Understanding the resistance health experts faced in dissenting from COVID-19 orthodoxy

This talk responded closely to the World Nutrition Summit (2025)'s theme- 'Rewriting the Rules: Nutrition, Science and Chronic Disease'. My speech focused on two cases of evidence-based contributions from health experts being confronted by heavy resistance for challenging COVID-19 guidelines. This talk’s three sections address the many ways in which even the agency of eminent experts is not as free to shape public health policy as they might hope, or even reasonably expect. The talk's insights emerge from a new research project aiming to develop a framework for the challenges that eminent experts negotiate whilst criticizing dogmas. Hopefully, such research helps us better understand all the ways in which critics' autonomy is reduced. Particularly as they become vulnerable to strategic campaigns from powerful decision makers.

1. © THE NUTRITION NETWORK, CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA 2025 ACADEMIC FREE SPEECH AND DIGITAL VOICES (AFSDV) RESEARCH THEME World Nutrition Summit 2025 Presented by TRAVIS NOAKES Adjunct Scholar, Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology @ travisnoakes Understanding the resistance health experts face in dissenting from medical science orthodoxy and challenging its dogmas during COVID-19 with PIERS ROBINSON Organisation for Propaganda Studies Research Director International Center for 9/11 Justice @PiersRobinson1 DAVID BELL Public health specialist @bell00david

2. Overview of three sections Understanding resistance vs. eminent experts during COVID-19 #1 Two examples of resistance – contrasting resistance to contributions from a frontline doctor and health policy expert Questioning “official” knowledge – learnings from cases that are close to acceptable parameters in the narrative #2 Unanswered questions – questioning the undone science and freedoms that experts enjoy to “rewrite the rules” A COVID-19 “public health” response? – the ‘lockdown until vaccination’ policy as a bio- defence strategy A Chorus Effect – mRNA vaccines #3 Understanding resistance – to experts who struggled to research and publish about COVID-19 – three questions Resistance Studies – for intellectual autonomy, oppositional thinking and epistemic justice Graphic images sourced from the Stop, dumb bot! chat sticker set © Create With Cape Town (2025)

3. 1 Two cases of resistance 1 Dr Ellapen V Rapiti - SA frontline doctor 2 Dr Scott Atlas - Public health specialist who served as a special advisor to US president Trump (July - December 2020) © The Nutrition Network - 2025 3

4. 4 At a time when the World Health Organization claimed that there was no treatment for COVID-19, a few Southern-African doctors developed innovative protocols that proved highly effective. Despite international authorities advising doctors not to treat patients, these local doctors innovated with simple, safe and inexpensive protocols. Notably, Drs. Shankara Chetty, Nathi Mdladla, Chamaine Gerber, Marie Olivier, Ellapen Rapiti and Jacky Stone devised protocols suitable for treating patients from even highly resource-constrained areas. In Dr E V “Robert” Rapiti’s case, he is based in Mitchells Plain, Cape Town. This is one of SA’s largest residential areas, with a population estimated at just over 310,000 formal residents in 20 unique neighborhoods. This grows to one million in the informal settlements. Mitchells Plain emerged from Apartheid history as a site of the forced removal of Coloured * communities. The area is split between a wealthier middle-class population on the West, and lower socio-economic classes on the East. The area is the strongest attractor of retail investment on the Cape Flats and is well-known for its strong cultural heritage. However, “Die Plein” or “Hell” is also blighted by a high unemployment rate, drug and alcohol abuse, violent gang violence and some of the highest crime rates for SA police stations. Extortion, drug dealing, illegal arms, human trafficking and poaching are major sources of income for Die Plein’s thirty gangs. #1.1 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT - SUCCESSES Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti Table 10: The total number of patients that were seen in Dr E V Rapiti’s Athlone practice with COVID-19 during the entire pandemic from April 14, 2020 to August 31, 2022. Sourced from Dr E V Rapiti’s book’s manuscript, EARLY AND EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF COVID-19 IN SOUTH AFRICA - How A Prompt Treatment Protocol Achieved A Remarkable 99.97% Success In 4,000 Patients * Coloured refers to a specific mixed-race, cultural and ethnic group in South Africa. It includes sub-groups like Cape Malay, Griqua and Khoisan. The term’s use in SA is embraced nationally ( Ndlovu, 2024 ), and is distinct from global uses of the term. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

5. 5 SA regulatory authorities’ advice was not to see COVID-19 patients or to prevent over 65-year doctors not to practice. COVID-19 patients should be sent home to isolate. This followed guidance from the World Health Organization. Despite this, at 72 years old, Dr Rapiti decided to continue seeing his patients, and many external referrals. His practice believed that the WHO guidance contradicted the foundational principle of medicine: treat early to prevent deterioration. As he writes, ‘ Patients were treated from the first sign of illness—regardless of age, severity, or co-morbidities—with decisive, logical and evidence-informed intervention. This proactive stance was not only clinically sound, but morally imperative, and it played a pivotal role in the practice’s 99.9% recovery rate. Early, aggressive care saved lives—especially those who would’ve been lost waiting for symptoms to worsen.’ Dr Rapiti treated 3985 patients successfully throughout the pandemic with an aggressive, high-dose protocol. It included Ivermectin, corticosteroids, anti-inflammatories, anticoagulants, and targeted nutritional supplementation. The exceptional outcomes achieved through this protocol—across all phases of the pandemic—highlighted its suitability for low-resource healthcare systems. His practice’s results prove that timely, disciplined, and multi-modal treatment yielded extraordinary results without reliance on costly infrastructure. The cost of the practice’s intervention ranged from R 400 to R 700 per patient. #1.2 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT - IMPLICATIONS Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti Draft book cover for Dr Rapiti’s manuscript (2025) Dr E V Rapiti’s photograph from drrapiti.com This included an initial examination, basic medication & oxygen to stabilise them. And a secondary follow-up visit. The practice charged a half-rate for the second visit. The rest of the visits were done pro deo, or whatever the patient could afford. This recognized that most patients had lost their jobs, so could not afford fees for subsequent visits. Virtual consultations were done for R 500. COVID-19 tests were avoided in being costly (R850), academic and a waste of time (in producing 90% false positives, with patients paying twice). © The Nutrition Network - 2025

