plaintiffs assert that “Dr. Fauci had funded risky ‘gain-of-function’ research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Dr. Peter Daszak.” Which in turn meant that if there were truth behind the lab-leak theory, “Dr. Fauci and Dr. Daszak could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic and killed millions of people worldwide.” In late January and early February 2020, information on the lab-leak theory began to become spread to the public. Soon thereafter, Dr. Fauci participated in a conference call with scientists and science-funding authorities, which may or may not have been about discrediting the lab-leak theory. Plaintiff States assert that “After the conference call, influential individuals signed public statements that were placed in science journals in an attempt to discredit the lab-leak theory.” During this time, Plaintiff States also urge that Dr. Fauci engaged in written and oral communications with Mark Zuckerberg about the Government’s COVID-19 response, and allegedly widespread social-media censorship of the lab-leak hypothesis ensued. 

Plaintiffs further this argument by pointing out the publicly available emails between Drs. Fauci and Collins regarding their efforts to discredit the lab-leak theory, which Plaintiffs assert led to the censorship of the theory online. These emails indicate that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins were both aware of certain scientists’ concerns that SARS-CoV-2 looked bioengineered. However, those same scientists authored a paper for Nature Medicine that discredited the lab-leak theory despite that three days earlier on February 1, they had advocated the theory to Dr. Fauci. That paper was also sent to Dr. Fauci for approval. 

Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Fauci and Mark Zuckerberg commenced a course of friendly oral communications about the Government’s COVID-19 response. Plaintiff States wish to ascertain the contents of these communications in depositions. 

On April 16, 2020, Dr. Collins emailed Dr. Fauci a link to a Bret Baier article about the lab-leak theory, expressing concerns over whether “NIH” can help to take down the “very destructive conspiracy” that seems to be growing momentum. He further stated that he hoped the Nature Medicine article “would settle this” and asked what more “we” could do about it. One day after this email, which Plaintiff States argue clearly shows Dr. Collins requesting Dr. Fauci to use more public pressure to stop the theory from circulating, Dr. Fauci cited the Nature Medicine article while speaking from a podium at the White House.13 

13 This was one among many public statements Dr. Fauci made about the illegitimacy of the lab-leak theory. 

Plaintiffs next cite to Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins communications regarding the Great Barrington Declaration, a scientific critique of the effects of prolonged lockdowns as a response 

to COVID-19 co-authored by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Plaintiffs in this case. Dr. Collins’ email regarding the publication read: 

Hi Tony and Cliff, See: This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take-down of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway? Francis.14 

14 [Doc. No. 45-3, ¶ 14]. 

15 See, e.g., Jessie Hellmann, Fauci Blasts Herd Immunity Proposal Embraced by White House as ‘Total Nonsense,’ THE HILL (Oct. 15, 2020), at 

16 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 480]. 

17 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 345]. 

In response, Dr. Fauci began making a series of public statements that were highly critical of the Great Barrington Declaration, describing it as “total nonsense” and “ridiculous.”15 “[T]he censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration and Plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff [occurred] just after a senior HHS official called for a ‘quick and devastating … take-down’ of the Declaration” to Dr. Fauci.16 

Plaintiffs next assert that Dr. Fauci was involved in Twitter’s permanent suspension of the vaccine critic Alex Berenson (“Berenson”). Berenson’s tweets consisted of science-based objections to the vaccinations of young, healthy persons, which became a target for Biden-Administration’s censors. Plaintiff States argue that “Alex Berenson disclosed internal Twitter communications revealing that senior ‘WH’ officials including Andrew Slavitt specifically pressured Twitter to de-platform Berenson, an influential vaccine critic—which Twitter did.”17 Dr. Fauci publicly described Berenson’s opinions on vaccines as “horrifying.” President Biden followed Dr. Fauci’s steps and made a statement that “They’re killing people” by not censoring vaccine “misinformation,” to which Twitter subsequently permanently suspended Berenson from its platform.18 On October 13, 2022, Berenson posted on Substack Twitter emails indicating that a board member of Pfizer pressured Twitter to de-platform Berenson.19 In the emails, the Pfizer executive allegedly claimed that Berenson’s speech should be censored because it posed a threat to the safety of Dr. Fauci. Which Plaintiffs argue creates an inference that there was collusion between White House official Andrew Slavitt and the Pfizer executive on this very point. 

18 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 347]. 

19 See 

20 [Doc. No. 86-3, p. 24, 57]. 

21 [Doc. No. 72, pp. 67]. 

Government Defendants have submitted to Plaintiffs interrogatory responses on behalf of Dr. Fauci, asserting that he has had no direct communications with any social-media platforms regarding censorship.20 Plaintiffs argue in turn that they should not be required to simply accept those blanket statements as they were submitted, and they argue three reasons why Dr. Fauci should be questioned under oath. 

First, Plaintiffs assert that Dr. Fauci has refused to verify under oath his own interrogatory responses in violation of this Court’s Order. The NIAID’s responses were instead verified by Dr. Jill Harper, who was not named in the Complaint. Accordingly, Dr. Fauci has made no statements under oath regarding his communications with social-media platforms, which violates this Court’s Order regarding the discovery that instructed Dr. Fauci to provide interrogatory responses.21 The Court sees the importance of having Dr. Fauci make statements under oath as it relates to the issues of this matter.

Next, Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci can prove he never communicated with social-media platforms about censorship, there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions. Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci acted indirectly or as an intermediary on behalf of others, it is still relevant to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Court agrees. 

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Fauci’s credibility has been in question on matters related to supposed COVID-19 “misinformation” since 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of “gain-of-function” virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more. Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed. Plaintiffs assert that they should not be required to simply accept Dr. Fauci’s “self-serving blanket denials” that were issued from someone other than himself at face value. The Court agrees. 

After reviewing the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven that Dr. Fauci has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Dr. Fauci is a high-ranking official, especially as he is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the President. The Court sees the only potential burden imposed on Dr. Fauci as a result of him being deposed is that of his time. However, the Court acknowledges that any person who is being deposed must sacrifice their time, and it does not see any burden imposed on Dr. Fauci that outweighs the Court’s need for the information in order to make the most informative decision on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. Finally, the Court is aware of a number of substantive reasons why Dr. Fauci’s deposition should be taken. The first is the publicly available emails that prove that Dr. Fauci was communicating and acting as an intermediary for others in order to censor information from being shared across multiple social-media outlets. The second is that Dr. Fauci has yet to give any statements under oath in this matter. The third is that the Court has no doubt that Dr. Fauci was engaging in communications with high-ranking social-media officials, which is extremely relevant in the matter at hand. Additionally, the crux of this case is the fundamental right of free speech. Any burden that may be imposed on Dr. Fauci is wholly outweighed by the importance of Plaintiffs’ allegations of suppression of free speech. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving why a deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci is necessary in this case, and exceptional circumstance are present. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Dr. Anthony Fauci cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose him for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 

2. Rob Flaherty—White House Director of Digital Strategy 

Plaintiffs move to depose Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”), who is the Director of Digital Strategy for the White House. Plaintiffs describe him as a “key official in the White House’s pressure campaign on social-media companies to increase COVID-19 censorship and social-media companies’ policies and responses to COVID-19 vaccine claims.”22 Flaherty is said to have had “extensive” oral meetings with social-media platforms, including Twitter, Meta and YouTube on vaccine hesitancy and combatting misinformation. 

22 [Doc. No. 86-5].

Plaintiffs allege that Flaherty consistently communicates with Meta’s director of U.S. Public Policy through “Covid Insight Reports,” which detail trends/posts by social-media users taken by Meta. Further, Plaintiffs allege that he has held meetings about Meta’s platform to address misinformation and to curb vaccine hesitancy. Meta allegedly contacts Flaherty when Covid-19 vaccines are authorized for new groups of people, and they report on Meta’s intentions to censor disfavored opinions about vaccine effectiveness for those new groups, all allegedly at the White House’s urging.23 Plaintiffs argue that Flaherty has specific knowledge and information on Meta’s attempts to censor the “Disinformation Dozen.”2425 Further, Plaintiffs assert that Flaherty has led efforts for the White House to force Meta to explain “how big the [misinformation] problem is, what solutions you’re implementing, and how effective they’ve been.”26 Further, Flaherty supposedly “pressured Meta by sending them an article about misinformation on Facebook with a subject line ‘not sure what to say anymore.’” Flaherty also allegedly knows about the Biden Transition Team’s efforts with Meta.27 Defendants’ interrogatory responses detailed that Flaherty participated in virtual meetings with social-media platforms, which Plaintiffs assert were about censorship.28 

23 [Id. at 7268-89; 7250]. 

24 Supposedly, there are a dozen accounts across social-media that spread the mass of “misinformation” on COVID-19. Government officials have taken to calling these accounts the “Disinformation Dozen”. 

25 [Id. at 7322]. 

26 [Id. at 7258–59; see also id. at 16279]. 

27 [Id. at 16364, 16276]. 

28 [Doc. No. 86-3, at 31]. 

29 [Doc. No. 86-5, p. 7248-49, 16275]. 

Plaintiffs maintain that deposing Flaherty is essential to this case as it would provide critical information on the White House’s pressure campaign to social-media platforms against the “Disinformation Dozen” and other COVID-19 “misinformation” issues, especially as it relates to their leaning on social media companies after press reports were released regarding vaccines, and the White House’s involvement over content-modulation policies instilled in Meta and Twitter in their efforts to remove “the most harmful COVID-19 misinformation.”29 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven that Flaherty has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Flaherty is a high-ranking official, especially as he serves as Director of Digital Strategy for the White House. Any burden imposed upon Flaherty is outweighed by the need for Plaintiffs to determine whether the fundamental right of free speech has been abridged. Extraordinary circumstances are present to depose this high-ranking official. The substantive reasons for taking Flaherty’s depositions are set out herein, and the Court finds the substantive reasons are overwhelming. For reasons further set out herein, Plaintiffs are allowed to depose either Rob Flaherty or Andrew Slavitt. Shall Plaintiffs notify Defendants of their intent to depose Rob Flaherty, IT IS ORDERED that Rob Flaherty cooperate with Plaintiffs’ request to depose him. 

3. Andrew Slavitt—White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor 

Defendant Andrew Slavitt (“Slavitt”) served as the White House’s Senior COVID-19 Advisor. Slavitt allegedly “led the charge” for the White House in its campaign with social-media companies to increase the censorship of private speech as it related to COVID-19 through meetings and oral conversations with representatives of multiple social-media platforms. Plaintiffs assert that in Defendants’ own documentary discovery, it is revealed that Slavitt received “Facebook bi-weekly covid content reports” from a senior Facebook executive in order for Slavitt to “oversee” Facebook’s censorship.30 Plaintiffs also argue that Slavitt specifically pressured Twitter to de-platform Alex Berenson. This was supposedly done in an oral meeting, so there is no official record of it.31 

30 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 343]. 

31 [Doc. No. 84, ¶¶ 345-46.]. 

32 [Id. ¶ 345]. 

