https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/cdc-quietly-admits-genomic-sequencing?

CDC Quietly Admits Genomic Sequencing Cannot Independently Prove Virus Transmission Chains: ProPublica Report

If “[s]equencing alone cannot determine whether transmission has been continuous or sustained,” how much of modern outbreak science is proven reality—and how much is interpretation?

Jon Fleetwood

Jun 08, 2026

A new ProPublica investigation into purported measles outbreaks in Texas and Utah contains a quietly devastating admission from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the limits of modern genomic outbreak surveillance.

ProPublica had asked the CDC whether it had linked any of Utah’s measles cases to an international outbreak.

“Sequencing alone cannot determine whether transmission has been continuous or sustained,” the agency told ProPublica.

In plain English:

Even if two purported measles genomes appear almost identical computationally, the sequencing data itself cannot independently prove the virus spread continuously from person to person across states and over time.

That distinction is important because modern outbreak systems increasingly rely on a narrative of:

  • genomic sequencing,
  • phylogenetic “family trees,”
  • mutation tracking,
  • lineage reconstruction,
  • and computational epidemiology

to support claims that outbreaks are connected, transmission is ongoing, and diseases have become “endemic.”

These same systems were heavily used during COVID to justify lockdowns, vaccine mandates, school closures, quarantine powers, travel restrictions, and other unprecedented government response measures.

How much of modern outbreak science is proven reality—and how much is computer interpretation?

If even CDC admits these genomic systems cannot independently prove continuous real-world transmission, the public may need to reconsider how much trust should be placed in media headlines, “variant” narratives, endemicity claims, and government emergency measures built on computer sequence-based outbreak interpretation systems. (SEE link for article)

_______________

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/06/cdc-officials-involuntarily-quarantine-americans-after-hantavirus-outbreak-on-cruise-ship/

CDC Officials Involuntarily Quarantine Americans After Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship

by Carolyn Hendler, JD

Published June 10, 2026

CDC Officials Involuntarily Quarantine Americans After Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship

Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued mandatory federal quarantine orders to 18 American citizens who had been passengers aboard the M/V Hondius, an expedition cruise ship on which there was an outbreak of the deadly Andes strain of hantavirus. None of the 18 Americans had tested positive for the respiratory virus at the time the involuntary quarantine orders were issued.1

The orders required the Americans to be sent to and remain in the federally funded National Quarantine Unit (NQU) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, through at least May 31, 2026. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who leads both the CDC and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) signed the quarantine orders. Bhattacharya is a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was written to protest the government’s lockdown policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.2

Several passengers who had been on the cruise ship had already made arrangements with their state and local health departments to be monitored at home. However, all 18 passengers were informed at the last minute that they would not be allowed to return home and instead would be forced to stay in the NQU.3

Angela Perryman, 47, was among the 18 Americans ordered to remain in quarantine at the Nebraska facility.4 Despite federal health officials publicly stating that the passengers’ stay at NQU was entirely voluntary, when Perryman and another passenger attempted to leave, they were handed federal stay-in-place quarantine orders.5 Anyone violating the quarantine orders issued by the government would face a criminal fine or up to one year in jail.6

Perryman told NPR:

I am angry. I feel betrayed because I’m being imprisoned. It’s a nice prison. But this is a prison. Let’s be clear: I am being detained against my will.7

(See link for article)

________________

For more:

Important excerpts:

The U.S. government has been funding gain-of-function hantavirus experiments since at least 2017.

A July 2025 Pathogens publication confirms the U.S. military funded experiments aerosolizing hantavirus pathogens (making them airborne) with a 30% fatality rate.

Less than a year after the publication, the Andes hantavirus cruise ship outbreak would be declared.

Moreover, NIAID’s $70 million PROVIDENT program actively funded and operated a large-scale hantavirus preparedness initiative that engineered vaccine platforms, mapped Andes hantavirus structures in unprecedented detail, developed rapid-response countermeasure systems, and prioritized hantaviruses as future pandemic targets in the run-up to the 2026 international Andes hantavirus outbreak.

The Andes hantavirus genome was built from human blood at the infamous U.S. military biolab Fort Detrick.

Recent genetic analysis finds that hantavirus PCR test sequences—used to count cases—also match human DNA, raising concerns that the test is mistaking human genetic material for hantavirus.

The government’s hantavirus research, surveillance, genome-construction, and countermeasure infrastructure was already fully operational before the 2026 outbreak narrative emerged.

Kennedy has now invoked federal liability protections for favipiravir that is not approved anywhere in the world for hantavirus treatment and was only conditionally authorized in Japan for pandemic influenza—yet is now being positioned for use on Americans.

Preclinical animal studies have shown that favipiravir has the risk of teratogenicity and reproductive toxicity in experimental animals, including findings indicative of birth defects in mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys, along with decreases in live fetal body weight and in the number of live fetuses.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-they-rig-clinical-trials-leaving?