6. 6 As Dr Rapiti observes, ‘The COVID-19 crisis could have taken a vastly different trajectory had policy makers meaningfully engaged with frontline doctors—those with direct patient experience and early therapeutic success. Tragically, that partnership never materialized. This failure of integration not only undermined clinical autonomy but imposed preventable social, economic, and educational damage—especially on vulnerable populations.’ Such exclusion of frontline clinicians from pandemic strategy represented a lost opportunity for pragmatic, data-driven containment. Had there been genuine collaboration between frontline doctors, academic institutions, and public health officials, COVID-19 need not ‘(1) have been escalated to a global pandemic declaration, (2) requiring the premature rollout of vaccines without adequate safety evaluations. This (3) placed enormous financial strain on nations purchasing vaccines, with the (4) economic collapse of several developing countries burdened by pandemic-related debt, and (5) The long-term harm to children’s futures caused by prolonged school closures.’ In running Dr Rapiti’s practice, he had to overcome challenges linked to overwhelming patient demand. Plus sourcing the supplies needed for the treatment protocol. Notably, the availability of infrastructure (oxygen tanks), Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. #1.3 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT - MEDIA RESISTANCE Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti Negotiating narrative control and censorship Dr Rapiti also contended with the challenges of narrative control and censorship, both in SA and on global digital platforms: YouTube and Tik Tok video takedowns, censored on Facebook During the early Delta strain days, his practice released a video on various social media platforms detailing its successful treatment protocol. This video sought to dispel the widespread myth that COVID-19 was untreatable. Shared over 28,000 times on Facebook, this video resonated with the health professionals and the broader public. Notwithstanding its clinical salience, the video became banned on YouTube. Its fact-checkers claimed that the video promoted information deemed “contrary to public health safety and protection” and violated YouTube’s community standards. Dr Rapiti was interviewed by Alec Hogg on BizNews , but this video was removed by YouTube. As too a talk to the Good Hope Christian Church’s audience of 250K followers became pulled down. Such acts of censorship, while framed as a protective measure, arguably prevented millions from accessing potentially life-saving information. Such contrast between Facebook’s public reception and YouTube’s suppression highlights the polarized landscape of pandemic-era communication. His Tik Tok video on what a mother goes through with her child suffering from autism was removed too. This seems due to him mentioning that one of the causes for the rise in the autism rate is most likely due to vaccines. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

7. 7 Deplatformed from Instagram and Medium Robert’s Instagram and channel on Medium was removed for contra- vening community standards, so he shifted to using Substack. Narrative control on local radio In the early stages of the pandemic, Dr Rapiti was invited to speak on a local radio station, Heart 104FM in 2021 about the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin specifically in treating COVID-19. His interview, exceeded its scheduled duration due to public interest regarding the misconception that Ivermectin was solely a veterinary drug was soundly dispelled to the shock of the interviewer. The drugs long-standing history, saving millions from river blindness and its potential role in early COVID-19 treatment was emphasized. Dr Rapiti also flagged the potential risks of mRNA vaccination to children, especially myocarditis. Despite the interview’s informative nature, the station delayed its release by 12 hours, reportedly due to internal hesitation. It was only published after public pressure demanded its release. The interview ultimately attracted over 25,000 listeners; many of whom expressed gratitude for the clarity and reassurance it provided. After Dr Rapiti wrote an article for the Plainsman on Ivermectin, local newspapers stopped featuring his contributions. #1.4 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – MEDIA WORKAROUNDS Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti In March 2022, Dr Rapiti was invited by a popular community radio journalist, Adiela Fortune to speak on COVID vaccines on her station, Radio 786. It is a popular Muslim station with under a million listeners. The show schedule for the prime time of 8 pm. At 4pm a very disappointed and upset Adiela Fortune called Dr Rapiti to inform him that management told her not to interview him. They gave her no reason. She argued his case, as did listeners who eagerly waited for the show. They called into the station for expressing their utter disgust at the management's decision. Out of defiance, Adiela invited Dr Rapiti to appear that same night to speak about anxiety. The reassurance to the listeners that the vaccines interview will take place later in the month was received with a great deal of skepticism by listeners. Apparently, several doctors called the station asking the management to censor Robert for his outspoken and unconventional views on the vaccine and the pandemic. The station never called him again. Dr Rapiti’s experiences underscored a broader truth: frontline insights, when shared transparently, can empower communities. But they also reveal the fragility of open discourse, especially when institutional narratives dominate the airwaves. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

8. 8 #1.5 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – MEDIA WORKAROUNDS Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti Smeared via Google search Dr Rapiti was smeared with search engine results as promoting Ivermectin, which was ’not recommended by the WHO’. As Robert writes, ‘Fact-checkers accused the practice of spreading disinformation—despite the overwhelming support and gratitude it received from patients and followers both in South Africa and across the globe. Many people publicly praised the practice for it updates and protocols to save lives.’ Working around online censorship with alternate media At the height of the Covid pandemic, Dr Rapiti’s practice made every effort to educate patients and the broader public. On Sundays, when the practice was closed, it posted weekly video updates detailing how the pandemic was evolving. These updates became vital lifelines for those seeking credible, compassionate guidance. Rumble, Substack, Telegram and Twitter (now X), were the only platforms on which Robert’s practice could consistently communicate without censorship. Other major social media networks removed its videos and posts, despite their clinical relevance and impact. Dr Rapiti has over 300 videos of the successful cases that he treated for COVID. Narrative control on international radio National Public Radio in the USA interviewed Dr Rapiti locally at his practice, plus a recovered patient who was successfully treated with Ivermectin. The journalist seemed very honest and sincere, however when he reported it, he spoke derisively about Robert’s use of Ivermectin despite it being used to treat over 700 patients successfully at that time. In contrast, he reported favorably on Professor Salim Abdool Karim’s critique of Ivermectin as an “untested” drug. The journalist refused to take Robert’s call or afford him a right-of-reply. Criticism from The Cathedral During the second wave of COVID-19, Professor Karim criticized Dr Rapiti for prescribing Ivermectin. In a court case, Prof Karim attacked Robert as a “quack” for using an SSRI to treat COVID-19. Prof Karim seemed not to have read literature confirming that people gained protection from fluvoxamine ( Lenze et al, 2020 ). Dr Rapiti has a 30-year interest in mental health, so was familiar with SSRI and psychotropics. He later defended an employee in a CCMA case in which she refused to take the vaccine. The employer’s lawyers decided to withdraw the case despite Prof Karim’s and Dr Angelique Coetzee’s evidence. The lawyers felt they had a losing case, and it was arbitrated for the employee. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

9. 9 #1.6 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – MEDIA WORKAROUNDS Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti In March, 2023, Dr Rapiti was requested by a church in Gauteng with branches all over Africa to speak at a conference about COVID. This talk was beamed to their half million members. They subsequently invited me onto the station LN24 on several occasions to talk about vaccines and their side effects. A platform to speak of mRNA vaccine injuries Many people who heard Dr Rapiti contacted him to assist with treating their post mRNA vaccination injuries. Robert shared these accounts with the public via a group for the vaccine injured. They were ignored by the medical profession, who also did not know how to treat the vaccine injured. Dr Rapiti had revolutionised how to diagnose pneumonia, in addition to developing novel protocol. He was not hamstrung by a narrow focus on one disease. Many of the COVID-19 patients were affected with a mental illness, that Dr Rapiti could address via psychotherapy. This was missing in the milieu of treating COVID-19 from his reading of the literature. Accordingly, his practice differentiated itself from those that only treated COVID-19, or only treated other patients. Hie work was done in person and patients were not made to feel as pariahs (with safe-distancing & masking) when visiting his practice. Dr Rapiti was interviewed on Loving Life’s internet TV service each week, where he also shared his videos. This reached over a quarter of a million people. Dr Rapiti also did an interview on Dr Tess Lawrie’s show who did a meta-analysis that confirmed Ivermectin’s safety. This was broadcast through the World Council for Health. Based on this appearance, Robert was invited to appear on the Michael Gnoe’s show. The American public seemed to be endeared to his forthrightness regarding his story. Many felt misled by their media and their doctors. Dr Rapiti addressed residents in Langa in 2022 about vaccines at the request of the local church. As he writes, ‘The locals didn't trust the vaccine. They were not getting the truth. They were so glad I addressed their fears.’ In December 2021, he was requested, out of the blue, by Good Hope Christian Centre in Ottery to address them about COVID. He was given three hours to present in-person to 6000 members. The talk was zoomed to about 200000 followers world wide. Dr Rapiti spoke about COVID, the vaccines and the misinformation. It was broadcast via YouTube and Facebook. In response YouTube gave the church a ‘one strike warning notice’. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

