Here’s How Much Senate’s Loudest RFK Jr Critics Have Been Paid by Big Pharma
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 02.02.2025
The fiery viral exchange between RFK Jr and Senator Bernie Sanders on Big Pharma money in politics has cast a new light on the Trump HHS pick’s uphill confirmation battle.
Among senators grilling Kennedy hardest in this week’s grueling confirmation hearings, here’s who’s gotten the most pharma money via PAC contributions and employee donations between 1990-2024, per calculations by OpenSecrets:
- Bernie Sanders: $1.9 mln
- Ralph Warnock: $1.76 mln
- Patty Murray: $1.6 mln
- Chuck Schumer: $1.55 mln
- Elizabeth Warren: $1.2 mln. Ironic that she’s recently accused Kennedy of “profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies.”
- Ron Wyden: $1.2 mln
- Bill Cassidy: $1.2 mln
- Mark Warner: $654,000
- Maggie Hassan: $467,000
- Catherine Cortez Masto: $537,000
Bipartisan Consensus
And it’s not just Democrats. OpenSecrets records, which have 307 names on file, show former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell got $2 mln, Mitt Romney $3.3 mln, Richard Burr $1.6 mln, the late John McCain $1.4 mln, Bill Cassidy $1.2 mln, and Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Tim Scott $1.1 mln each over the past three-and-a-half decades.
A 2021 STAT study found that over two-thirds of Congress got a pharma check in 2020, with Pfizer alone contributing to 228 federal campaigns and over 1,000 state races. By last August alone, Big Pharma’s 2024 election PAC war chests hit $37 mln, per BioSpace.
OpenSecrets partial list of top Big Pharma donations to current and former US senators.
© Photo : OpenSecrets
Besides lobbying, lawmakers have taken advantage of their jobs to get rich off pharma-related insider trading, with a 2021 Business Insider report finding that 75 made timely investments into the federal Covid response.
Then there’s the combined payouts of healthcare industry, which includes pharma but also insurance, medical device suppliers, etc.
By these accounts, Sanders alone got $23+ mln since 1990, Warnock $14.7 mln, Warren $10.4 mln, Wyden $6.7 mln, Tim Kaine $3.3 mln, Ed Markey $2.3 mln, Patty Murray $5.8 mln, Tammy Baldwin $4.9 mln, etc.

Chart compiled by @MidwesternDoc based on OpenSecrets data on healthcare industry contributions to US lawmakers.
© Photo : X / @MidwesternDoc / OpenSecrets
Media Onboard Too
Major outlets aren’t running anti-RFK hit pieces for free. Dr. Leana Wen, author of a recent WaPo piece trashing Kennedy, received over $1.1 mln from Big Pharma over her career.
In 2021, MintPress News calculated that active Big Pharma cheerleader Bill Gates has given nearly $320 mln to media over the years to ensure favorable coverage of himself and the initiatives he’s pushing, including as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
FL GRAND JURY EXPOSES COVID VACCINE HARMS AND FAILURES
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 16, 2025
The Practicing Physician’s Case for Kennedy
By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 20, 2025
I am a practicing physician. I see patients, and I diagnose and treat their illnesses. I have been doing so for more than a quarter of a century. It is how I earn my living.
I heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The fact that I take care of patients distinguishes me from the overwhelming majority of the captured politicians, legacy media pundits, and Pharma lobbyists who are trying to torpedo Mr. Kennedy’s nomination.
The uproar surrounding this nomination is telling in itself. Since when has there been such crying and gnashing of teeth over a nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services? How many Americans can even name the last three HHS Secretaries? I’m a physician who follows these things, and off the top of my head, I could only recall the last two – former Congressman Xavier Becerra and former Pharma executive and lobbyist Alex Azar.
When a public figure is being viciously attacked from all sides, as Mr. Kennedy is at present, we should consider the attackers. Depending on who they are, such extreme disapproval may in fact represent the strongest possible endorsement.