On April 21, 2022, a meeting invitation was sent to Slavitt, which stated: 

White House Staff will be briefed by Twitter on vaccine [misinformation] Twitter to cover trends seen generally around vaccine misinformation, the tangible effects seen from recent policy changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work.32 

The next day, internal Twitter messages reflected that Slavitt had posed “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off the platform.”33 Plaintiffs describe several other instances where Slavitt engaged in email exchanges with social-media executives that describe censorship of the platforms and the actions the platforms are taking to expand censorship for language they deemed to be “harmful.”34 One email in particular read: 

33 [Id. ¶ 346]. 

34 [Id. ¶¶ 354, 369]. 

35 [Id. ¶ 375.] 

36 Is COVID Misinformation Killing People?, Published Jul 21, 2021, at (audio 5:40) 

[O]n March 2, 2021, Meta sent an email assuring Slavitt, Flaherty, and Humphrey that the company is “[c]ombating vaccine misinformation and de-amplifying content that could contribute to vaccine hesitancy” by “improving the effectiveness of our existing enforcement systems (particularly focusing on entities that repeatedly post vaccine misinformation), mitigating viral content that could lead to vaccine hesitancy[.]”35 

Plaintiffs maintain that Twitter and Meta’s Facebook have identified Slavitt as a senior federal official whom they communicated about their efforts to “stop” the spread of alleged “misinformation” regarding COVID-19. Plaintiffs go on to assert that the White House has also identified Slavitt and Flaherty as senior White House Officials who were involved in communications with social-media platforms. Plaintiffs argue these communications centered on censorship. 

Plaintiffs also cite to a podcast that Slavitt participated in, wherein he stated, “my time in the White House where I was charged with pushing organizations like Facebook from spewing misinformation.”36 Plaintiffs detail Slavitt’s statements made on the podcast, wherein he states that he was “pushing” for the company (i.e., social-media platforms) to be “more responsible” for the 

information that was being spread on the platforms. Plaintiffs move to depose Slavitt because of his role as a “self-professed principal enforcer for online censorship.” 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven that Andrew Slavitt has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Slavitt is a former high-ranking official, especially as he served as the White House’s Senior COVID-19 Advisor. Any burden imposed upon Slavitt is outweighed by Plaintiffs’ allegations of suppression of free speech. Extraordinary circumstances are present. As the Court has stated, any person who is being deposed must sacrifice their time, and it does not see any burden imposed on Slavitt that outweighs the Court’s need for the information in order to make the most informative decision on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. Lastly, the Court has determined that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition. As stated above, Slavitt was the White House’s Senior COVID-19 Advisor. His role put him in a position that would grant him specific knowledge to the facts at issue. Slavitt’s own description of his role on a podcast that he went on showed he has specific knowledge as it relates to these issues. His communications, actions, and orders to and between social-media platforms will be necessary for this Court to make its ruling. Accordingly, as stated above, because Flaherty and Slavitt were both White House officials, in an effort to narrowly tailor this expedited discovery, Plaintiffs are allowed to take the deposition of either Flaherty or Slavitt, but not both. Should Plaintiffs notify Defendants of a desire to depose Andrew Slavitt, IT IS ORDERED that Slavitt cooperate as to Plaintiffs’ request to depose him. 

4. Jennifer Psaki—Former White House Press Secretary 

Jennifer Psaki (Psaki) is the former White House Press Secretary of President Biden. She is a Defendant in this case. Plaintiffs move to depose Psaki for a multitude of reasons. The most pressing reason being that during her tenure as White House chief spokesperson, Psaki made a series of public statements that: 

  1. (1)attested to her personal knowledge of the participation of high-level White House officials in pressuring social-media platforms, and (2) reinforced the public threats of adverse legal consequences to social-media platforms if they do not increase censorship of views disfavored by federal officials. Thus, she both admitted to knowledge of pressure to censor from federal officials and directly engaged in such pressure herself, in a highly impactful and visible fashion.37 

37 [Doc. No. 86, p. 15]. 

38 White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, May 5, 2021, at 

39 [Doc. No. 86, p. 16]. 

40 [Id.] 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint details the statements Psaki made as they relate to these claims. For example, on May 5, 2021, Psaki stated at a White House press conference “the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations, and elections.”38 Psaki stated at another press conference on July 15, 2021, that she administration is in “regular touch” with social-media platforms and that the engagements happen between “members of our senior staff” and “members of our COVID-19 team.”39 Psaki also often spoke of the “Disinformation Dozen” and stated that: 

All [12] of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including Facebook — ones that Facebook owns … Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts — posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days. That’s too long. The information spreads too quickly.40 

Psaki also called on social-media platforms for consistency in banning disfavored speakers, stating “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”41 

41 White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, July 16, 2021, at 

Plaintiffs further argue that along with these statements, Psaki also “demanded” “robust strategies” for social-media companies to enforce censorship of “harmful posts.” On April 25, 2022, Psaki also stated that President Biden was concerned about social-media platforms and thought they should be held accountable for the harms caused by the spread of “disinformation.” She maintained at this press briefing that certain officials within the White House and the Biden Administration maintained “regular” contact with social-media platforms. 

Plaintiffs submitted interrogatories to Karine Jean-Pierre, who is Psaki’s successor as White House Press Secretary, and asked questions regarding the social-media censorship and Psaki’s knowledge of such. Defendants’ response to the interrogatories was that they lacked knowledge of the basis of her statements on those issues because Psaki no longer works at the White House. The only relevant responses Defendants supplied in the interrogatories were that Rob Flaherty and Andrew Slavitt were involved in communications with social-media platforms. Plaintiffs move to depose Psaki because they have obtained no statements from Psaki about what her “actual knowledge” of these issues is. Plaintiffs state that they should be allowed to depose her to explore the basis of the “critical statements” alleged in the Complaint and stated above. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven that Jennifer Psaki has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Psaki was a high-ranking official at the time that she made the statements at issue, especially as she served as the White House Press Secretary. 

41 White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, July 16, 2021, at  

However, this rank does not mitigate the relevance and the need of her deposition as it relates to this case. Any burden on Psaki is outweighed by the need to determine whether free speech has been suppressed. Lastly, the Court has determined that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition. Extraordinary circumstances are present. As stated above, Psaki has made a number of statements that are relevant to the Government’s involvement in a number of social-media platforms’ efforts to censor its users across the board for sharing information related to COVID-19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Jennifer Psaki cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose her for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 

5. Elvis Chan—FBI Supervisory Special Agent 

Plaintiffs move to depose Elvis Chan (“Chan”), a named Defendant in this case and the FBI Supervisory Special Agent of Squad CY-1 in the San Francisco Division of the FBI.42 Plaintiffs argue that Chan has “authority over cybersecurity issues for FBI in that geographical region, which includes the headquarters of major social-media platforms, and he plays a critical role for FBI in coordinating with social-media platforms relating to censorship and suppression of speech on their platforms.”43 Plaintiffs move to depose Chan because they assert he plays a central role in the federal government’s suppression of social-media censorship. 

42 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 61]. 

43 [Id.] 

44 [Doc. No. 86, p. 19]. 

In support of this argument, Plaintiffs cite to a podcast where Mark Zuckerberg stated that communications from the FBI led to Facebook censoring stories of the Hunter Biden Laptop.44 Plaintiffs maintain that in response to their third-party subpoena, Meta’s counsel identified Chan as the FBI agent who communicated with Facebook to suppress that story. Plaintiffs move to depose Chan because the Government has not provided documentary discovery with respect to 

Chan and because Chan has personal knowledge. They claim that his testimony is relevant and necessary to their preliminary injunction discovery motion. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that Elvis Chan has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Chan was a high-ranking official, especially as he served as the FBI Supervisory Special Agent. However, this rank does not mitigate the relevance and the need of his deposition as it relates to this case. Any burden imposed on Chan by being deposed is outweighed by the need to determine whether the First Amendment right of free speech has been suppressed. There are no burdens imposed on Chan outweighing the Court’s need for the information in order to make the most informed decision on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. Extraordinary circumstances are present here. Lastly, the Court has determined that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition. As stated above, Chan was identified as the FBI Agent who communicated with Facebook to suppress a story about the Hunter Biden laptop. If he did this, the Court ultimately finds there are reasons to believe that he has interfered in other ways, too. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Elvis Chan cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose him for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 

6. Jen Easterly—CISA Director 

Plaintiffs move to depose Jen Easterly (“Easterly”), the Director of CISA within the Department of Homeland Security, because she supervises the “nerve center” of federally directed censorship. Plaintiffs describe the CISA’s central role as “directly flagging misinformation to social-media companies for censorship.” Plaintiffs also assert that Easterly “claim[s] that social-media speech” by Americans “is a form of ‘infrastructure,’ and that policing speech online by the federal government falls within her agency’s mission to protect ‘infrastructure,’ stating that … ‘the most critical infrastructure is a cognitive infrastructure.”45 

45 [Doc. No. 86, citing Doc. No. 84, ¶¶ 290-293, 301, 302, 291]. 

46 [Doc. No. 71-5, p. 2-4]. 

Plaintiffs also cite to Easterly’s text messages between Easterly and Matt Masterson, a former CISA agent who now works for a social-media platform.46 Allegedly, these texts center around Easterly and Masterson discussing a “Disinformation Governance Board.” The conversations ultimately describe how Easterly seeks greater censorship and that this would be done by federal pressure on social media platforms to increase censorship. 

Plaintiffs move to depose Easterly for two reasons. First, they say that her role in the CISA as the director oversees the “nerve center” of the federal government’s efforts to censor social-media users. They say that her text messages show that she has unique knowledge about the scope and nature of communications between CISA, DHS, and other federal officials. Second, Plaintiffs assert that in their response to interrogatories, CISA disclosed extensive oral communications and meetings between CISA officials and social-media platforms. No officials were actually identified by the CISA, but Plaintiffs believe that because of her role, Easterly would have detailed knowledge of what the CISA is disclosing. Plaintiffs state that her deposition would be their only chance of obtaining this information prior to addressing the preliminary injunction. 

The Court finds that Easterly is a high-ranking official that has personal knowledge of relevant facts. Any burden imposed on Easterly is outweighed by the need to determine whether the First Amendment right of free speech was suppressed. Exceptional circumstances exist here. The substantive reasons for deposing Easterly are set forth herein. Because Easterly and Lauren Protentis both work for CISA, to narrowly tailor the relief sought, Plaintiffs are allowed to depose either Easterly or Lauren Protentis, but not both. Should Plaintiffs notify Defendants of a desire to depose Jean Easterly, IT IS ORDERED that she cooperate with Plaintiffs’ request to depose her. 

7. Lauren Protentis47—CISA “Mis- Dis- and Mal-Information Team” Member 

47 Defendants indicated that Protentis is on maternity leave, but they did not indicate when she would be returning. 

48 These include Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Meta. 

49 [Doc. No. 86-6]. 