10. 10 #1.7 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – MEDIA WORKAROUNDS Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti Dr Rapiti’s related online publications https://www.drrapiti.com/about Silencing the Frontline: How Censorship Undermines Medical Truth drevrapiti.substack.com/p/silencing-the-frontline-how-censorship Reclaiming Recognition for the Frontline Discoverers of Disease substack.com/home/post/p-174146392 The role of counselling in mental health https:// drevrapiti.substack.com /p/the-role-of-counselling-in-mental Book Rapiti , R. (2013). 4 Steps to Healing (1 ed.). Xlibris Corporation. Rapiti , R. (2019). 4 Steps 2 Healing: We Are All Angels with One Wing: When We Are Together, We Can Fly (2 ed.). Writers Republic Llc .   Robert’s COVID-19 protocol is not the only low-cost intervention that he has pioneered. As his simple handbook against addiction details (2013, 2019), he also treated mental disorders by weaning patients off their psychiatric medication. This recognises how anxiety and depression are intertwined. He is vehemently opposed to the use of psychotropics due to their numerous side effects and addiction potential. Dr Rapiti’s approach to Diabetes and Chronic illnesses is to follow a low-carb way of eating and to only eat only one-and-a-half meals per day. Abstinence from food (AFF) ensures a 14 hour digestive break, with water as the only drink. Robert also emphasises the management of stress, which cannot be dealt with a pill. He teaches meditation, breathing exercises and do-able routine exercises, such as 30 minutes walking, listening to classical music and taking a break (without tea!) to de-stress. Robert also teaches self-induced sleeping techniques without tablets. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

11. 11 #1.8 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – PROOF Testimonial for Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti I understood their position—they were under immense pressure, working impossible hours, making heartbreaking decisions. But I couldn’t sit at home, knowing he was dying alone.  He messaged me: he couldn’t walk to the bathroom. When he asked a nurse for help, she refused. Another nurse entered, dumped a plastic basin and washcloth on the table, and told him to wash himself. He was incapable of even sitting upright.  He went an entire day without food. That evening, a Marmite sandwich and cold tea were left at the far end of his bed—out of reach. He had no strength to get to them.  Medication was brought in a grimy old bottle lid. When he asked what it was, he was told, “Just take it.” Not once was he seen by a doctor during his time in the COVID ward. Nurses handed him pills. His room echoed with chilling apathy. He told me patients around him were dying hourly. Staff casually shouted over the beds, “Bring another body bag.” The atmosphere was devoid of compassion.  Out of desperation, my father messaged me about a doctor he’d read about in the newspaper—Dr E. V. Rapiti . He asked me to contact him, in hopes there might be another way.  I had never met this doctor. I doubted he would reply—we weren’t his patients, and the Delta wave was overwhelming everyone. Still, I sent a WhatsApp message early that evening explaining our situation. Within an hour, he responded. Testimonial, part I – A Daughter’s Fight for Her Father’s Life   In August 2021, my father fell ill. As my parents were not on medical aid, I took him to their nearest hospital—Karl Bremer—where he was diagnosed with COVID pneumonia. At that stage, the Delta variant was raging across the country. People of all ages, health profiles, and backgrounds were succumbing to this terrible illness.  Due to strict COVID regulations, neither my mother nor I were allowed inside the hospital. We managed to speak to the treating doctor over the phone, who confirmed the diagnosis and explained that my father, then 71 years old and battling COPD, had a poor prognosis. He would be transferred to the COVID ward for further treatment.  Security told us we could wave to him from the hospital entrance as they moved him. When we saw him being wheeled toward the elevator, oxygen mask strapped to his face, an overwhelming wave of emotion hit us. My mother, my father, and I broke down in tears, realizing this might be the last time we ever saw him. We weren’t even allowed to hug or kiss him goodbye. The staff gave us no time. As the elevator doors opened, he was taken inside. I shouted for him to fight as hard as he could. He nodded. My mother and I stood in the foyer, crying, clinging to one another. We thought it was the beginning of the end. We managed to speak to him via WhatsApp whenever he had the strength. The COVID ward rarely answered the phone, but when they did, staff told us: “He is doing good.” But the truth was far from that. The doctor informed me that the ward was over capacity. Given my father's severe COVID pneumonia, his age, and his COPD, they had to focus attention on patients with better chances of survival.   © The Nutrition Network - 2025

12. 12 #1.8 EARLY COVID-19 TREATMENT – PROOF Testimonial for Dr Ellapen ‘Robert’ Rapiti The next day, my mother received a call from a government doctor. His tone was intimidating and dismissive. He berated our decision, calling it reckless. I told him my father hadn’t died and was eating well. His oxygen readings were improving. The doctor criticized our pharmacy-bought monitor, saying it gave falsely high readings. I replied politely: we didn’t owe him an explanation. We acted in my father’s best interests. That same evening, during a sponge bath, blood sprayed from my father's arm. We discovered he had been discharged with the IV line still inserted. His arm was bruised and sore. We were disgusted.  But slowly, my father grew stronger. He gained weight, relied less on oxygen, and began walking unaided. Six weeks later, he could shower, eat, and move freely. His full recovery took months, but he never looked back. I’m certain—without hesitation—that had we left him in hospital, he would not be alive today. The lack of care was appalling. It pains me to think how many lives might have been saved with proper home treatment.  I can’t thank you enough, Dr Rapiti . You replied to a message from someone you’d never spoken to before. You called me nearly every evening, sometimes at 11 p.m., after caring for your own patients all day. You were under immense pressure, yet you found time for us. You gave us more time with our father. Your kindness restored our faith in humanity. There aren’t enough doctors like you anymore. Thank you for what you did. You will always be remembered and honoured—for your humanity.  Kind regards,  Yvette Testimonial, part II – A Daughter’s Fight for Her Father’s Life   Dr Rapiti said it would be difficult to treat my father while he was still hospitalized. That reply sparked a tiny glimmer of hope. I asked if treating my father at home would be better. He didn’t know the full diagnosis and couldn’t advise discharge, but said he had successfully treated many patients at home.  I relayed all my father’s vital stats—his oxygen levels, blood pressure, and medical history. I also had access to an oxygen machine. When I asked if he’d help me treat my father at home, he replied that he would do what he could. He sent through a script that included blood-clotting injections, Rocephin, cortisone, Ivermectin, and a battery of vitamins and supplements to support the immune system. Before notifying the hospital, I secured the medication. The pharmacy in Paarl was incredible—though some medicines weren’t available, they helped me obtain them from the hospital pharmacy.  The weight of responsibility was crushing. I was now tasked with keeping my father alive, placing my trust in a doctor I’d never met. But I knew I couldn’t leave him there. If he was going to die, it would be surrounded by love—not starvation and neglect. We organized a private ambulance to bring him home, worried about oxygen levels during transport. The doctors at Karl Bremer weren’t happy. One told me bluntly: “If you take him out, he’s going to die.” I said, “If I leave him, he will die alone. At least at home, he has a chance.”  We signed him out and brought him home. He was fed a proper meal. We began the treatment immediately. Those first few weeks were agonizing. My mother bathed him. He needed help walking, even with a mobile oxygen tank. His oxygen level on arrival was 43%. He was too weak to brush his teeth.  © The Nutrition Network - 2025

13. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 13 What evidence sources are important during a public health emergency? Many frontline doctors were censored for sharing early treatment protocols Mis(sing) information! Who merited a platform? 1. Lab scientists and virologists over frontline clinicians? 2. Multinational pharmaceutical companies promoting the mRNA platform over clinicians advocating for low-cost generics? 3. Academic medical experts over physician “outsiders”? Which methods truly merit respect? 4. Randomized control studies over observational studies? 5. The “scientific literature” over empirical results from medical practices? Inside the parameters of official COVID-19 discourse ✅ There was a COVID-19 pandemic from a deadly, novel SARS-CoV-2 pathogen ✅ There was a series of SARS-CoV-2 virulent strains that required a strong public health response ✅ Criticized the South African and international public health response Meme by unknown author (2025?)

14. 14 Scott W Atlas, M.D. is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in Health Care policy at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is a ‘health policy expert with a career steeped in data analysis’ (p.58), who was invited to be the presidential health advisor in July 2020. He had accepted being interviewed for the role due to his concern at US’ failure of leadership in its official COVID-19 policy response. He had previously written two opinions in The Hill (which strives to be a comprehensive source for news from the US Congress): In ‘ Adding to Dr. Fauci’s diagnosis: The critical case for ending our shutdown ’ * (18 th of May), Dr Atlas spotlighted how the US’ total lockdown (not COVID-19) was responsible for catastrophic economic and medical harms. Instead, he argued that the strict isolation policy focused on stopping COVID-19 at all costs, should be replaced with one that are targeted specifically to protect clearly defined, high risk groups. Dr Atlas expanded on this argument via The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation (22nd of April). It foregrounded the five key facts that were ‘being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown’. 1. The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19, 2. Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding, #2.1 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY Dr Scott Atlas argues for the end of the US’ strict isolation policy Atlas, S. W. (2021). A plague upon our house: My fight at the Trump White House to stop COVID from destroying America . Liberatio Protocol, Post Hill Press.  3. Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem, 4. People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections, 5. We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures. * The editor of The Hill asked Dr Atlas to soften the article’s original title from “What Dr Fauci failed to say” out of sensitivity. The Hill wanted to avoid ‘offending’ Google and Facebook through the offence of simply disagreeing with Dr Fauci. (p. 47) © The Nutrition Network - 2025

15. 15 Dr Atlas concluded that the appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, was to institute a more focused strategy: ‘ Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.’ In his first visit to the White House, Dr Atlas was concerned at the ‘simplest indicators’ of PCR testing that was being used in managing COVID-19. By six months in, Scott believed that the government should have rather be understanding ( i ) who was tested, (ii) when they were tested, (iii) what the testing revealed about contagiousness, (iv) and what positive testing meant in terms of action (p. 53). This confirmed to him that the US response was in ‘deep trouble’. This response was primarily directed by the COVID-19 Task Force under Vice President Pence. Its leadership was dominated by the triumvirate of Dr Birx, Dr Fauci (NIH), and Dr Redfield (CDC). #2.2 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY COVID-19 Task Force & President Trump’s contrasting lockdown messaging Their response seemed ‘fixated on lockdowns, school closures and stopping COVID-19 cases, no matter the economic and human costs’ (p.65). The COVID-19 Task Force’s lockdown message was directly contrary to the approach desired by Trump. The White House’s April 2020 reopening guide argued that a ‘long-term nationwide shutdown was not sustainable and would inflict wide-ranging harm on the health and wellbeing of citizens’ (p. 71). As early as March, Trump had stated, ‘The cure cannot be worse than the disease ’ and was eager to reopen the US economy and schools. Dr Atlas’ main goal was to impact policy through devising a set of policies that would minimize the harms of the pandemic- including the harms of the policies themselves (p. 70). He believed that the fundamental principles of public health were being violated by a COVID-19 response that had not evaluated the secondary health effects of harsh lockdown policies. These also failed to protect those most vulnerable to harms- children, the poor and the elderly . At the same time, he was concerned at the confusion created by a national policy message from the Task Force that differed from the president’s message to end lockdowns and apply focused protection for the high-risk. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

16. 16 Dr Scott Atlas criticized the American media as a uniquely unreliable purveyor of information. It had an extremist slant in reporting on all news related to the pandemic that omitted or delayed reporting positive news- such as declining COVID cases, or vaccine development (p. 312). The media created a false narrative about schools with biased news (90% of articles on school re-openings were negative). Was such negative reporting politically motivated, to ‘heighten fear and scandalous incompetence about the Trump administration just a few months ahead of the election?’ (p.313) By standing next to President Trump from August the 10 th in media briefings, Dr Atlas became a mainstream media target for undermining the narrative that the president “doesn’t listen to the science!” As a highly qualified health policy scholar and medical scientist, Atlas espoused policies, backed by evidence, that supported Trump’ policy preference versus business lockdowns and school closures. Questioning the lockdown, or advocacy for limiting its economic and social misery, was viewed as aiding Trump’s re-election ( The Federalist, 2020 ). YouTube and the WHO versus the science against school closures On September 11, YouTube pulled down an interview Dr Atlas had done on Peter Robinson’s Uncommon Knowledge , providing the message that #2.3 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY 1984 meets Cancel Culture, part 1 it “violates our guidelines”. This June Hoover Institution interview focused on the safety of school reopening and the low risk of children from COVID-19. This included the low risk of transmission from them to adults. While YouTube did permit the video to be reposted, it did add the following comment. “YouTube does not allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organisation (WHO) or local health authorities’ medical information about COVID-19, including on methods to prevent, treat or diagnose COVID-19 and means of transmission of COVID-19”. The video’s pull down was just two days after that letter from a group of Stanford faculty was published ( Wall Street Journal editorial , 2020). YouTube censors' criticism of masking Florida Governor Ron de Santis assembled an expert panel on the 18 th of March 2021. Profs Martin Kulldorff , Jay Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta, and Dr Scott Atlas participated in a discussion that was critical about the official COVID-19 response. In particular, the flawed scientific rationale behind the extended lockdowns, outdoor masking, plus masking of children. This panel video was taken down by YouTube through its ‘medical misinformation policy’ (p. 318). DeSantis followed this up with another panel that highlighted Big Tech’s attempts to selectively stop the public from hearing from experts that censors oppose. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