Consider Mr. Kennedy’s Attackers
On the Democrat side, Kennedy has been attacked by the likes of Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss. On CNN, he said that if Kennedy were named HHS Secretary, with respect to American children, Kennedy would “give them polio.”
Auchincloss is a lawyer, so his total ignorance of pathophysiology might be forgivable. However, his father is Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, who served as none other than Anthony Fauci’s right-hand man at NIAID, the NIH agency over which Fauci wielded immense and almost complete power for decades, and through which he funded Ralph Baric and the Wuhan Institute’s genetic manipulations of the SARS CoV-2 virus that caused Covid, using our tax dollars. If there is one HHS department that best exemplifies the capture, corruption, and unaccountability of the present medical-industrial complex, it is NIAID. Hugh Auchincloss left NIAID in 2024.
But wait, there’s more. Auchincloss’s mother is Dr. Laurie Glimcher, former president and CEO of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In 2021, the Boston Globe exposed her simultaneously serving on the boards of multiple Big Pharma companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline, while in charge of Dana-Farber. Furthermore, in 2024, multiple research papers Glimcher had authored were exposed for falsification of data, and at least 6 of the papers were retracted. Laurie Glimcher resigned as head of Dana-Farber in 2024.
On the Republican side, there is Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who stated on television that a Kennedy HHS “will cost lives in this country.”
Many may recall Gottlieb as the FDA commissioner during much of the first Trump administration. Gottlieb left the FDA in 2019, shortly before the pandemic, and quickly joined the Board of Directors at Pfizer, where he remained throughout the pandemic and still is today. A more thorough review of his history shows multiple prior stints at the FDA. Over the years, he has bounced back and forth between that key HHS regulatory agency and Big Pharma and healthcare venture capital firms – the exact industries the FDA should be overseeing.
These are the kinds of people who want to stop Mr. Kennedy from leading HHS. Their prime motivation, it seems, may not be positive reform of medicine or the well-being of patients.
If prominent figures such as these revile Mr. Kennedy, why do I endorse him?
Because medicine desperately needs reform. Mr. Kennedy has been nominated to be a quintessential reformer. He has deep knowledge of the problem, and he has a proven track record of success in reforming corrupt systems. He is being viciously attacked because the last thing that those currently in control of medicine want is meaningful reform.
Medicine Is a Mess, and Desperately Needs Reform
I can tell you from nearly three decades of first-hand clinical experience what the state of medicine is right now.
It’s a mess.
Medicine has been in decline for decades. Autonomy has been gradually stripped away from physicians and patients, as protocols and guidelines have replaced clinical decision-making. Doctors have become employees rather than independent professionals. The doctor-patient relationship has been eroded as care has been fragmented and as the Electronic Medical Record has intruded. Most importantly, control of the entire medical industry has been seized by Big Pharma, captured and corrupt government agencies, and the insurance industry.
Then Covid happened, with two results – one intentional, the other accidental. First, the entire medical system was intentionally hijacked by what was really a military operation. The pretense of a medical emergency was used to shut down both society as a whole, and the routine practice of medicine in particular. Second, this takeover accidentally revealed who actually controls the medical industry – and it sure isn’t doctors and patients.
Patients have caught on. For patients, trust in physicians and hospitals and acceptance of vaccines have both cratered. This is not due to “anti-science” stupidity or “misinformation.” It is due to the fact that patients have simply been lied to too many times. It doesn’t matter how much money and power you have – you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Patients know – some explicitly, others intuitively – that the official narrative of Covid was riddled with lies. They know that they were deliberately made to live in fear. They have friends and family who suffered and even died from the excesses of the lockdown policies, and others who were injured or even killed by the hospital protocols and the mandated shots. They know that Big Pharma and their Government were behind it. They know that their own local hospitals and even their own healthcare providers were complicit to some extent.
Patients also know that health care is captured. Patients know that Big Pharma and other corporate and ideological forces drive health care policy and messaging – all they have to do is turn on their TVs to see the endless barrage of idiotic commercials for drugs.
Patients know the NIH, CDC, and FDA are corrupt, and captured by Big Pharma. Patients have wearied of the constant fear-mongering about “pandemics” that they now know are almost always man-made. Most importantly, patients realize that none of this is intended to improve their health.