Plaintiffs move to depose Protentis because of her membership of the CISA Mis- Dis- and Mal-Information Team (“MDM Team”), whose mission is allegedly a federally induced censorship of social-media speech. The documentary discovery provided that Protentis was involved in the MDM Team and engaged in oral communications with executives of social-media platforms. Plaintiffs allege these communications were about censorship. Plaintiffs assert that Protentis is a “leader” and “expert” in the MDM Team’s efforts to bridge a gap between the federal government and social-media companies to create a line of control over the censorship of social media.48 Plaintiffs also argue that her contacts with these companies are so “pervasive,” that oftentimes “very senior officials” in other departments ask her to introduce them to “points of contact.”49 

Plaintiffs ultimately conclude that Protentis serves as a vital connection between CISA and social-media platforms in the government’s censorship efforts, has special knowledge in the election-security space, and provides briefings to the governments of foreign countries on how to interact with social-media companies. They assert that Protentis’ testimony will establish context of the meetings, extent of CISA’s election security efforts, tools that the government uses on social-media platforms, and efforts to influence election officials and encourage them to use social-media companies to censor voters ahead of the 2022 election. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that Protentis has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Protentis is a high-ranking official because of her role as a MDM Team Member. The potential burden imposed on Protentis is outweighed by the need to determine whether First Amendment rights of free speech have been suppressed. Exceptional circumstances exist here. The Court finds that there are substantive reasons for taking Protentis’ deposition. As stated above, Protentis served a vastly important role between the federal government and the social-media companies. Based on the description above, she served as a connection between these two conglomerates. This is relevant to the issues presented by Plaintiffs in their motion, and her deposition is important to the Court to make an informed determination. Because Easterly and Protentis both work for CISA, to narrowly tailor the relief sought, Plaintiffs are allowed to depose either Easterly or Lauren Protentis, but not both. Should Plaintiffs notify Defendants of a desire to depose Lauren Protentis, IT IS ORDERED that she cooperate with Plaintiffs’ request to depose her. 

8. Vivek Murthy—Surgeon General 

Plaintiffs next move to depose Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy (“Dr. Murthy”) for his public campaign to censor individuals who spread “misinformation” about COVID-19. [Doc. No. 84]. Plaintiffs state that Dr. Murthy has also publicly criticized “tech companies” by asserting that they are responsible for COVID-19 deaths due to their failure to censor “misinformation.” Plaintiffs also allege that Dr. Murthy issued a Request for Information (RFI) on March 2, 2022, requesting tech platforms to provide him with information about “misinformation,” including the identities of those supposedly spreading it on their sites.50 Plaintiffs assert that this, along with Dr. 

50 [Doc. No. 84, ¶¶ 243-46]. 

Murthy’s other statements, as well as those of President Joseph Biden and Jen Psaki, this RFI “was an intimidation tactic, designed to frighten the tech companies into compliance with his demand to escalate censorship of certain viewpoints on Covid-19 for fear of reprisal in the form of regulation or other legal consequences.”51 

51 [Id. ¶ 243]. 

Plaintiffs urge that Dr. Murthy also engages in communications with high-level Facebook executives about the “demand” for greater censorship of COVID-19 “misinformation.” Plaintiffs state that they obtained this information through texts and emails through discovery. These establish that Dr. Murthy was engaged in these communications and was even sent “reports” to obtain Dr. Murthy’s opinions on censorship. 

Plaintiffs move to depose Dr. Murthy because of his direct, routine contact with the senior Meta executive, and at least one phone call with him. He is the only individual in government privy to these conversations, and thus the only person who can therefore answer questions about the nature and degree of the conversations and clarify whether additional conversations on the topic were held over the phone or in virtual or in-person meetings. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that Dr. Murthy has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Dr. Murthy is a high-ranking official as he serves as Surgeon General. However, this rank does not mitigate the relevance and the need of his deposition as it relates to this case. Further, his actions went beyond the scope of this rank, and the Court finds that those actions must be addressed through a deposition. The potential burden imposed on Dr. Murthy is outweighed by the need to determine whether First Amendment rights of free speech have been suppressed. Exceptional circumstances are present. The Court finds that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition. As stated above, Dr. Murthy made public statements about how the media companies’ failure to censor its users related in COVID-19 deaths. These statements are extremely substantive to the nature of this suit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Dr. Vivek Murthy cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose him for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 

9. Carol Y. Crawford—CDC’s Chief of the Digital Media Branch 

Plaintiffs move to depose Defendant Carol Crawford (“Crawford”), the Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the Division of Public Affairs within CDC, because she is allegedly among the government employees most involved in censoring “misinformation” about COVID-19. Plaintiffs state that she participated in emails with employees at Twitter, Meta, and Google/YouTube. Further, they state that she organized “Be on the Lookout” (“BOLO”) meetings, which were essentially meetings that attempted to “quell the spread of misinformation” in 2021.52 Plaintiffs claim that during these meetings, Crawford flagged certain social-media posts, provided examples of types of posts to censor, and urged the participants not to share the information exchanged in the BOLO meetings. She also worked with the Census Bureau in an effort to identify certain social-media users who were allegedly spreading misinformation about the vaccine. Emails from March of 2021 indicate that a meeting between the CDC (including Ms. Crawford), Census, and Google was held to discuss “COVID vaccine mis-info.”53 

52 [Doc. No. 84]. 

53 [Doc. No. 86-10]. 

Plaintiffs claim that Crawford’s communications show that the CDC, the Census Bureau, and other government agencies collaborated with Facebook to censor speech on the platform. Plaintiffs claim that she has been involved in the “censorship enterprise” from the beginning of the pandemic. Plaintiffs detail this by pointing out two phone calls Crawford engaged in with a Facebook employee.


54 [Doc. No. 86-10]. 

Plaintiffs move to depose Crawford because they claim that her email exchanges demonstrate that she played a key role in directing censorship on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also suggest that her references to the role of the Census Bureau suggest that she would be able to shed light on that agency’s role in efforts to flag “misinformation” the previous year, a topic about which little is known. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that Crawford has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Crawford is a high-ranking official because of her role as the CDC’s Chief of the Digital Media Branch. This role, though, is vastly important to the issues at hand, and her rank does not mitigate the relevance and the need of her deposition as it relates to this case. The potential burden imposed on Crawford is outweighed by the need to determine whether First Amendment rights of free speech have been suppressed. Exceptional circumstances exist here. The Court finds that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition. As stated above, Crawford organized meetings and engaged in a number of communications with social-media officials, and the contents of those meetings and communications are highly important for the issues presented by this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Carol Crawford cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose her for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 

10. Daniel Kimmage—State Department’s Global Engagement Center Coordinator 

Plaintiffs move to depose Daniel Kimmage (“Kimmage”), the Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center (“GEC”) at the State Department, because he allegedly works closely with Easterly and CISA to coordinate social-media censorship of speech on election-related issues and election integrity. Plaintiffs allege that in response to third-party subpoena, Twitter identified Kimmage as communicating with it about censorship and content modulation.55 Allegedly, the purpose of the GEC is to facilitate coordination between the government and the tech sector to combat disinformation. Plaintiffs claim that the GEC works closely with the CISA on issues of censorship. 

55 [Doc. No. 84, ¶ 396]. 

56 [Id. ¶ 401]. 

57 [Doc. No. 84, ¶¶ 422-424]. 

Plaintiffs claim that Kimmage’s GEC collaborated with CISA in 2020 and 2022 to create and fund an alliance of third-party nonprofits called the “Election Integrity Partnership,” which supposedly pushed for social-media censorship of free speech about elections in 2020 and continues to do so today in 2022.56 

These are not the only CISA-GEC election-related censorship activities. Documents produced by LinkedIn demonstrate that Samaruddin K. Stewart, acting on behalf of Kimmage’s Global Engagement Center in the State Department, organized repeated face-to-face meetings with LinkedIn and other social-media platforms to discuss censorship.57 The nature and content of communications at these oral meetings about disinformation between Kimmage’s representatives and social-media platforms has not been disclosed. Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have provided no documentary discovery about Kimmage’s GEC and its central role in federal censorship activities on election-related speech. They claim that Kimmage’s deposition is crucial for this reason. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that Kimmage has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Kimmage is a high-ranking official because of his role as the Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center at the State Department. This role, though, is vastly important to the issues at hand, and his rank does not mitigate the relevance and the need of his deposition as it relates to this case. The potential burden imposed on Kimmage is outweighed by the need to determine whether First Amendment rights of free speech have been suppressed. Exceptional circumstances exist here. The Court finds that there are substantive reasons for taking the deposition, as stated above. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Daniel Kimmage cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose him for purposes of their preliminary injunction discovery. 


For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED that to the extent that Plaintiffs move to depose the following parties, the request is GRANTED: NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci; Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty OR former White House Senior COVID-19 Advisory Andrew Slavitt; former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki; FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan; CISA Director Jen Easterly OR CISA official Lauren Protentis; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; CDC Chief of the Digital Media Branch Carol Crawford; and Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center Daniel Kimmage. 

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 21st day of October 2022. Terry A. Doughty  United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 90 Filed 10/21/22 PageID #: 3942  Terry A. Doughty  United States District Judge

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed 4/17/22

The Sasquatch have a special place in their hearts reserved for their Chosen Ones.  I have meet several over the last couple of years: Neal Fox, Brian Bland, Michael Harrell, Mike Bodewitz and many more too numerous to name.  These are individuals that reside in the Sasquatch Stream of Consciousness, that dimension of oneness that belongs to no one but to us all.  I recently met another residing there by the name of Connor Boyack.  I have spoken many times about the thought police who have wrecked havoc across universes for eons.  Connor knows of that he speaks, Sasquatchion for sure. 

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed 4/4/22

     There is progress in the dissemination of truth.  That is the desire of the Sasquatch Council of Elders.  There are many people across Earth that are in touch with the Sasquatch Stream of Consciousness and are doing things about the massive disinformation agendas of the worldwide matrix.  This dissemination effort is all that is holding the Sasquatch wrath of Demarcus and Kendo at bay.  We are lucky the Sasquatch are such tolerant and peaceful beings by nature, facing the alternative would not be a pretty sight. 

     This  interview was delivered to my Stone Without  Time, a message stone gifted to me by Loquius from my first book, Conversations With Sasquatch, The Encounter.

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

     Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed 3/26/22

     Ted Kaczynski appears in my first book Conversations With Sasquatch, The Encounter, because of his relationship with the Forest People.  His writings and his relationship with the Sasquatch was brought to my attention by The Sasquatch Council of Elders.   I had no idea what this man wrote or stood for until I was informed by the Sasquatch that he was privy to valuable Sasquatch knowledge.  I then took the time to investigate what this man had to say.  A part of his writings are included here as a Sasquatch secret document for obvious reasons.  I do not promote or condone the violent actions by which Ted Kaczynski became notorious.  Those actions and what he had to say are two entirely separate issues in my mind.  

     Ted Kaczynski, the cabin of the original Sasquatch messenger at home in the mountains.  Below are parts of his infamous document:  The Unabomber Manifesto 

The Unabomber’s Manifesto


1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may breakdown. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.


33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.


38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretentions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.

41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of satisfying their biological needs, but that it is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.


42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant

[5]44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal-that self- esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc.


45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women and common among the Australian aborigines, trans sexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But is does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.

47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.

51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense(largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer's need for the power process.


59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.

60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.

61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort.  But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of obedience. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)

63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry[11], and through surrogate activities.

65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money,climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system insome other way, most people are not in a position to pursue theirgoals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's employee as, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it.

66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with the rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.

67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; wehave no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few people - maybe 500 or 1,000 - make the important decisions" - Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted byAnthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.

69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one's fault, unless is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence.  Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the powerprocess is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily attack importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to pointout that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that is deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).