17. 17 Twitter On October 18, Twitter blocked Dr Scott Atlas’ account. The previous day he had posted a thread that questioned the efficacy of masks, listing cities and states where cases surged through masking, and quoting authoritative data , including the CDC, WHO, and Oxford. He also reiterated warnings to observe established mitigation protocols including masking and social distancing, where appropriate. Nonetheless, his message prompted censorship and a temporary ban from Twitter. Dr Atlas was surprised that he was ‘disallowed from stating scientific evidence’ in a ‘free society’ (p.317). Dr Atlas then accepted a Twitter link recognizing his censorship, as a necessary part of his reinstatement. Facebook While Dr Atlas did not explicitly mention examples of Facebook removing his critiques of COVID-19’s origins, masking and lockdowns. However, Meta did implement an aggressive policy coordinated with third-party fact checkers to remove 7 million pieces of content featuring COVID-19 dissent. Such heavy-handed moderation contributed to the indirect censorship of public health advisors like Dr Atlas. Wikipedia An unfairly critical profile ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Atlas ) #2.4 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY 1984 meets Cancel Culture, part 2 alleges he spread “misinformation”, then blocked edits to his profile. This ties into accusations that many Wikipedia editors are tied to the Skeptics movement’s bias versus challengers of scientific orthodoxy. US media – New York Times, Washington Post Disagreeing with Trump in an election year, ensured ‘ near idolatory on cable TV and in the New York Times or Washington Post.’ Dr Atlas claims that his critics on the COVID-19 Task Force sought to delegitimize him in the mainstream media, versus arguing based on the latest literature. A highly unusual Stanford Faculty Senate resolution On November 19, 2020, the Stanford Faculty Senate issued a resolution condemning Dr Atlas’ work as an advisor to the president. Before this appointment, Dr Atlas had given ‘more than one hundred… interviews’ and his op-eds had been ‘ read by millions’ (p. 253). These writings closely matched what Stanford School of Medicine professors Bhattacharya and Ionnidis had independently stated. By singling out Dr Atlas, the ‘political root of the censure was exposed’ (p.254), as he alone stood on the podium speaking to the media and public next to President Trump. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

18. 18 The Hoover Institute’s John Cochrane wrote a critique of the resolution ( johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/09/altas-agonistes.html ), which did not substantiate the claimed “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas” . Senior Fellow Cochrane challenged the resolution’s authors to define Dr Atlas’ opinions and statements that they took issue with. They did not reply. Dr Cochrane wrote that the signatories had artfully slimed ‘a colleague’, leaving ‘ a trail of accusation in the air without actually textually making disprovable statements’ (September 15, 2020). Thus resolution was also highly rare, since it is hard to find a record of the faculty senate of Stanford having "condemned" any statement by a faculty or staff member in its entire history ( Cochrane, 2022 ). This attack of Dr Atlas seemed likely to have a chilling effect on Stanford’s scholars voicing unpopular opinions. Especially those that deviated from campus orthodoxy on policy issues. The consequences of the resolution were also non-trivial in catalyzing email and phone threats to Dr Atlas, who then had to install thousands of dollars of home security equipment in response (p.254), and the police parked a car at his driveway 24/7 (p.255) #2.5 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY From new testing guidelines, back to the old A reversion to the old CDC COVID-19 testing guidelines Dr Atlas argued for focused testing in high-risk areas, such as nursing homes. When a million tests per day are conducted, that interferes with timely results from tests on priority groups. In response, the head of COVID-19 testing, Admiral Brett Giroir agreed with CDC director Robert R. Redfield that the CDC’s guidelines should be revised to engage people with health care knowledge in testing decisions (p.91). Tests should be done when it was needed, ‘not just out of anxiety’. A revised document was prepared with input from the HHS, FDA and CDC that provided clearer guidance for high-risk settings and general public scenarios. It clarified when certain categories of people would “not necessarily need a test” but should consult their doctor. (p. 93) The new testing guidance was posted by the CDC, which provoked an immediate pushback from the mainstream media’s TV talking heads (such as featured on CNN and the New York Times), plus prominent Democrat leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California governors, Gavin Newsom and Mr Cuomo. He stated that they were not going to follow CDC guidance as he considered it to be “ political propaganda” (p.96). A rabid media response falsely claimed that the new guidelines were “published against scientists’ objections”. After a two-week flurry of ‘media hit pieces, political accusations and a © The Nutrition Network - 2025

19. 19 #2.6 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY BBC- ensorship , media control of “COVID-19” truth full-throttle takedown by many public health organisations’, a new testing guidance was posted to CDC’s website, reflecting a 180-degree reversal. It reiterated the old testing guidelines, dovetailing with what critics in the mainstream media, politics and public health organisations desired. (p.100) Directors Birx and Redfield had revised the document, pointing to the power that public perception in the media held to them, ‘over following science and logic’ . International media - BBC interview canceled The BBC originally agreed to interview Professors Jay Bhattacharya, Suntra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff about their meeting with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Honorable Alex Azar and Dr Atlas. Scott facilitated this interview but said he would not participate in it to avoid potential detraction from his ‘radioactive association with the administration’ (p. 227). After months of featuring experts who supported the need for lockdowns, the BBC then told Dr Atlas that they had ‘changed their minds’. The BBC now claimed it would only interview the professors if the ‘other side of the argument was included’. While the meeting itself was media-worthy in showing that the Trump administration was listening to world renowned experts, there was no publicity on it from the US Administration, or the White House. Politics over a genuine science for public health Dr Atlas argued that the continuation of lockdowns was a ‘tragic success’ by those who control information. The public was ‘ manipulated by a powerful combination of elites in politics, academia, media and Big Tech’ (p.324). Fear was cynically used by CNN, Forbes, The Hill, Politico, New York Times, The Washington Post and other MSM echo-chamber collaborators to manipulate people into supporting the maintenance of lockdowns. They promoted the false dichotomy of “choosing the economy over lives” for shaming and intimidating scientists opposing the lockdowns. This coalition’s second strategy was to instill fear and demonize those calling for focused protection with reopening. Such policies were misrepresented using straw man arguments ( eg ‘a “let it rip” strategy’ ) , whose false definitions were argued against. Herd immunity became the most weaponized term against lockdown critics in the pandemic. ‘Casting herd immunity as reckless and dangerous was unethical, but even more effective than simple character assassination for a political purpose’ (p.325). Hanson, V. D. (2024). The Case for Trump (2 ed.). Basic Books, Hachette Book Group. Mercola, J., & Cummins, R. (2021). The truth about COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine passports, and the New Normal (1 ed.). Chelsea Green Publishing. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

20. 20 #2.7 ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE US COVID-19 POLICY Politic optics in the media trumps evidence For months, President Trump’s inner-circle warned Dr Atlas not to “rock the boat” before the election. ‘ They stopped the president from getting rid of people who were grossly incompetent, purely because of the election, solely because the highly visible bureaucrats were viewed positively by the public’ (p. 257). Political strategists’ foci on polling seemed more important than a rational evaluation of lockdowns that were ‘destroying families and children from skipped medical care, generating massive psychological harms, heartbreaking drug and alcohol abuse, and quantifiable lives lost from unemployment’ (p.146). Dr Atlas was shocked that the human cost of the lockdowns never mattered to anyone else on the COVID-19 task force (p.204). Instead, political concerns trumped his advice that focused on ‘minimizing both the harms of the pandemic and the policies themselves, especially to the most vulnerable, the working class, and the poor.’ (p. 259). Dr Atlas’ case is a cautionary tale that bridges many concerns - Medical science and academia can become infected by political polarization, and a desire to censor opposing views. The mainstream media can propagandize “consensus” for harsh restrictions, demonizing dissenters. Scientific discovery can be actively suppressed by bureaucrats, enabled by conflicted politicians, and abetted by Big Tech censorship. After ‘widespread repetition of distortion and lies’ about Dr Atlas’ views on herd immunity put forth in the ‘Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN’ , he started to receive ‘vile, hate filled emails, many that included death threats’ (p.169). He alerted the FBI and White House Security to monitor this situation. Dr Atlas was verbally attacked by unhinged Washingtonians in public, and by Twitter ‘lunatics’ online (p.170) Resignation Dr Atlas resigned from the public health advisor position on the 1 st of December, nearing his term’s end and soon after President Trump’s election defeat. Despite Dr Atlas’ best efforts, the trajectory on mass testing, business lockdowns and educational closures had not shifted. His book suggests that the major contributor to this failure was how the White House, President Trump and his closest advisors were ‘ held hostage by the fear of polling, instead of making the necessary changes to the Task Force.’ (p. 256) Its leader, Vice President Pence feared the media optics of alienating directors Dr Birx and media-personality Dr Fauci. It was alleged that this troika had agreed to resign altogether, should anyone of them be asked to leave their COVID-19 Task Force. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