How do I know that patients know all this? They tell me every day.
What about rank-and-file doctors? Most clinical physicians I speak with privately acknowledge the excesses of the Covid era. I’m not aware of a single practicing doctor who has taken all the CDC-recommended Covid boosters. I have copious evidence, both from my patients and from communications with other doctors, that the extreme virophobia and vaccine fervor of 2021 and 2022 has faded among my colleagues just as it has in the rest of the population.
Most doctors have heard the news that public trust in them and their profession has nosedived. Most realize that the system is in chaos in many respects – all one has to do is stop by any emergency room to see that. Many acknowledge that the profession of medicine and the healthcare industry have been hijacked by Pig Pharma and other malign forces. Many who can are leaving the profession altogether.
However, beyond those already speaking out, I see few new colleagues calling out for reform. Like many other people, it seems that most rank-and-file doctors just want the nightmare to end. A great many don’t really know how things got so bad. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, they know something has happened, but they don’t know what it is.
For these reasons, meaningful reform of medicine will not come from a groundswell from the rank and file. They saw what happened to those who spoke out during Covid and want no part of that. They wouldn’t know where to begin to fix a system in which they have very little agency. However, I truly believe the great majority of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals would welcome and support meaningful reform.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the very best choice to lead medical reform. If you doubt his expertise on the subjects of the corruption and capture of medicine, and the regulatory capture of agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA, I recommend his books The Real Anthony Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-Up. Not only do these books demonstrate his encyclopedic knowledge of the problem, but as Joe Rogan and others have pointed out, they have never been directly challenged by the medical establishment – because they are factually accurate.
Furthermore, given his experience and successes as an environmental lawyer, including against large corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Ford, Mr. Kennedy has the know-how to affect meaningful reform.
Rest assured that under a Kennedy-run HHS, medicine will not revert to the time of Galen. Polio will not run rampant, although vaccines may finally be held to the same standards as other drugs – which of course should have always been the case. Even a partial reversal of the nearly total capture that Big Pharma and its allies have over medical research, academia, education, medical licensing, and certification will only benefit doctors and patients.
Medicine is in desperate need of thorough reform. It must be decoupled from the control of Big Pharma, captured governmental agencies, and other rich and powerful forces that currently dominate the industry. Patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship must be restored as central to the practice of medicine. Informed consent must be re-established as the inalienable and fundamental value of the profession as encoded at Nuremberg.
Humans are autonomous individuals with rights. Patients must not be “managed” like herd animals, as the current population-based public health approach to medicine insists. Covid proved this approach to be a disaster, and it must end.
This is why I, a practicing physician, heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
YouTube Removes Barrister’s Legal Submission at Official UK Covid Inquiry Amid Censorship of Vaccine Injury Discussions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 15, 2025
YouTube’s decision to remove a barrister’s legal submission from the UK Covid Inquiry has intensified concerns over widespread censorship of vaccine-related discussions on major social media platforms.
Anna Morris KC, who represents families claiming injury from Covid-19 vaccines, disclosed that YouTube deleted a video of her preliminary remarks to the inquiry in September 2023, citing violations of its medical “misinformation” policy. Although the platform later reinstated the video, it failed to provide a clear explanation, admitting only that “it sometimes makes mistakes.”
This act of censorship has been condemned as part of a larger pattern of silencing voices critical of vaccine safety and government health policies. As reported by The Telegraph, during the inquiry’s Module 4 session — focused on vaccines and pharmaceutical measures — Morris directly addressed this issue, stating, “The inquiry must understand the stigma and censorship for the vaccine injured and bereaved.”
She revealed that a poll of affected families found that 74% had been censored when discussing vaccine injuries on social media platforms.
Morris further criticized the suppression of information, noting that doctors were instructed to withhold concerns from both the public and their own patients. Her removed statement emphasized that “the treatment of the vaccine injured in this country has historically been a source of shame.”