88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution.  Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H- bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.


93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. An impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.  


114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules.  To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mentalhealth" programs, etc.)

115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers.  It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses.  Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system.


127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace, one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such away that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease.  It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology.  History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting.  Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probablysooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.


183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of theEarth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or freewill, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).Note: The full text can be found online at (or via a Google search)

Kaczynski - Unabomber Manifesto.pdfOpen with Google DocsThe file has been saved to Google Drive.Page 8 of 8

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed 3/3/22

With the Sasquatch up in arms about bioengineering, they are happy to get this suppressed document to their friends.

Former BlackRock Executive Predicts Downfall Of COVID-19 Vaccine Industry As Wall Street Investors Dump Pfizer and Moderna Stocks

HimalayaNewZealandFeb. 26

Writer: Lois

A vial of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (left) and Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine (right). Photo: Charles Krupa / AP

An increasing number of Pfizer and Moderna investors are dumping their shares in the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers’ stocks as more nations scrap their vaccine mandates. 

Reports reveal that Moderna has fallen 70 per cent from its peak, resulting in a 140 billion USD loss, while Pfizer is down 19 per cent.

Until now, Pfizer, the 29th largest corporation worldwide, had record earnings per share and a market capitalisation of around 270 billion USD, primarily due to sales of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine. The company’s antiviral medicines, like Paxlovid, have been expected to earn 22 billion USD in 2022.

Wells Fargo & Company, an American multinational financial services company, even predicted late last year that Pfizer could dominate the COVID-19 market in the years to come.

However, Pfizer lost 20 billion USD in market capitalisation on February 8, 2022, after its record earnings failed to meet expectations.

Blackrock Executive Edward Dowd, considered a top Wall Street insider, predicts that Moderna will fall to zero dollars per share. At the same time, he predicts Pfizer will plummet to ten dollars per share or less once lawsuits emerge against the companies for fraud involving concealing the fatal side effects of their experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“Those of you who still think nothing’s going on, you don’t want to be what I call the bag holder. You don’t want to be the guy taking the fourth jab booster and holding these stocks (on their way) down. Moderna’s going to zero. I think Pfizer goes sub ten dollars once the lawsuits come out,” said Mr Dowd.

Although Big Pharma giants appear to be immune from legal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccine injuries or deaths due to government protections, like the US Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), fraud will void these protections against lawsuits.

“Pfizer got blanket immunity with EUA. If fraud occurred, to my mind and what I’m seeing from their refusal to release the data, if there is fraud and it comes out, and we need whistleblowers, and it’s looking more apparent that this product is deadly, fraud eviscerates all contracts. That’s case law. So you go down the daisy chain, and that’s liability. That’s bankruptcy for Moderna, definitely Pfizer,” stated Mr Dowd.

Considering the increasing number of non-COVID related deaths reported by insurance companies since the vaccine rollout began, the avalanche of lawsuits against the Big Pharma giants may be very close.

Following American insurance company OneAmerica’s shocking report of a 40 per cent increase in non-COVID deaths in younger working-class employees, other insurance firms worldwide have reported similar rises in non-COVID deaths since the first vaccine rollouts in 2021.

“Unum Insurance is up 36 per cent, Lincoln National plus 57 per cent, Prudential plus 41 per cent, Reinsurance Group of America plus 21 per cent, Hartford plus 32 per cent, Met Life plus 24 per cent, and Aegon, which is a Dutch insurer, saw in their US arm plus 57 per cent in the 4th quarter – in the 3rd quarter they saw a 258 per cent increase in death claims,” noted Mr Dowd.

“The bodies are piling up.”

Mounting evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines caused these non-COVID related deaths.

Mr Dowd added that insurance companies are raising their mortality expectations for 2022, while funeral company stocks skyrocketed in 2021 compared to 2020.

“People are dying and being maimed. This is a fraud that goes beyond the pale. . .We have the VAERS data. . .We have the DoD leak. . .And now we have the insurance company results and the funeral home results. . .We don’t need to think too hard about this. . .Deaths should have gone down after the vaccines rolled out. This is the most egregious fraud in the history of the nation, and it’s global. . . Pfizer’s involved, and they committed fraud,” stated Mr Dowd.

The top Wall Street insider also said that insurance companies would win a court fight against the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and developers should the two industries collide over COVID-19 vaccine deaths. The US life insurance market alone is worth around 900 billion USD, which far outweighs the value of the vaccine industry.

“I want to liken here to what’s gone on in the Great Financial Crisis. We had rating agencies, third-party verification sources that were able to perpetuate the fraud because the money got too big, their institutions became corrupted with the institutional imperative, and they got triple-A ratings which we all know in hindsight were not triple-A ratings,” said Mr Dowd.

“The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is the trusted third-party verification of pharmaceutical products. Fifty per cent of their budget comes from Pharma. . .due to the institutional imperative that was in place at the time and the speed with which they tried to approve these unproven products with this unproven technology, fraud did occur, and what’s my proof of that? The FDA, together with Pfizer, were trying to hide the clinical data,” he continued.

“And it’s come out recently. . .that the all-cause mortality for the Pfizer product failed. That means there were more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group. Normally in such a case, you have no drug approval for such drugs. It’s the gold standard. I’ve been told by all my people in the Biotech Industry; they were horrified.”

Mr Dowd, who has predicted three significant frauds in the past, is now warning of a worldwide financial market collapse as the global debt bubble looks increasingly likely to burst.

“So I’ve seen three frauds; the corporate fraud of the dot com boom, the bank fraud of the Great Financial Recession, and I believe the fraud has moved on to central banks and governments, because that’s the nature of our monetary system, you have to constantly create credit to keep this thing going,” the investor said.

“The global debt bubble is at its peak. . .we are at the end. . .we are going to see lots of crazy things in the financial markets. . .we are going to see the credit markets become unhinged, the equity markets become unhinged. The Fed got a reprieve. . .under the cover of COVID, they were able to print 65 per cent more money to keep this thing afloat, but we are at the end days here,” he added.

“A lot of what you are seeing in the response of global governments is setting up a system under the guise of medical tyranny to prevent the riots that are going to ensue once this thing all unwinds. That’s my personal belief.”

Mr Dowd said Wall Street is now awake and on the move in response to the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine industry.

“[There are] lots of people who got the jabs that didn’t understand what was going on. A lot of them are in the investment world. A lot of them are smart people. They were duped too. Some of these people that got the jab are doing the work on shorting these stocks because, you know, you can guess, because they are mad as hell, and you’ve awakened the sleeping giant known as Wall Street. And Wall Street is on the move. The smart money is moving first. As always, there’s lead steers. Nothing gets going faster than a red momentum down-trending stock,” he stated.

The investor also warned that supporting the Pfizer and Moderna stocks, vaccine mandates and government control is the same as selling one’s freedoms.

“Let me make a point here. The mainstream media may ignore this. Wall Street is not,” he said.

“So we don’t need the mainstream media. . .And I want you to know, Wall Street is rallying to this. I’m getting lots of inquiries from former colleagues. Nothing will convince a sleeping public more than red stocks or collapsing stocks. My goal is to awaken the country by seeing something is going on. And Wall Street is awake.”

Upload Layout:文勇

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

     Sasquatch Secret Documents # 7 is a huge victory for the Sasquatch and humanity!

     The message I have received is OH, WE ARE LOVING THE TRUCKERS!

     That is the word from Loquius my Cross Over friend and the Sasquatch Council of Elders.  They give Canada and the Freedom Fighters a big Sasquatch thumbs up.

     I was personally contacted via The Stone Without Time and congratulated on how humanity is showing signs of awakening from the matrix configurations of Big Government, Big Media, Big Pharma and Big Tech.  The Sasquatch say that now is the time to put the pedal to metal! 

     Add your support and positivity to the Sasquatch Stream of Consciousness!  

     Let the New Earth begin.  

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed 

A special message brought to you by the 

Big Creek Sasquatch 

Sasquatch Secret 
Documents Revealed

Sasquatch Secret Document #5  1/21/22

The following GMO document was given to me by the Bigfoot Council of Elders with the following forward:

We know a thing or two about selective breeding or cross pollination of plants.  We have been doing it for eons with great success.  Such practices occur naturally in nature all the time, they also occur with our help.  Helping plants to produce particular traits naturally is not at all what this article wants to call “Genetically Modified”.  

Genetically modified organisms are the result of Corporations with big budgets and so called “scientists” playing God.  It is the purposeful altering of a living form’s gene structure inside a laboratory.  God and natural selection are completely removed from the equation.  It is an idea devised by men with high tech instruments. It is toying around with the DNA and cellular structures of life itself.  You are currently witnessing the disastrous outcome of this insanity with the manmade virus that has infected your world known as COVID.  It is a true “genetically modified organism” built in a lab by men toying around with the basic structures of life.  That is a fact, not a hypothesis.

So when the author of this article tries to equate A equals B, or natural equals GMO, please inspect it for what it is.  This is a classic maneuver of the criminal mind.  The intent is to lesson the horror and scope of what GMO means in your mind and heart.   Higher education does not equal better education.  More often than not, these professors are just that, professors.  They profess something to be or not to be and that is all.  They profess a lie to be the truth and the truth to be a lie.  They profess to be experts.  They are not to be believed if their pronouncements can be rendered null and void by simple observation.  And by simple observation, the author of the following article is masking a lie as truth.

We leave you with Bigfoot Parchment #7.  

Truth cannot be added to nor subtracted from to make it what it is

And Bigfoot Parchment # 8

Facts are whittled by opinions into lies

Please be aware, Bigfoot Parchment #23 is at hand.

Patience is a virtue until it ain’t

Please read the following article with a skeptical eye and know we are watching and waiting for your awakening.  

                       The Bigfoot Council of Elders 1/21/22


All our food is ‘genetically modified’ in some way – where do you draw the line?

In the past week you’ve probably eaten crops that wouldn’t exist in nature, or that have evolved extra genes to reach freakish sizes. You’ve probably eaten “cloned” food and you may have even eaten plants whose ancestors were once deliberately blasted with radiation. And you could have bought all this without leaving the “organic” section of your local supermarket.

Anti-GM dogma is obscuring the real debate over what level of genetic manipulation society deems acceptable. Genetically-modified food is often regarded as something you’re either for or against, with no real middle ground.

Yet it is misleading to consider GM technology a binary decision, and blanket bans like those in many European countries are only likely to further stifle debate. After all, very little of our food is truly “natural” and even the most basic crops are the result of some form of human manipulation.

Between organic foods and tobacco engineered to glow in the dark lie a broad spectrum of “modifications” worthy of consideration. All of these different technologies are sometimes lumped together under “GM”. But where would you draw the line?

  1. (Un)natural selection

Think of carrots, corn or watermelons – all foods you might eat without much consideration. Yet when compared to their wild ancestors, even the “organic” varieties are almost unrecognisable.

Domestication generally involves selecting for beneficial traits, such as high yield. Over time, many generations of selection can substantially alter a plant’s genetic makeup. Man-made selection is capable of generating forms that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature.

Modern watermelons (right) look very different to their 17th-century ancestors (left).