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

A practical guide to spotting doctored research and finding the therapies that actually help

A Midwestern Doctor

Jun 03, 2026

Story at a Glance:

  • Scientific research has provided immense benefit to society, but as its success earned it power, prestige and enormous financing, incentives shifted from advancing humanity to protecting the status quo and ensuring vast profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
  • We spend more and more on science each year, yet the problems we’ve tasked it with solving remain unsolved, even when solutions already exist. COVID-19 made this painfully clear: dozens of treatments existed for the disease, but rather than utilize them, the medical establishment treated the infection as “incurable” and used that framing to justify a series of counterproductive policies which devastated the economy and left us with a death toll well over a hundred times greater than the poorest nations that did nothing at all.
  • Central to maintaining this orthodoxy is the belief that large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must serve as the primary arbiter of scientific truth while other viable and proven research approaches are discarded. While RCTs are sometimes immensely helpful, their data often has minimal clinical relevance to patients yet their dominance displaces all the scientific data which does.
  • Because large RCTs cost tens of millions of dollars, only a handful of parties can afford to conduct them, which means they are typically done to bring profitable products to market rather than to advance health. Worse, since so much money rides on each trial, perverse incentives always exist to doctor the results so a positive outcome is guaranteed.
  • Over the years, a robust system of ways to rig trials has emerged, with tactics that exaggerate or fabricate benefits while downplaying or erasing harms. Despite being well recognized, these tactics persist because the regulators and medical journals who depend on the status quo turn a blind eye.
  • This article provides a concise summary of how trials are routinely rigged, gives you the resources to spot this manipulation and protect yourself from it, and highlights the straightforward solutions that could bring science back to something that prioritizes advancing humanity.

How to Rig a Trial

Since the risks and benefits of a therapy are determined by it having a “statistically significant” improvement from the comparison group (e.g., those receiving placebo), trials are typically gamed by:

  • Making the placebo group do worse, so that by comparison to that artificial baseline, the treatment appears better than it is.
  • Finding ways to inflate the positive effects reported for the treatment and eliminate the negative ones.
  • Finding ways to cast the results obtained in a more positive light and creatively downplay the negative ones.
  • Sifting through the random statistical variation inherent in any large trial to identify the specific analytical permutations where a “benefit” spontaneously appears, then presenting those selected findings as the definitive result.
  • Ensuring that almost everyone only sees the curated presentation of the trial data which makes the drug look as good as possible.

(See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

The author shows how they rig the trial design, manipulate data mid-stream, game the analysis, control what gets published, spin the presentation, and control the narrative.

Each and everyone of these tacts has been used in Lyme/MSIDS, climate, and vaccine research. It’s all gamed for a predetermined outcome which has been killing patients for decades.

For more:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/feds-charge-two-nih-researchers-with-smuggling-mpox-into-us/?

‘Let That Sink In’: Feds Charge Two NIH Researchers With Smuggling Mpox Into U.S.

Two NIH researchers are charged with conspiring to smuggle biological materials, including deactivated monkeypox virus samples, into the U.S. from Africa. The researchers work at a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory in Montana. The charges have renewed scrutiny of safety procedures for handling potentially dangerous pathogens.

by Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW

June 3, 2026

Claude Kwe, mpox test tube, vincent munster

Two National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers are charged with conspiring to smuggle biological materials, including deactivated monkeypox virus samples, into the U.S. from Africa. The researchers also allegedly lied to federal authorities about what they were carrying, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Detroit.

Vincent Munster, Ph.D., a Dutch citizen and chief of the Virus Ecology Section at NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, and Claude Kwe Yinda, Ph.D., a Cameroonian research fellow, are charged with conspiracy to smuggle goods into the U.S. and making false statements to federal investigators.

Both men work at a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory, the highest level of containment used for research involving dangerous pathogens.

According to federal prosecutors, the researchers arrived at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Jan. 25 after traveling from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a monkeypox outbreak was ongoing.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned the pair about a large black case they were carrying. Prosecutors allege the men told officers the case contained diagnostic and testing equipment, but investigators later determined it held 113 vials stored in Styrofoam coolers.

Testing of a portion of the samples found deactivated monkeypox virus in 17 vials, chickenpox virus in one vial and human DNA in two others.

“These NIH experts apparently broke our laws by smuggling viral pathogens on a packed commercial airplane from an outbreak in the Republic of Congo,” U.S. Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon Jr. said in announcing the charges. “Let that sink in.”

Federal authorities stressed that the case centers on alleged violations of importation and disclosure requirements. Prosecutors did not accuse the defendants of intentionally releasing pathogens or harming the public.

FBI Detroit Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan said the allegations demonstrate that scientific credentials do not exempt researchers from federal statutes.