21. Lockdowns based on the best evidence? Public health experts had a limited role in the COVID-19 response Mis(sing) information! Who merited a platform: 1. Powerful government bureaucrats, and public health policy experts? 2. Mass testing proponents, and its critics? 3. Supporters for mass-masking and social distancing, and advocates for limited application? 4. Proponents for educational closures, and its critics? 5. Advocates for societal lockdowns, and critics who understand the negative impacts, and who argue rather for targeted isolation? Which methods truly merit respect? 6. Reporting on positive COVID-19 cases, or a critical data interpretation of their impact? 7. A case report, or a cross-comparison between states of the impact of measures? Inside the parameters of official COVID-19 discourse ✅ There was a COVID-19 pandemic from a deadly, novel SARS-CoV-2 pathogen ✅ There was a series of SARS-CoV-2 virulent strains that required a strong public health response ✅ Criticized a public health response from the ‘Birx/Fauci/Redfield troika’ ✅ Strongly supported Operation Warp Speed’s development of mRNA vaccines ✅ Strongly supported the rapid roll-out of COVID-19 genetic vaccines Memes by unknown authors (2021/22 ) © The Nutrition Network - 2025 21

22. Rewriting the rules is incredibly difficult, pt I Asymmetry, stack of resistance, time to write, propaganda Huge asymmetry between the resources of dissenters, versus scholars(-for-hire) opponents & allies. Dissidents can face a huge volume of resistance  (a  stack of sanctions  across macro-, meso- and micro social levels) leveraged against them for as long as the orthodoxy needs to silence dissent. The weight of this  sanctions stack  depends on the type of knowledge a dissenter challenges, in a  hierarchy of resistance . Early treatment of COVID-19 may not attract the extreme sanction that contributing knowledge on vaccine injuries would, or daring to argue that vaccines are unnecessary. Dissenters have contrasting durations of resistance in which they can cover the many costs of disagreement, plus how long they can attempt to contribute to the public debate, the scientific literature and changing society’s rules Dissenters ’ proximity to the academic field and time to write shape their opportunities for contributing to the academic literature, whose genre can be a major gatekeeper for busy “outsiders”. The orthodoxy’s strategic communication for The Science™️ in the Health Sciences (AKA  propaganda ) is a major tool for supporting narrative control by suggesting a scientific consensus, as is  censorship .  Both protect  mindshare  for The Science™️. 22

23. Rewriting the rules is incredibly difficult, pt 2 Peripheral, network power, Undone Science Dissidents may have little control of their public perception as it is shifted from a  perceived core   to the  periphery ( a  mutable status  once you’re outside orthodoxy). The options that dissidents have to contribute to policy is also shaped by their  disciplinary centrality  and   the networks they are involved in (e.g. vaccinology, politics) Even so, the discipline and formal networks that health experts are part of, may prove to be relatively uninfluential versus the networks that truly control policy. The targeting of dissidents contributes to a chilling effect and the  internal censorship  of colleagues. Their silence contributes to the public’s perceptions of The Science™️ consensus. At the same time, dissenters could make the lack of consensus more visible by mapping important areas of  Undone Science.  Plus, relating such neglected bias in research priorities and outputs to mapping major examples of  scientific suppression  in particular fields. 23

24. The MEAT versus EAT-LANCET report Defending the planetary health diet’s narrative The ‘Meat vs EAT-LANCET’ report is shockingly inaccurate. It was produced to serve a pre-bunking smear agenda against influential critics of the EAT-LANCET 2025 Committee’s planetary health diet, version 2 (plus the GPPP’s One Health initiative). The Meat vs EAT-LANCET report as a targeted smear - the example of misinformation on Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes travisnoakes.co.za/2025/10/the-meat-vs-eat-lancet-report-as.html Dr Georgia Ede’s line-by-line rebuttal of her “profile” at x.com/GeorgiaEdeMD/status/1974202753464582556 As Dr Zoe Harcombe wisely stated, the report is “the very epitome of misinformation - disinformation indeed - of which it accuses others.” Dr Angela Stanton writes, “this publication is just short of a call for action to get rid of these experts. The mis-influencers are those who actively fight against the EAT-Lancet. In my opinion it is the most shocking and dangerous paper ever published since WW2.” cluelessdoctors.com/2025/10/11/understanding-the-eat-lancet-2-0/ Source: https://changingmarkets.org/report/meat-vs-eat-lancet-the-dynamics -of-an-industry-orchestrated-online-backlash (2025) 24

25. 2 Unanswered questions from the COVID-19 “public health” response (AKA a Global Biodefence Public-Private Partnership’s Chorus Effect) © The Nutrition Network - 2025 25

26. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 26 Following The Science ™ for COVID-19 vaccines ? Thirteen important, but unanswered questions What evidence is there for a contagious virus existing and causing COVID-19? Was there a “pandemic” by any reasonable definition of the term? Is COVID-19 uniquely characterized as a disease? Are there low-cost, early treatments that are highly effective? (case 1. Dr Rapiti ) Why were complete societal lockdowns enforced, despite disagreeing with past recommendations? (2. Dr Atlas) What were the cost-benefits of societal lockdowns, versus targeted lockdowns, or none? (2. Dr Atlas) Was closing schools, places of worship, etc. essential? What alternatives were followed & how did impacts differ? (2 Dr Atlas) What were the social costs to poor, rural children of school closures, and increased parental unemployment? (2 Dr Atlas) Did the mask mandates work, and were they worth their social costs? (2 Dr Atlas) What were the most dangerous “treatments” against COVID-19? Why are vaccine adverse events not well-monitored? What is the long-term safety data for genetic vaccines, and how does it relate to patients’ numbers of boosters? How did the draining of public health resources towards COVID-19 vaccination impact the prevalence of dread diseases? ? ? 26

27. Many freedoms were ignored during COVID-19 which sets a dangerous precedent for future “emergencies” Citizens’ freedoms of speech , movement , association, bodily autonomy and earning livelihoods were over-ridden. Academic freedom was not pro-actively protected by Higher Education, and its stakeholders. Active academic freedom was not evidenced in robust public debates between key opinion leaders. Legitimate dissent was not supported by national organisations to aid scientific innovation. Some physicians did develop innovative protocols but risked formal sanctions and censorship for sharing successes. Most governments did not support key opinion leaders in dissenting from the COVID-19 event. The mainstream press did not cover public health debates fairly (e.g. a range of COVID-19 prevention protocols) Search engine companies did not display both sides of an argument in their top results Online publishers did not give dissenters a fair opportunity to exercise voice in the digital public square. Legal authorities did not enforce laws against cyberstalking to protect dissidents. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 27