Christies/Prathyush Thomas, CC BY

2. Genome duplications

Unknowing selection by our ancestors also involved a genetic process we only discovered relatively recently. Whereas humans have half a set of chromosomes (structures that package and organise your genetic information) from each parent, some organisms can have two or more complete duplicate sets of chromosomes. This “polyploidy” is widespread in plants and often results in exaggerated traits such as fruit size, thought to be the result of multiple gene copies.

Without realising, many crops have been unintentionally bred to a higher level of ploidy (entirely naturally) as things like large fruit or vigorous growth are often desirable. Ginger and apples are triploid for example, while potatoes and cabbage are tetraploid. Some strawberry varieties are even octoploid, meaning they have eight sets of chromosomes compared to just two in humans.

3. Plant cloning

It’s a word that tends to conjure up some discomfort – no one really wants to eat “cloned” food. Yet asexual reproduction is the core strategy for many plants in nature, and farmers have utilised it for centuries to perfect their crops.

Once a plant with desirable characteristics is found – a particularly tasty and durable banana, for instance – cloning allows us to grow identical replicates. This could be entirely natural with a cutting or runner, or artificially-induced with plant hormones. Domestic bananas have long since lost the seeds that allowed their wild ancestors to reproduce – if you eat a banana today, you’re eating a clone.

Each banana plant is a genetic clone of a previous generation.

Ian Ransley, CC BY

4. Induced mutations

Selection – both human and natural – operates on genetic variation within a species. If a trait or characteristic never occurs, then it cannot be selected for. In order to generate greater variation for conventional breeding, scientists in the 1920s began to expose seeds to chemicals or radiation.

Unlike more modern GM technologies, this “mutational breeding” is largely untargeted and generates mutations at random. Most will be useless, but some will be desirable. More than 1,800 cultivars of crop and ornamental plants including varieties of wheat, rice, cotton and peanuts have been developed and released in more than 50 countries. Mutational breeding is credited for spurring the “green revolution” in the 20th century.

Many common foods such as red grapefruits and varieties of pasta wheat are a result of this approach and, surprisingly, these can still be sold as certified “organic”.

‘Golden Promise’, a mutant barley made with radiation, is used in some premium whiskeys.

Chetty Thomas/shutterstock

5. GM screening

GM technology doesn’t have to involve any direct manipulation of plants or species. It can be instead used to screen for traits such as disease susceptibility or to identify which “natural” cross is likely to produce the greatest yield or best outcome.

Genetic technology has allowed researchers to identify in advance which ash trees are likely to be susceptible to ash dieback disease, for instance. Future forests could be grown from these resistant trees. We might call this “genomics-informed” human selection.

6. Cisgenic and transgenic

This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.

Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.

Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food?

Alexis Baden-Mayer, CC BY

Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. This bacteria gives “Bt corn” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use.

This technology remains the most controversial as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many fail safe approaches are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible.

Where do you stand?

All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential.

And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.

James Borrell is a PhD researcher in Conservation Genetics at Queen Mary University of London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

I stand on common sense and basic ethics.

Much thanks to the Sasquatch Council of Elders for bringing this BS to our attention.  These university whack jobs are a disgrace to the future of mankind.  No informed debate needed.

Sasquatch Secret 
Documents Revealed

Face Mask Math
For the Benefit of Human Kind Written and Distributed by
The Sasquatch Council of Elders

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed 1/09/22

     With all the human hoopla about viruses and face masks, the Council thought we should do the math for those that might not know the dimensions of a virus versus the dimensional openings between the fibers of your best human face mask.  This is important these days, for reasons that by now should be quite apparent to the worldly, human citizen wearing them.  But be warned, you may be surprised.  As we Bigfoot mathematicians tell our students— this is not a multiple choice test.  This is a scientific statement of known fact.

     The size of viruses vary from 5 to 300 nanometers in length and less in width.  That being the case, a virus can pass freely through a hole that is larger than 300 nanometers.  There are 1000 nanometers in a micron.  Now get this, it is important!  A micron is 1000 times larger than a nanometer. 

     With that said, we take your FDA’s highly touted and recommended N-95 face mask and find out that the air spaces between the face mask fibers are “at best” .3 microns.  In simple language, that means that the N95 to a virus doesn’t even exist.  It is like a tadpole swimming through a river culvert, well not quite, we Sasquatch do exaggerate when it comes to making points about sizes that should be visible by common sense.  

     These N-95 masks were never designed to filter viruses.  They were designed as safeguards against bacteria.  Bacteria are the size of elephants compared to a virus that is the size of a mouse.  These masks do help filter bacteria.  With the use of disinfectants like alcohol, along with a N-95 mask, a doctor can help keep from contaminating a patient and causing bacterial infections, he cannot stop the flow and transmission of viruses through the mask.

     Now if you take a scarf or some other cloth made mask, well, we don’t even have to do any numbers to rule out the possible effectiveness of that mask in stopping a virus.  Besides their ineffectiveness, there are also other reasons these masks aren’t good for your health; such as they make breathing more difficult, they collect moisture, which in turn collects bacteria and other airborne viruses to your mouth and nose area, they make you more susceptible to illness, not less, and least but not least, they make you look stupid. 

     One more time with the basic face mask math—  The best made mask ideally has the potential to filter things larger than .3 microns.  The “very largest” of viruses in length is 300 nanometers or .3 microns.  Most viruses however, are way, way smaller than .3 microns in length and by far smaller in width.  Now you do the arithmetic, it’s basic numbers taught in early grade school when you were a kid.   But, in case you can’t figure it out in your head, the answer is— the mask openings are greater than the width of every known or unknown virus.  The chances that any virus is as large as .3 microns in width is like your fabled winning of the lottery.  Even if they happen to grow to that gargantuan size of 300 nanometers, a virus is pliable and could still easily fit through a same size or even smaller hole than itself.  

     We Sasquatch do like to reiterate truths to make our point.  If humans want to breath in their own exhaust and collect all manner of germs and viruses within the masks warm and damp environment; if they want to damage their health and increase their chances of viral infection; then we agree, they should wear a mask.  They are the master of their own health and reality.  We are just a helpful messenger with a desire to teach math.  

                 The Sasquatch Council of Elders, 1/09/22     

P.S.  Bigfoot Parchment #7:   Truth cannot be added to

                                               nor subtracted from

                                               to make it what it is               

Sasquatch Secret
Documents Revealed

This document is via the Dead Horse Sink portal.  It is thanks to Dr. Walker and Sasquatch Demarcus as well as Sasquatch Kendo.  It is made possible by the human and Sasquatch outpost as described in Conversations With Sasquatch, The Rising.

Sasquatch Secret Documents presented to The Attorney Generals of 27 States.  

In the United States Courts

United States of America

Attorney General with a Conscience


Mr. Alex Azar, DEFENDANT

Dr. Anthony Fauci, DEFENDANT 

Dr. Peter Daszak, DEFENDANT 

Dr. Ralph Baric, DEFENDANT 






Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens

Count 2: 18 USC § 2339– Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terrorism

Count 3. 15 U.S.C. §1-3 – conspiring to criminal commercial activity

Count 4. 18 USC § 175 – Funding and Creating a Biological Weapon

Count 5. 15 U.S.C. §8 – market manipulation and allocation

Count 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – lying to Congress

Count 7. 15 U.S.C. § 19 – interlocking directorates

Count 8. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

The Proposed Indictment

        Throughout the decade of the 90s Pfizer sought to research, develop and patent a coronavirus (CoV) vaccine. Their first patent filing specifically recognizing the S-protein as the immunologic target for vaccines was filed on November 14, 1990 (U.S. Patent 6,372,224). With a focus on swine and canine gastroenteritis, these efforts showed little commercial promise and the patent was abandoned in April of 2000. During the same period, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) under the vaccine obsession of Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded Professor Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This program designed to commercially weaponize a naturally occurring toxin is the beginning of the criminal conspiracy and violates 18 USC § 175, 15 USC § 1-3, and 15 USC § 8) Dr. Baric’s expertise was understanding how to modify components of the coronavirus associated with cardiomyopathy. NIAID Grants AI 23946 and GM63228 (leading to patent U.S. 7,279,327 “Methods for Producing Recombinant Coronavirus”) was the NIH’s first Gain-of-Function (GOF) project in which Dr. Baric created an “infectious, replication defective” clone of recombinant coronavirus. This work clearly defined a means of making a natural pathogen more harmful to humans by manipulating the Spike Protein and other receptor targets. A year after filing a patent on this GOF CoV, the world experienced the first outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).   

     Under the guise of responding to a public health emergency, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) filed a patent application on the genome of SARS CoV on April 25, 2003. Accessing and manipulating the genomic data (which came from China making an “invention” claim by a U.S. entity illegal violating 35 USC §101, 103), Dr. Baric, Dr. Fauci, and the CDC violated 18 USC § 175 (a felony). One year earlier, Dr. Baric and his team had already filed a patent which clearly the pathogen CDC claimed as novel in 2003. Three days after filing a patent on the genome, NIH-funded Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent for the vaccine on the virus invented a mere three days earlier. At the same time, in violation of 15 USC § 19 Dr. Fauci was appointed to a board position with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (a competitor in vaccine manufacturing) thereby beginning the interlocking directorate1 anti-trust crime.

     In 2005, the DARPA and MITRE hosted a conference in which the intentions of the U.S. Department of Defense was explicit. In a presentation focused on “Synthetic Coronaviruses Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies”, Dr. Baric presented the malleability of CoV as a biological warfare agent. Violating 18 USC § 175 and inducing the non-competitive market allocation (violating 15 USC § 8) for years to follow, Dr. Baric and the U.S. Department of Defense spent over $45 million in amplifying the toxicity of CoV and its chimeric derivatives.

     From 2011 until the alleged COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has routinely lamented about the inadequacy of public funding for his vaccine programs and the public’s general unwillingness to succumb to his insistence that everyone MUST be vaccinated against influenza. Despite repeated appropriations to advance vaccine dependency, his efforts have been largely unsuccessful. NIAID – under Dr. Fauci’s direct authorization – encouraged UNC Chapel Hill and Dr. Baric’s lab to ignore the GoF moratorium in a letter dated October 21, 2014. At that time, Drs. Fauci, Baric and EcoHealthAlliance’s Peter Daszak were in possession of an extremely dangerous Chinese pathogen identified a year earlier in Wuhan.2

     While many illegal acts were committed by the conspirators leading up to 2015, the domestic terrorism program (in violation of 18 USC § 2339) was announced by NIAID-funded Daszak at the National Academy of Sciences. Here, he announced what was to become the domestic and global terrorism event branded COVID-19.

1 We note that gain-of-function specialist, Dr. Ralph Baric, was both the recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. research grants from several federal agencies and sat on the World Health Organization’s International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG). In this capacity, he was both responsible for determining “novelty” of clades of virus species but directly benefitted from determining declarations of novelty in the form of new research funding authorizations and associated patenting and commercial collaboration. Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent-holding biotech companies; Moderna; Pfizer; Merck; BioNTech; AstraZeneca; Janssen; Ridgeback; Gilead (Dr. Baric’s alter ego); Sherlock Biosciences; and others), a powerful group of interests constituted what are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws. Further, most of these entities, including the Federal Government ones violated 35 USC § 200-206 by failing to disclose Federal Government interest in the remedies proposed.