Morris argued that those harmed by vaccines have been systematically “dismissed, ignored, censored,” and subjected to hostility when seeking acknowledgment and support.
She condemned the ongoing silencing of vaccine-injured individuals as a severe barrier to accountability and transparency, adding, “Unfortunately, this censorship has continued years after the pandemic and into our engagement with this inquiry.”
Despite repeated requests for a review, YouTube justified the video’s removal by citing its medical “misinformation” policies, a rationale that critics argue is increasingly being used to suppress legitimate concerns and experiences. This censorship has fueled calls for a reevaluation of how social media platforms regulate content related to public health, especially when it involves dissenting voices.
An emotional impact video shown during the inquiry highlighted the tragic story of pharmacist John Cross, who took his own life after suffering paralyzing complications from a Covid vaccine and being denied compensation. His story underscores the devastating consequences of dismissing those seeking recognition and support.
Dr. Drew Pinsky Criticizes YouTube for Video Removals and Mandatory Reeducation Training Over Vaccine Discussions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 15, 2025
Dr. Drew Pinsky, widely known as Dr. Drew, has publicly criticized YouTube for removing two of his videos over alleged violations of the platform’s medical “misinformation” policy. On January 14, 2025, Pinsky took to X to challenge YouTube’s decision, highlighting concerns about free speech and the suppression of open dialogue on health-related topics.
In order to get the flags removed from his video, YouTube told Dr. Drew that he would have to attend a form of reeducation training and have no violations for 90 days, or else it would delete his entire channel and all of his videos. Pinsky has over 1,000 videos on the platform.
In one of his posts, Pinsky expressed frustration over the platform’s actions: “This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading ‘medical misinformation’ & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I’ve been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube’s existence.”

The flagged videos featured discussions with Dr. Kelly Victory, a board-certified physician, and attorney Warner Mendenhall. Pinsky elaborated that these conversations centered around the side effects of mRNA vaccinations, a topic he argues warrants open discourse rather than censorship. In his discussion with Dr. Victory, she stated that the “vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone.”
Pinsky defended the content, asserting that sharing professional perspectives and personal beliefs in a public forum should not be equated with spreading misinformation. He emphasized that their dialogue was an exchange of viewpoints rather than a promotion of falsehoods.
In a separate video with Warner Mendenhall, the attorney discussed legal cases involving individuals who suffered severe reactions following vaccination. Pinsky highlighted that Mendenhall shared client experiences and expressed personal beliefs—not medical advice. Pinsky wrote, “It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study.”
This isn’t the first time YouTube has targeted Dr. Drew’s content. He noted that previous strikes were resolved after discussions between his production team and YouTube officials. Despite the latest removals, Pinsky confirmed that the videos remain accessible on X, suggesting that alternative platforms may offer more space for unrestricted conversations.
A prominent internist and addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Drew Pinsky has been a notable media figure for decades. His career includes hosting television shows like Dr. Drew On Call on HLN and Lifechangers on The CW.
Candace Owens Responds To Mr. And Mr. Macron
Candace Show | January 13, 2025
I respond to the Macrons legal letter, Ian Carroll ratios Elon Musk on X, Mark Zuckerberg appears on Joe Rogan to discuss Biden censorship, and an update on what people are saying about the LA fires.
PreBorn!
To donate, dial pound 250 & say the keyword “BABY” that’s pound 250 “BABY” or donate securely at https://preborn.com/candace
PureTalk
Get 50% off your first month at http://www.PureTalk.com/Owens
American Financing
Act today! Call 800-795-1210 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Owens
NMLS 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.458% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-795-1210 for details about credit costs and terms.
Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
Subscribe to Club Candace: https://www.clubcandace.com
Join The Candace Community on Locals: https://candace.locals.com
Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity
Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.
The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.
Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.
So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”
But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”
Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.
Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.
One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.
As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.
Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.
And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.
Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.
Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.
For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.
Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.
The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel
Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025
Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.
The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”
To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.
The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.
Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.
The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.
The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”
President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.
President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.
The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.
There must be truth if not justice.
Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025
In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.
“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.
This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.
Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”
However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”
The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.
Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