“No researchers should believe their positions, credentials, or professional status place them above the law,” Runyan said. (See link for article)

_______________

For more:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/14/1/96

Seroprevalence of BorreliaAnaplasmaBartonellaToxoplasmaMycoplasmaYersinia, and Chlamydia in Human Population from Eastern Poland

by Angelina Wójcik-Fatla 1, Anna Sawczyn-Domańska 1,*, Anna Kloc 1,Joanna Krzowska-Firych 2 and Jacek Sroka 1,3

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Pathogens 202514(1), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14010096

Submission received: 3 December 2024 / Revised: 15 January 2025 / Accepted: 16 January 2025 / Published: 18 January 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exploring the Biodiversity of Parasites in Humans, Wild and Domestic Animals)

Abstract

The epidemiological situation related to infectious diseases is influenced by many factors. To monitor actual trends in selected zoonoses, a total of 473 serum samples from farmers, forestry workers, and veterinarians were collected for serological examination. Anti-Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) antibodies were tested with ELISA and Western blot (WB) tests; the detection of anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies was performed using an enzyme linked fluorescence assay (ELFA). Antibodies to bartonellosis, anaplasmosis, and chlamydiosis were determined by indirect immunofluorescent test (IFA), whereas antibodies to yersiniosis and mycoplasmosis were confirmed in the ELISA test.

Positive or borderline results of antibodies against B. burgdorferi s.l. in the ELISA test were detected in 33.8% of the study population. The borderline or positive ELISA test results for at least one antibody class were confirmed by WB in 58.7% of cases. The IgG antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilumToxoplasma gondii, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae were detected in 9.6%, 51.7%, and 63.6% of samples, respectively. Antibodies against Yersinia spp., Bartonella henselae, and Chlamydia pneumoniae were found to vary between 43 and 47%.

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-great-prostate-hoax

The Great Prostate Hoax

By Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana – Unbekoming Book Summary

Unbekoming

Oct 16, 2024

An expressive oil painting focused on the human prostate and its surgical removal, symbolizing the impact of PSA testing and prostate cancer treatment. The central image is a detailed representation of the prostate surrounded by surgical tools and hands preparing to perform the removal. The prostate is depicted with vulnerable, soft textures, while the background is dark and somber, with muted tones of blue, grey, and red, emphasizing the gravity of the procedure. Bold, dramatic brushstrokes highlight the intensity and emotional weight of the scene, evoking a sense of medical intervention and loss.

It’s not just women that Cartel Medicine feeds on, although it does prefer them.

Men are also meat for the grinder, especially when their privates are involved.

The screening hoax we witnessed with mammograms has a counterpart with prostates and the PSA test.

The predation here is especially synergistic as the maiming and destruction caused by prostate interventions feed two sub-Cartels: those of erectile dysfunction and incontinence. The adult diaper business is thriving because of this butchery.

Urologists, not wanting to be left behind by pediatricianspsychiatristscardiologistsdermatologists and  dentists have their own cozy racket.

With thanks to Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana for telling the truth. [in their book ‘The Great Prostate Hoax.’]

12-point summary

Here’s a 12-point summary of the book, including key data and statistics for those that don’t want to read the longer Q&A below.

  1. PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen) is not cancer-specific. It’s present in normal, benign, and cancerous prostate tissue. There is no specific PSA level that definitively indicates cancer.
  2. Routine PSA screening leads to significant overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For every 1,000 men screened, only 1 man may avoid death from prostate cancer, while many others suffer unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
  3. Prostate cancer is age-related. About 40% of men aged 40-49, 70% of men 60-69, and 80% of men over 70 have prostate cancer. Most of these cancers are slow-growing and unlikely to cause death.
  4. The lifetime risk of dying from prostate cancer is only 3%, meaning 97% of men will die from other causes, even if they have prostate cancer.
  5. Radical prostatectomy, a common treatment resulting from PSA screening, often leads to significant side effects. Up to 60-80% of men experience erectile dysfunction and 10-20% have long-term urinary incontinence.
  6. PSA screening has not significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality. Studies show similar death rates between screened and unscreened populations.
  7. The PSA test has a high false-positive rate of up to 80%, leading to many unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
  8. Active surveillance is increasingly recognized as an appropriate option for many men with low-risk prostate cancer, potentially avoiding unnecessary treatments and their side effects.
  9. The U.S. healthcare system spends an estimated $3 billion annually on PSA tests alone, with billions more on subsequent procedures and treatments.
  10. New technologies like robotic surgery and proton beam therapy, while heavily marketed, have not shown superior outcomes to traditional treatments but are significantly more expensive.
  11. Conflicts of interest are prevalent in prostate cancer care. Many researchers and physicians promoting PSA screening have financial ties to companies that profit from increased screening and treatment.
  12. The FDA approved the PSA test for screening in 1994 despite significant reservations from its own advisory panel. This decision, along with aggressive marketing by medical companies, led to widespread adoption of PSA screening before its benefits and harms were fully understood.

(See link for article)