These entities were affiliated with the WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) whose members were instrumental in the Open Philanthropy-funded global coronavirus pandemic “desk-top” exercise EVENT 201 in October 2019. This event, funded by the principal investor in Sherlock Biosciences (a beneficiary of the SARS CoV-2 EUA for CRISPR technology) and linking interlocking funding partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation into the GPMB mandated a respiratory disease global preparedness exercise to be completed by September 2020 and alerted us to anticipate an “epidemic” scenario. We expected to see such a scenario emerge from Wuhan or Guangdong China, northern Italy, Seattle, New York or a combination thereof, as Dr. Zhengli Shi and Dr. Baric’s work on zoonotic transmission of coronavirus identified overlapping mutations in coronavirus in bat populations located in these areas.

2 By October 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology 1 coronavirus S1 spike protein was described in NIAID’s funded work in China. This work involved NIAID, USAID, and Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance. This work, funded under R01AI079231, was pivotal in isolating and manipulating viral fragments selected from sites across China which contained high risk for severe human response. ( Ge, XY., Li, JL., Yang, XL. et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature 503, 535–538 (2013).)  The GoF work NIAID allowed to persist in the face of the moratorium was Dr. Baric’s work with this pathogen

 “...until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan- coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.”3

It is not surprising that one year later NIAID’s funding paid off with Dr. Baric’s lab announcing that the Wuhan- derived pathogen was “poised for human emergence”.4

Knowing that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (through CDC, NIH, NIAID, and their funded laboratories and commercial partners) had patents on each proposed element of medical counter measures and their funding, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Gao (China CDC), and Dr. Elias (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) conspired to commit acts of terror on the global population – including the citizens of the United States – when, in September 2019, they published the following mandate in A World At Risk:

“Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst. A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.

Progress indicator(s) by September 2020

      • Donors and countries commit and identify timelines for: financing and development of a         universal influenza vaccine, broad spectrum antivirals, and targeted therapeutics. WHO and its Member States develop options for standard procedures and timelines for sharing of sequence data, specimens, and medical countermeasures for pathogens other than influenza.

     • Donors, countries and multilateral institutions develop a multi-year plan and approach for strengthening R&D research capacity, in advance of and during an epidemic.

     • WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, academic and other partners identify strategies for increasing capacity and integration of social science approaches and researchers across the entire preparedness/response continuum.”5

 As if to confirm the utility of the September 2019 demand for “financing and development of” vaccine and the fortuitous SARS CoV-2 alleged outbreak in December of 2019, Dr. Fauci began gloating that his fortunes for

3 Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Forum on Microbial Threats; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National

 Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling

 Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National

 Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 12. 6, Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses. Available from:

4 Menachery VD, Yount BL Jr, Sims AC, Debbink K, Agnihothram SS, Gralinski LE, Graham RL, Scobey T, Plante JA, Royal SR, Swanstrom J, Sheahan TP, Pickles RJ, Corti D, Randell SH, Lanzavecchia A, Marasco WA, Baric RS. 2016. SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 14. pii: 201517719

 5 (page 8)

additional funding were likely changing for the better. In a February 2020 interview in STAT, he was quoted as follows:

“The emergence of the new virus is going to change that figure, likely considerably, Fauci said. “I don’t know how much it’s going to be. But I think it’s going to generate more sustained interest in coronaviruses because it’s very clear that coronaviruses can do really interesting things.”6

In November 2019 – one month before the alleged “outbreak” in Wuhan, Moderna entered into a material transfer agreement – brokered by the Vaccine Research Center at NIAID (at which UNC Chapel Hill alum Dr. Kizzy Corbett worked) – to access Dr. Baric’s Spike Protein data to commence vaccine development. In his own written statement obtained by the Financial Times, he refers to this agreement as being the foundation for the mRNA Moderna vaccine.7

To finalize the nature of the racketeering and anti-trust criminal conspiracy, when it came time to commercialize the NIH and DARPA owned spike protein and pass it off as a “vaccine” (in conflict with the standard for vaccines in statutory and scientific application), the Operation Warp Speed contract was awarded to DoD contraction ATI, a subsidiary of ANSER. In a graph reminiscent of the anti-trust hearings at the formation of the Clayton Act in the early 20th century, the identity of the interlocking conflicts of interests are presented in graphic relief. It is with no surprise that the result of this price-fixing conspiracy was the enrichment of the conspiring parties and the harm of consumers.



Indeed, the money followed the hype and they used the hype to get to the real issues. Investors follow where they see profit at the end of the process.

And real Americans are dying each day because a criminal organization unleashed terror resulting in the deaths of Americans.

18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens

Pub. L. No. 107-52 expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Every single Act, the declaration of the State of Emergency, the Emergency Use Authorization, the fraudulent face masks, the business closures, and the OSHA and CMS vaccine mandates are ALL admitted by the conspirators to be acts to coerce the population into taking a vaccine. Further, these acts disrupted the democracy of the United States of American and resulted in the violation of 18 USC § 2384. The conspirators announced it in 2015, then prepared the pathogen in 2016, and laid out the terror campaign in September 2019. And now they profit from the death of Americans. 

Sasquatch Secret
Document #1

This document is thanks to the Big Creek Sasquatch who delivered it via the Big Creek Portal for us regular humans to understand the ramifications of modern science.

     Sasquatch secret documents reveal the manufacturing of mosquitos is little different than the manufacturing of a virus.

     Before heading out for a visit with Tecumseh, I am triggered by an overwhelming urge to take a little trek back into the far reaches of the Internet world, into the dark well of bio-engineering, or as I call it, The God Syndrome.  I have learned that these sudden urges are not to be ignored per Bigfoot Parchment number three: nothing is by coincidence.

     Manmade creatures are becoming common place in University labs across the world.  Science has seemingly lost all semblance of a conscience, where its blind followers do not believe in the spiritual nature and source of life, but instead they believe life comes from viruses and genes.  This disconnect from the true source of life allows them to hide behind all manner of justifications for their virus and gene monkeying in order to create their Frankenstein bugs.  

     I have had my attention directed upon a company called Oxitec, an offshoot of Oxford University in England.  Financially wealthy from their benefactors and big corporations, they are quietly going about the business of altering the genes of insects under the guise of pest control.  It all sounds innocent and helpful to the eyes and ears of our troubled world where science has elevated itself to the venerated position of a demigod.  The spiritually advanced Sasquatch would beg to differ.  That is why there has been an all out government spin to portray them as apes instead of the intelligent and powerful beings they actually are. 

     When the Sasquatch know and I say the Covid 19 virus was created in a lab by off the rails men in white coats, I say it with certainty.  It is not a Conspiracy Theory, it is Conspiracy Fact based, even if it was a so called “accident.”  As I stated earlier, I fully subscribe to the Sasquatch Parchment precept that: nothing happens by coincidence.

     Here is a prime example of the truth straight off the Internet.  This is not made up.  This goes on twenty-four seven all across the globe.  It manifests in many forms backed by huge sums of money that should be used for real life-changing improvements, instead of turning bugs into biological nuclear bombs.

    The company called Oxitec states, in its own words, not mine:   “Our insects contain a self-limiting gene, and when this gene is passed on to their offspring, offspring do not survive to adulthood, resulting in a reduction in the pest insect population.

     We call this method “self-limiting” because the released insects and the self-limiting gene that they pass on are designed to die and disappear from the environment.

     We release males, because it is the female insects that are directly responsible for spreading disease or producing larvae that damage crops. Our males have one job: to find wild females where they live and mate with them.

     This method can be applied to all kinds of insect pests, from the mosquitoes that transmit such diseases as dengue and Zika, to moth caterpillars that destroy maize fields. We’ve created our insects using precise genetic engineering tools. They are just like wild insects, except we’ve inserted two additional genes.

     The self-limiting gene prevents offspring of our released male insect from surviving to adulthood, and a fluorescent marker gene produces a protein throughout the body of the insects, which glows when exposed to a specific colour of light. This helps us to track our insects in the wild.”

     Sounds great doesn’t it?  You are supposed to be impressed with such scientific bluster portrayed as miracles by those with impressive scientific credentials.  I know what you are thinking, but bear with me a wee bit longer.  

     Let’s once again use Oxitec’s own words, not mine.

     “The self-limiting gene is at the heart of our method of insect control. When our male insects are released and reproduce with wild females, all of their offspring inherit a copy of this gene. The self-limiting gene disrupts the proper functioning of the insects’ cells by over-producing a protein in them, interfering with the cells’ ability to produce other essential proteins needed for development. So by disrupting the insect’s normal development, the gene prevents it from surviving to adulthood.

     Since the self-limiting gene works by using the insect’s own biology against itself, our control method provides a solution that only affects that particular species of pest without introducing harmful toxins.

     We have also designed our insects so that we can turn off the self-limiting gene with an antidote called tetracycline. This allows us to breed our insects at a large scale without the need for any additional genetic engineering. Our 2nd Generation Friendly™ Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, for example, were engineered in 2013, and we have been breeding the strain from those original mosquitoes ever since! 

     You may even think that just sounds wonderful!  What’s wrong with me, you say?  These guys are genius’.  

     What you probably missed, buried in all the bluster is the Covid 19 connection in the third sentence:  “The self-limiting gene disrupts the proper functioning of the insects’ cells by over-producing a protein in them, interfering with the cells’ ability to produce other essential proteins needed for development.”  Sound familiar?  It should.  The spike proteins produced by the Covid 19 virus do the exact same thing in humans.  These protein reactions are not native to natural life, they were manmade in a laboratory.  In the case of Covid 19, it was developed and funded by grant money and partnerships between Universities and Corporations.  No joke folks.  This is fact.  Check out the Covid 19 connection between Oxitec and BBSRC.  Modern humanity has unwittingly become the proverbial rat in the psychiatric maze.  They are now ringing the bell for you to run down and get your vaccination against their very own man-made Frankenstein virus.  

     If you still have doubts, reread the next paragraph of Oxitec’s dissertation.  “Since the self-limiting gene works by using the insect’s own biology against itself, our control method provides a solution that only affects that particular species of pest without introducing harmful toxins.”  This again should ring a bell.  That is the exact killing mechanism that has put Covid patients on respirators and in their graves.  The immune system attacks itself with the over production of the protein introduced by the self-limiting gene so touted by these genius’s.

     Here are Oxitec’s partners and funders.  Again, taken off Oxitec’s Website:  University of Oxford, GBIT, Piracicaba, BBSRC bioscience of the future, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  

     If you think these so called Scientists have control over their experiments exported from the lab into the natural world, I have news for you, THEY DON’T!  You think Gates money is squeaky clean and legitimate?  Hah!  If you believe these crackpots and CDC’s propaganda, then I know your relationship with the Sasquatch is about as deep as a back road mud puddle.  Good luck!  Karma is the life of hard knocks.

     Now I have work to do.  Tecumseh and Demarcus are waiting.  

Sasquatch Secret Document # 2

This document comes via a Sasquatch portal near a friend's home in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California.  There are deep rumblings happening there beyond the shake of earthquakes.  

Sasquatch secret documents reveal that a half million dollar grant has been awarded to the University of California at Riverside to research the virtual poisoning of the world's future food sources.  This kind of lab-to-field  implementation would be a nuclear threat to our non GMO seed bank.  Pay attention folks!  Don't let the intellectual language fool you.  Forget the buzzwords and the political attacks from those calling us conspiracy theorists.  We aren't theorists at all.  We follow the money and the data, they clearly speak for themselves.  