28. The COVID-19 response was not a “public health” policy It was a ‘quarantine until vaccination’ biowarfare paradigm Before COVID-19, the guidelines for dealing with an outbreak of a flu-like virus were clear: ( i ) avoid panic, (ii) search for cheap, widely available treatments, (iii) plan to increase healthcare capacity, if necessary, (iv) help local and state medical personnel to identify and treat cases, if-and-when the virus causes serious illness, and (v) to keep society functioning as normally as possible . (p.26) This was the approach used in all previous epidemics and pandemics. The planning documents of the WHO ( 2019 ), US’ HHS ( 2017 ) and EU ( 2005/21 ) countries all reflect these guidelines. Sweden was unusual in following a public health policy, which: created no panic, did not mandate masks, close schools, or enforce lockdowns. In many other countries, the initial COVID-19 response from Departments of Health were taken over by military and national security agencies by Mid-March ( eg USA p.79/90, UK 112/120, Netherlands & Germany, 121/131). Public health guidelines were replaced by a biowarfare paradigm- “quarantine until vaccine”. States of Emergency intended for war/terrorism were declared, even in countries with no reports of COVID-19 cases (p.12-13). Public health plans are switched to a non-stop, whole society lockdown until vaccine approach. This was accompanied by a COVID-19 “health communication” push, plus whole-of-society censorship “for public safety”. Lerman, D. (2025). The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup . Brownstone Institute.  © The Nutrition Network - 2025 28

29. Dual-use defence vs. bio terrorism and natural outbreaks A health security collaboration between biodefence & the GPPP Medical countermeasures to SARS-CoV-2 were rapidly developed, building on the “mRNA vaccine platform” in which a huge amount of money (and hype) had been invested (p.6). This ‘dual use’ endeavor drew on the collaboration of the Biodefence/Pandemic Preparedness Industry, and the Global Public-Private Partnership (GPPP or G3P). Its stake-holders and agents are shown on the right. ’Dual use’ refers to efforts that may serve both military and civilian objectives. Pathogens can be bioweapons, but they can also spread naturally (p.5). Countermeasures from the pandemic preparedness industry can be used against both natural outbreaks and bioterror attacks. After 9/11, biodefence research grew dramatically, supported by governments’ military budgets, and non-profits keen to support the study of pathogens and counter-measures under pandemic preparedness. The civilian side of this research was mostly funded public health agencies and mega-nonprofits interested primarily in vaccine development against natural disease outbreaks. As these were potentially useful against bio-terror attacks too, it was unsurprising that these fields merged into a dual use entity called ‘biodefense’ or “health security”. This symbiotic military/civilian enterprise could attract more funding and exert greater influence than biodefence or pandemic preparedness could have done separately (p.6). National biodefence complex Global biodefence public-private partnership Military/IC bioterror specialists, agencies,and subcontractors, including among others: DARPA, BARDA, DTRA, Army medical research, Research and development command installations (e.g. Ft. Dietrich), ASPR International military and intelligence alliances. Including NATO and Five Eyes, incorporating biodefence specialists, agencies and subcontractors in all member countries Public health agencies and subcontractors, Including among others: NIH, NIAID, CDC International public health and governance bodies including EU, UN, WHO, WEF, with branches, representatives, and subcontractors in all member countries International based scientists and research institutions, journals, and professional associations U.S. scientists and research institutions, journals, and professional associations NGOs/nonprofits International “ philanthrocapitalists ” and their organisations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and their many off-shoots including GAVI and CEPI, with offices and representatives in many countries. Table source - Lerman, D. (2025). The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup . Brownstone Institute.  Page 8. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 29

30. Narrative control as a source of resistance Origins Zoonotic to avoid criticism of ‘gain of function’ biodefence research, plus the associated legal and financial risks of being sued. Maintain Fear Lockdown enforcement across society without exception. Mass testing designed to show millions of positive cases. Mass masking to spotlight ‘others’ as potentially dangerous disease carriers, and increase depersonalization No early treatment Conflicts with the opportunity for GPPP’s international vaccine manufacturers to earn Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for mRNA platform products Protection from legal and financial risk EUA shields vaccine manufacturers from public liability in the nations they are rolled out Narrative control and censorship versus inconvenient questions Raising challenging questions will attract greater sanction While the merging of military and civilian research occurred nationally in the US (2001+), capital and political power ‘was shifting away from nation-states and into global private public partnerships’ (p.6). All the components of the biodefence GPPP represent ‘billions of dollars in funding and financing, thousands of national and international companies, agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs in dozens of countries’ (p.8). It is responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs all over the world. It’s sheer size and control over people and resources make this an entity that is “too big to fail”. As Professor Aditi Bhargava describes, the rapid scaling and public funding for mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic has turned the sector into an indispensable system ( A Shot to Save the World- Did It?, 2022 ). The vaccine enterprise has become over-reliant on a few large players for a globally scalable vaccine supply that are too big to fail ( Sideri , 2024). Sideri , K. (2024). mRNA vaccine politics: responsible governance coordination for vaccine innovation in times of urgency. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1), 2425121. https:// doi.org /10.1080/23299460.2024.2425121 © The Nutrition Network - 2025 30

31. The pharmaceutical industry bankrolls the… Clinical trial scientists Trial committees (ethics, data, etc) Medical journals Editors of med journals, individually Regulatory agencies Those working in the agencies, individually Biomedical research agencies Those working in these agencies, individually Politicians who appoint agency heads, approve budgets, etc Vaccine injury reporting agencies The media The social media companies Medical schools Doctors & specialists Doctors’ professional associations Patient lobby/advocacy groups Health NGOs Government health agencies I call this 'the chorus effect'. Everyone is paid to sing the same tune. How could you discern truth in a landscape like this? There are parallels in other industries - war, oil, media, banking, etc. All this can't be fixed within our present political design. Indeed the design is responsible for it. It won't end with a new President or party. It will end with new democratic architecture. Macgregor, J. (2024). The Mechanics of Changing the World : Political Architecture to Roll Back State & Corporate Power . Worldwork Press.  GPPP stakeholders’ chorus effect for the mRNA platform creates a social echo chamber for an experimental treatment 31

32. 3 Flagging the impacts of powerful resistance to experts Documenting bias & supressed knowledge towards a framework that tackles the institutional constraints versus varied professionals’ contributions © The Nutrition Network - 2025 32