Award Abstract # 2134535 FMSG: Bio: Rapid Biomanufacturing of mRNA Vaccines in Plant Chloroplasts 

NSF Org:

CBET Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys           Awardee:REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDE Initial Amendment Date: August 10, 2021 Latest Amendment Date: August 10, 2021 Award Number: 2134535 Award Instrument: Standard Grant Program Manager: Steve Zehnder  (703)292-7014  CBET  Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys  ENG  Directorate For Engineering Start Date: January 1, 2022 End Date: December 31, 2023 (Estimated) Total Intended Award Amount: $500,000.00 Total Awarded Amount to Date: $500,000.00 Funds Obligated to Date: FY 2021 = $500,000.00 History of Investigator: Juan  Giraldo (Principal Investigator)  (617)909-6315 Gregory  Lowry (Co-Principal Investigator) Nicole  Steinmetz (Co-Principal Investigator) Awardee Sponsored Research Office: University of California-Riverside Research & Economic Development RIVERSIDE CA  US  92521-0217  (951)827-5535 Sponsor Congressional District: 41 Primary Place of Performance: University of California-Riverside Research & Economic Development RIVERSIDE CA  US  92507-4633 Primary Place of Performance Congressional District: 41 DUNS ID: 627797426 Parent DUNS ID: 071549000 NSF Program(s): FM-Future Manufacturing Primary Program Source: 040100 NSF RESEARCH & RELATED ACTIVIT Program Reference Code(s): 068Z Program Element Code(s): 142Y Award Agency Code: 4900 Fund Agency Code: 4900 CFDA Number(s): 47.041


This project aims to enable rapid manufacturing of oral vaccines against viruses in plants without the need of specialized equipment or skills. Current vaccine manufacturing technologies need expensive laboratory facilities and cold-chain delivery systems that result in slow and unequal access of vaccines to people. This study combines ideas and approaches from the engineering of particles, chloroplast genetics, and plant molecular farming, to turn chloroplasts of edible plant leaves like spinach or lettuce into biomanufacturing devices for vaccine production. The project will increase public awareness of how engineered particles can be used to turn plants into a biomanufacturing technology through science outreach events and publicly available videos. It will also provide unique opportunities for postdoctoral researchers and students to grow beyond their disciplinary background and practice team science and technology development. A new college level course on engineering plants with engineered particles will incorporate these plant biomanufacturing findings into its curriculum. Partnerships with industry will inform the design, applicability, and cost-effectiveness of plant biomanufacturing technologies, and provide valuable networking and education opportunities for students and postdocs. Plant biomanufacturing hybrid meetings will promote integration of key stakeholders from academia and industry. Together, these approaches will train a future biomanufacturing workforce prepared to develop and apply fundamental knowledge and skills to solve major health, environmental, and sustainability problems.

This project aims to develop tools that allow rapid synthesis and universal access of oral mRNA vaccines manufactured in situ by plant chloroplasts. There is an untapped potential for utilizing chloroplasts as ubiquitous solar powered molecular factories for personalized biomanufacturing devices enabled by emergent nanotechnology-based tools. Chloroplasts are biomanufacturing organelles with a prokaryotic-like genome, their own transcription and translation machinery, but lack gene silencing mechanisms. This system enables high expression of transgenes in plants for rapid, tunable, and scalable manufacturing of mRNA vaccines anywhere plants grow. Despite great strides made in biotechnology, chloroplast genetic engineering remains limited to a few plant species, impairing the use of plants as widely accessible biomanufacturing devices. The main method for the introduction of recombinant DNA to chloroplasts in plants is costly, and requires materials and equipment that are only accessible to specialized lab facilities. Existing methods are also destructive, inefficient, and unable to target genes into chloroplasts. Novel technologies are also needed for facile encapsulation and retrieval of mRNA vaccines synthesized in plants in non-laboratory conditions. The study will investigate biocompatible and degradable high aspect ratio nanomaterials with controllable dimensions, tunable surface charge and chemistry as plasmid DNA delivery vehicles for turning edible plants into mRNA vaccine biomanufacturing devices. Orthogonally, it will determine if mRNA synthesis in chloroplasts and encapsulation in the organelle double lipid envelopes provide a layer of protection from degradation in the environment. Partnerships with industry will inform the design, applicability, and cost-effectiveness of plant biomanufacturing technologies, and provide valuable networking and education opportunities for students and postdocs. Students from UC Riverside, a minority-serving institution, will be recruited to participate in the project. A new course on plant nanobiotechnology at UC Riverside will incorporate the findings of this project on plant biomanufacturing into its curriculum. Nanobiotechnology-based approaches have the potential to democratize the use of plant chloroplasts for personalized biomolecule manufacturing and revolutionize the treatment of human and animal disease.

This Future Manufacturing award is supported by the Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems and the Division of Chemistry.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

Sasquatch Secret Documents Revealed
Vaccines In Your Salads

Vaccines in your salad? Scientists growing medicine-filled plants to replace injections via Nexstar Media Wire Sep 19, 2021 / 08:35 PM CDT


Posted: Sep 19, 2021 / 08:35 PM CDT / Updated:

( – Vaccinations can be a controversial subject for many people, especially when it comes to injections. So what if you could replace your next shot with a salad instead? Researchers at the University of California-Riverside are working on a way to grow edible plants that carry the same medication as an mRNA vaccine.

The COVID-19 vaccine is one of the many inoculations which use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology to defeat viruses. They work by teaching cells from the immune system to recognize and attack a certain infectious disease. Unfortunately, mRNA vaccines have to stay in cold storage until use or they lose stability. The UC-Riverside team says if they’re successful, the public could eat plant-based mRNA vaccines — which could also survive at room temperature.

Thanks to a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, researchers are now looking to accomplish three goals. First, the team will try to successfully deliver DNA containing mRNA vaccines into plant cells, where they can replicate. Next, the study authors want to show that plants can actually produce enough mRNA to replace a traditional injection. Finally, the team will need to determine the right dosage people will need to eat to properly replace vaccinations.

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” says Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, in a university release.

“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” Giraldo adds. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”

Plants are capable of growing more vaccines

Giraldo and a team of scientists from UC-San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University say the key to making edible vaccines are chloroplasts. These are small organs inside plant cells which help convert sunlight into energy.

“They’re tiny, solar-powered factories that produce sugar and other molecules which allow the plant to grow,” Giraldo explains. “They’re also an untapped source for making desirable molecules.”

Previous studies have shown that it’s possible for chloroplasts to express genes that are not a natural part of that plant. Giraldo’s team accomplished this by sending genetic material inside of a protective casing into plant cells.

In the new study, Giraldo teamed with UC-San Diego’s Professor Nicole Steinmetz to use nanotechnology to deliver more genetic material into chloroplasts.

“Our idea is to repurpose naturally occurring nanoparticles, namely plant viruses, for gene delivery to plants,” Steinmetz says. “Some engineering goes into this to make the nanoparticles go to the chloroplasts and also to render them non-infectious toward the plants.”

“One of the reasons I started working in nanotechnology was so I could apply it to plants and create new technology solutions. Not just for food, but for high-value products as well, like pharmaceuticals,” Giraldo adds.

Sasquatch Secret Documents
Reveals a Timeline of Selected
Federal Funding for COVID 

Sasquatch Secret Documents reveals the true timeline source of COVID and the COVID jab.  This is a document compiled and put forth by Dr. David Martin.  Taken from the Internet on November 21, 2021.  The link to the source of this document is     

September 8-16, 2020

A Timeline of Selected Federal Funding for SARS Coronavirus

Over the past two decades, M·CAM has been monitoring possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (the Geneva Protocol) 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction (the BTWC). In its 2003-2004 Global Technology Assessment: Vector Weaponization we identified M·CAM highlighted China’s growing involvement in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology with respect to joining the world stage in chimeric construction of viral vectors. Since that time, on a weekly basis, we have monitored the development of research and commercial efforts in this field, including, but not limited to, the research synergies forming between the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Harvard University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, Tsinghua University, University of Pennsylvania, and their commercial affiliations.

We noted the unusual patent prosecution efforts of the CDC, when on April 25, 2003 they sought to patent the SARS coronavirus that had reportedly transferred to humans during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak in Asia. 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits patenting nature. This legality did not deter CDC in their efforts. Their application, updated in 2007, ultimately issued as U.S. Patent 7,776,521 and constrained anyone not licensed by their patent from developing tests or kits to measure SARS coronavirus in humans. Work associated with this virus by their select collaborators included considerable amounts of chimeric engineering, gain-of-function studies, viral characterization, detection, treatment (both vaccine and therapeutic intervention), and weaponization inquiries.

We noted that gain-of-function specialist, Dr. Ralph Baric, was both the recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. research grants from several federal agencies but also sat on the World Health Organization’s International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG). In this capacity, he was both responsible for determining “novelty” of clades of virus species but directly benefitted from determining declarations of novelty in the form of new research funding authorizations and associated patenting and commercial collaboration. Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent holding biotech companies; Moderna; Ridgeback; Gilead; Sherlock Biosciences; and, others), a powerful group of interests constituted what we would suggest are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws.

These entities also were affiliated with the WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) whose members were instrumental in the Open Philanthropy-funded global coronavirus pandemic “desk-top” exercise EVENT 201 in October 2019. This event, funded by the principal investor in Sherlock Biosciences and linking interlocking funding partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation into the GPMB mandate for a respiratory disease global preparedness exercise to be completed by September 2020 alerted us to anticipate an “epidemic” scenario. We expected to see such a scenario emerge from Wuhan or Guangdong China, northern Italy, Seattle, New York or a combination thereof, as Dr. Zhengli Shi and Dr. Baric’s work on zoonotic transmission of coronavirus identified overlapping mutations in coronavirus in bat populations located in these areas.

Coronavirus Anti-trust Foundations


Dr. Anthony Fauci appointed Director of the NIAID


NIAID Grant AI 23946 leading to patent U.S. 7,279,327 “Methods for Producing Recombinant Coronavirus” Filed 2002 and issued 2007

This is the first documented commerce association between Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID and Dr. Ralph Baric’s recombinant coronavirus enterprise and constitutes the origin of the alleged criminal conspiracy. 15 USC §1-3

The paper first published from the NIAID grant is backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7109931&blobtype=pdf


Pfizer files U.S. Patent 6,372,224 on a vaccine for the S-protein on coronavirus November 14, 2000 which was abandoned April 2010 making it public domain.


Work focused on CoV association with cardiomyopathy (see above)

Early reference to the “emergence” of CoV as a respiratory pathogen in


Ralph Baric AI23946 and GM63228 from the National Institutes of Health actively working recombinant CoV. NIAID and Baric monopolize and conspire to monopolize recombinant coronavirus by entering into a contract using NIH funds for the purpose of restraining trade on coronavirus. 15 USC §1-3


National Institute of Health, Allergy and Infectious diseases. “Reverse Genetics with a Coronavirus Infectious cDNA Construct.” 4/1/2001-3/31/005 $1.0 million total costs/yr. RS Baric, PI


Asia CoV SARS outbreak


April 25, 2003 CDC Patent filed and ultimately becomes US7,220,852 (the patent on the RNA sequence) and 7,776,521 (the patent on the testing methodology. These patents give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the ability to control the commercial exploitation of SARS coronavirus.

With their patent filing, CDC enters the conspiracy to restrain interstate trade. The ‘852 patent application was rejected as unpatentable but was allowed in 2007 after having the rejection appealed and overturned provided that the CDC “inventors” acknowledged that they provided an enabling disclosure that placed the genome of SARS coronavirus in the public domain prior to filing their patent application. 15 USC §1-3

Dr. Anthony Fauci appointed to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Grand Challenges Scientific Advisory Board (served through 2010).

In violation of 15 USC §19, Dr. Fauci has an interlocking directorate violation as NIAID, NIH, and World Health Organization all share common commercial activities.

April 28, 2003 Sequoia Pharmaceuticals $953K for pathogen response and patent US7,151,163

July 21, 2003 Ralph Baric’s team (using AI23946 and GM63228) file U.S. Patent 7,618,802 which issued on November 17, 2009. https://

Dana Farber Cancer Institute files U.S. Patent 7,750,123 on a monoclonal antibody to neutralize SARS CoV. This research is supported by several NIH grants including National Institutes of Health Grants A128785, A148436, and A1053822.


January 6, 2004 – SARS and Bioterrorism linked at Bioterrorism and Emerging Infectious Diseases: antimicrobials, therapeutics and immune modulators. e=web.meeting.program&meetingid=706

At this conference, the term “The New Normal” was introduced by Merck

FAUCI AND BARIC start making money!!!   National Institutes of Health, Allergy and Infectious Diseases. SARS Reverse Genetics. AI059136-01. $1.7 million total costs, RS Baric, PI. 10% effort. 4/1/04- 3/31/09. The project develops a SARS-CoV full length infectious cDNA, the development of SARS-CoV replicon particles expressing heterologous genes, and seeks to adapt SARS-CoV to mice, producing a pathogenic mouse model for SARS-CoV infection.  

National Institutes of Health, Allergy and Infectious Diseases. R01. Remodeling the SARS Coronavirus Genome Regulatory Network. RS Baric, PI 10% effort. 7/1/04-6/30/09. $2.1 million

November 22, 2004 University of Hong Kong patents SARS associated spike protein on CoV and pursues patent US7,491,489


DARPA gets in on the game Synthetic Coronaviruses. Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies, June 2005. Washington, DC. DARPA/MITRE sponsored event. Invited Speaker

Grab timeline from and 2020/04/20APRBotWslides.pdf


Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 commences with $10,189,682 to UNC Chapel Hill arg_awardNum=U54AI057157&arg_ProgOfficeCode=104

This is when the colluding parties commence market allocation by providing “non-competitive” grants from NIAID to Dr. Baric’s lab at the same time as Dr. Baric in violation of 15 USC §8.


Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $5,448,656 to UNC Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID)

Violation of 15 USC §8.


Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $8,747,142 to UNC Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID)

Violation of 15 USC §8.

Patent issuance for SARS coronavirus patents peak post the Asia outbreak at 391 issued patents.

August 6, 2010, Moderna (prior to its establishment) files U.S. Patent 9,447,164 which attracted the investment of (and “inventorship” for) venture capitalists at Flagship Ventures. This patent grew out of the work of Dr. Jason P. Schrum of Harvard Medical School supported by National Science Foundation Grant #0434507. While the application claims priority to August 2010, the application didn’t get finalized until October, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the USPTO issued a non-final rejection on this original patent rejecting all claims. with reference to the grant funding in szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Schrum_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf


Crucell joined the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson in February taking with it all of its SARS technology.

Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,344,820 to UNC Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID)

Violation of 15 USC §8.


MERS isolated in Egypt

Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,627,657 to UNC Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID)

Violation of 15 USC §8.


Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,226,237 to UNC Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID)

Violation of 15 USC §8.

Dr. Richard Whitely, member of the Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences (the beneficial licensee of Dr. Baric’s compound for the treatment of coronavirus – Remdesivir), Dr. Baric, and NIAID form the Center for Translational Research. Four university research formed the Centers of Excellence for Translational Research, a program focused on “countering threats from emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.” The five year grant of $79 million was divided with $37.5 million going to Whitley’s Antiviral Drug Discovery and Development Center at UAB with the balanced divided among Columbia University, Vanderbilt University and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. According to Whitely, “When I built the NIAID grant, I decided an important component would be to have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company that could help us develop the drugs that we discovered. I made Gilead Sciences our pharmaceutical colleague in a public-private partnership. At the time, they were screening for drugs to treat respiratory syncytial virus, and the drug that came up as active was remdesivir. They were screening the drug against many viruses as well, including Ebola and coronaviruses. I suggested they give it to us so we could study it in our coronavirus project that was led by Mark Denison at Vanderbilt University and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina.” 

“AD3C provided data from the Denison and Baric laboratories to Gilead, and that led to clinical investigations.” Remdesivir, initially designed to treat MERS was suggested to be effective in treating SARS. Whitley stated that he was concerned that both MERS and SARS “not only could come back, but be imported into the U.S.”

Violation of 15 USC §1-3, 8, 19.


April 23, 2014, Moderna files patent on nucleic acid vaccine with Patents US9872900 and US10022435


Moderna signs a vaccine development agreement with NIAID and executes it with the lead on the mRNA-1273 lead developer and inventor Guiseppe Ciaramella. 6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html 2016

NIH through Scripps Institute and Dartmouth College file patent application WO 2018081318A1 “Prefusion Coronavirus Spike Proteins and their Use” disclosing mRNA technology that overlaps (and is used in tandem with) Moderna’s technology. patent/WO2018081318A1/en Lead Inventor Barney Scott Graham was well known to Moderna as he’s the person at NIH that Moderna “e-mailed” to get the sequence for SARS CoV-2 according to Moderna’s report here (“In January 2020, once it was discovered that the infection in Wuhan was caused by a novel coronavirus, Bancel quickly emailed Dr. Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, asking him to send the genetic sequence for the virus.”) In addition, co-inventor Jason McLellan worked with Graham on a vaccine patent jointly owned with the Chinese government filed in Australia in 2013 en?inventor=Jason+MCLELLAN.


August – Sanofi buys Protein Science Corp with considerable SARS patent holdings


June – Sanofi buys Ablynx with considerable SARS patent holdings


March, funded by Open Philanthropy

September – Fauci and Dr. Chris Elias sit on the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board for the WHO stipulating the need to have a global exercise on the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen by September 2020. Violation of 15 USC § 19


February - Fauci, Baric, and others lament the absence of funding for coronavirus research and highlight the need to have the public see the gravity of their commercial interest.

Scientists who have applied for funding to study coronaviruses say that they feel more pressure to explain why their research is relevant after an outbreak has ended. Those in the field knew that there was much more to be gleaned about the coronaviruses that already circulate in humans — and that a new coronavirus could start making people sick at any time.”

This statement was misleading as Dr. Baric’s lab had received million of dollars of non-competitive awards from NIAID without the requirement to “apply” for such funds.

February – Baric sits on the WHO International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses allowing him to declare “novel” the virus his lab participated in isolating in Violation of 15 USC § 19.

Over 5000 patents and patent applications have included reference to SARS Coronavirus dating back to priority dates of 1998.

On July 23, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected Moderna’s efforts to invalidate U.S. Patent 8,058,069. This patent, owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corp (principally owned by Roivant Science Ltd), covers the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) required to deliver an mRNA vaccine. Some of the core technology was based on work originally done at the University of British Columbia and was first licensed in 1998.

mRNA-1273 – the experimental vaccine developed by Moderna for COVID-19 – uses the LNP technology that Moderna thought it had licensed from Acuitas Therapeutics Inc., a firm developed by a former principal of Arbutus’ prior company Tekmira. That license did not authorize Moderna to use the technology for the COVID-19 vaccine.

M·CAM and Knowledge Ecology International have independently confirmed that Moderna has violated U.S. law in failing to disclose the U.S. government’s funding interest in their patents and patent applications. While this negligence impacts all of Moderna’s over 130 granted U.S. patents, it is particularly problematic for U.S. Patent 10,702,600 (‘600) which is the patent relating to, “a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) comprising an open reading frame encoding a betacoronavirus (BetaCoV) S protein or S protein subunit formulated in a lipid nanoparticle.” The specific claims addressing the pivot to the SARS Coronavirus were patented on March 28, 2019 – 9 months before the SARS CoV-2 outbreak! Both the patent and the DARPA funding for the technology were disclosed in scientific publication (New England Journal of Medicine) but the government funds were not acknowledged in the patent.

In 2013, the Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics (ADEPT) program awarded grant funding to Moderna Therapeutics for the development of a new type of vaccine based on messenger RNA. The initial DARPA grant was W911NF-13-1-0417. The company used that technology to develop its COVID-19 vaccine, currently undergoing Phase I clinical trials in conjunction with NIH (https://

Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules, contractor to the Federal Government must provide information regarding intellectual property infringement issues as part of their contract. Under FAR §27.201-1(c) and (d), the Government both requires a notice of infringement or potential infringement as well as retention of economic liability for patent infringements. Specifically, in FAR §52.227.3 (a), the “Contractor shall indemnify the Government and its officers, agents, and employees against liability, including costs for infringement of any United States Patent…”. In addition to the patents cited by the USPTO in their examination of ‘600, M·CAM has identified fourteen other issued patents preceding the ‘600 patent which were used by patent examiners to limit patents arising from the same funded research including patents sought by CureVac.

In short, while Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated contempt for U.S. Patent law. To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to the very infringement for which they are indemnified.

Modrena’s U.S. Patent 10,702,600 and U.S. Patent 10,702,599 share reference to this language:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated (emphasis added).

US10702600B1 Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1 &f=G&l=50&s1=10702600.PN.&OS=PN/10702600&RS=PN/10702600

March 2019 reference to the “deliberate release” of SARS: Application 16/368,270 and these four other applications:

2019024031 7 HPIV3 RNA VACCINES

2019021691 7 HMPV RNA VACCINES



On March 28, 2019 (9 months before the SARS outbreak), Moderna altered a rejected patent application in which they stated that vaccine development for SARS coronavirus was initiated based on concern for a “deliberate release of SARS coronavirus”. Since 2010, Moderna has known that other companies own the patent on lipid nanoparticles (LNP) required to deliver the vaccine. Given Moderna’s over 130 cases of violating the law in their patent filing and given their executives’ stock sales, there is reason to be concerned that Dr. Anthony Fauci is setting up President Trump for a patent infringement injunction on the eve of the vaccine approval. Dr. Fauci has been promoting a vaccine that clearly violates the Federal Acquisition Regulations and he’s likely known it since the company’s IPO in 2018.

Ralph Baric – Gilead Remdesivir

Mark Denison

Richard Whitely – Gilead Remdesivir Moleculin moleculin-announces-head-of-niaid-antiviral-drug-discovery

Shaman Pharmaceuticals-antiviral-drug-scores-well-3124769.php 

Follow along as I continue to get more Sasquatch secret documents from the Sasquatch of Cross Over here and in my weekly installments of The Rising