33. Resonance with the field of Resistance studies… marginalised scholars’ challenge to medical science orthodoxy At a small scale, our research explores how individual academic experts from varied fields tried to resist COVID-19 dogma via scholarly contributions . Our project’s aims therefor resonate with those of the field of ‘resistance studies’ in seeking to support intellectual autonomy , oppositional ways of thinking and to combat epistemic injustice. Our research differs from typical resistance studies that spotlight non-violent activism against systems of power, for example the state, or capitalism (Martin, 2025) . Struggles range from large scale ones, like global anti-war protests , to the local level in a workplace go-slow . For example, a study within public health used COVID-19 examples for illustrating how oppositional actions against underfunded systems by frontline workers could improve outcomes (e.g. better wages and PPE) (Essex, 2022). Resistance can include disobedience, insubordination, misbehaviour , agitation, advocacy, subversion , and opposition , all potentially serving as a healthy counterbalance to power. In contrast to resistance that is typically hidden and not politically articulated (Johansson and Vinthagen , 2019) , we focus on cases in which it is readily identifiable. Intellectual dissenters’ tactics will aim to achieve academic and public visibility for their contributions to knowledge, which necessities also raising their profiles by lifting their heads over the parapet. Martin, B. (2025). Where to, resistance studies? Journal of Resistance Studies, 10(2), 5.  Johansson, A., & Vinthagen , S. (2019). Conceptualizing'everyday resistance': A transdisciplinary approach (1 ed.). Routledge. Essex, R. (2022). How Resistance Shapes Health and Well-Being. J Bioeth Inq , 19(2), 315–325. https:// doi.org /10.1007/s11673-022-10183-x © The Nutrition Network - 2025 33

34. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 34 Resistance against COVID-19 dissent within Higher Education Preliminary research – a spreadsheet of cases

35. 35 Understanding resistance versus academic experts who struggled to research and publish in response to the COVID-19 event There is limited information regarding the institutional constraints on professionals who have expressed dissent, at least in communication studies. Such descriptions (Herman & Chomsky, 1988) rarely unpack sufficiently how structural constraints work against individuals. Consequently, an opportunity exists to analyze this negative phenomenon by examining wide-ranging accounts of scientific suppression during COVID-19. This should support the development of a rigorous framing for the obstacles that dissenters encounter in challenging scientific hegemony. Our project will seek to answer these three questions: RQ1 Is there a systematic bias with respect to publication output during COVID-19? A semantic network analysis will explore publication bias. This will describe the featuring of dominant versus dissenting views, as suggested by Liester (2022). RQ2 Did academics feel constrained in terms of what they could research and write about during the COVID-19 event? We will do surveys, plus a content narrative analysis of published accounts concerning COVID-19 censorship. This review focuses on senior scholars’ accounts of resistance to their “controversial” research and sharing of critiques. RQ3 What are the varied direct and indirect constraints that lead to bias for a dominant narrative in medical academia? We will conduct interviews to expand on these cases. At the same time, an ongoing literature review will add theoretical insights regarding the various non-consensual mechanisms at work. © The Nutrition Network - 2025

36. Resistance studies incorporates diverse theoretical perspectives and draws on numerous academic disciplines. A broad, inter-disciplinary focus provides resistance studies the possibility of applying ideas from one domain to another. Resistance studies’ broad focus supports researchers with understanding differences and similarities in authorities’ responses to being challenged. Resistance to power exercised by social justice activists will be very different to that exercised by dominant authorities in stifling social , political and epistemic challenges to The Science™. Our research will explore patterns in such resistance to experts’ contributions. This seems likely be close to the techniques used to stifle the Insulin Resistance model, plus its rationale for low carbohydrate lifestyles! The research team’s preliminary work will look at experts who’ve described attempting to make an academic contribution to formal scholarly publications (esp. journal articles). These experts may be within academia, or outside it, but will have a track-record closely tied to the contributions they wanted to make. From a Professor of risk, Norman Fenton, plus another mathematical expert in probability, Professor Martin Neil, UK’s critique of a “pandemic” ’s existence, to Californian gastroenterologist and entrepreneur Dr Sabine Hazan Steinberg’s concerns over damage to Bifidobacteria post- mNRA vaccination. In South Africa, from doctors providing early treatment on the COVID-19 frontline, such as Dr Shankara Chetty, Dr E V Rapiti and Dr Herman Edeling. And onto Professors Colleen Aldous and Dr Susann Vosloo’s challenging of official COVID-19 guidelines. Understanding resistance from authorities for protecting the COVID-19 medical science orthodoxy © The Nutrition Network - 2025 36

37. Frameworks for understanding resistance to dissent #1 Wolpe's Typology of Internal Challenges in Medicine Paul Wolpe (1994) categorizes resistance to challenges as forms of internal challenges to orthodoxy. This resistance takes place via dissent, rebellion and heresy. These forms of resistance are not distinct and may evolve through escalation: Dissent challenges specific knowledge products (such as disease models or prognoses) whilst adhering to conventional methods (doctors provide early treatment of COVID-19 with low-cost medication) Rebellion targets the profession’s authority structures without questioning core knowledge or methods (doctors share the protocols for early treatment as an alternative to mandated genetic vaccines) Heresy questions the fundamental values and assumptions about how claims are evaluated (doctors who critique genetic vaccines as a public health threat rather than being a protector). Heresy is socially constructed by orthodoxy. Its defenders have the power to define which views are unacceptable and will face marginalization. Wolpe, P. R. (1994). The dynamics of heresy in a profession. Social science & medicine , 39 (9), 1133–1148.  © The Nutrition Network - 2025 37

38. Frameworks for understanding resistance to dissent #2 Delborne's Framework for Scientific Dissent and Suppression Jason Delborne’s (2016) conceptual framework distinguishes between mainstream science (dominant orthodox perspectives) and contrarian science (challenges to those views). Resistance manifests as impedance (efforts to undermine contrarian claims) or outright suppression (extreme violations of scientific norms). Dissent is evidenced through contrarian scientists’ responses, which can either be agonistic engagements (that provide more evidence in a formal scientific debate) or dissident science (politically charged actions that risk professional credibility). The targets of scientific suppression include: Ideas > novel research questions on controversial topics are hindered (research supervisors discourage innovative research, funding agencies avoid non-orthodox programs) Data and results > findings may be manipulated or silenced (editors may reject papers for non-scientific reasons, research sponsors may block data access) Scientists > Individual scholars’ positions credibility are attacked (coerced self-censorship, accusations of bias and threats to withdraw support) Scientific Field > Damaging the legitimacy of an entire discipline (calls are made for defunding research programs that threaten established interests) Delborne , J. A. (2008). Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science, 38(4), 509–541. https:// doi.org /10.1177/0306312708089716 Delborne , J. A. (2016). Suppression and Dissent in Science. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (1 ed., pp. 943). Springer.  © The Nutrition Network - 2025 38

39. Frameworks for understanding resistance to dissent #3 Martin's Classification for Suppression Methods in Science Brian Martin (1999) classifies suppression methods based on power exercises in science, often tied to industry or government interests. These support particular forms of expertise and legitimacy, whilst suppressing others. The latter creates a chilling effect that discourages broader enquiry. The forms of resistance that Prof Martin’s initial framework covers are: Self-Censorship > Scientists avoid controversial topics due to fear Pressure Through Hierarchies > External complaints to institutions requiring scientists to respond Blocking of Scientific Output > Blocking lab access, funding withdrawals, publication denial Stigmatization and Discrediting > Associating dissenters with disreputable elements or public attacks Direct Attacks on Careers > Overt penalties like reprimands, demotions, dismissals and blacklisting Martin, B. (1999). Suppression of Dissent in Science. In W. R. Freudenburg & T. I. K. Youn (Eds.), Research in Social Problems and Public Policy (Vol. 7, pp. 105–135). JAI Press. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 39

40. Frameworks for understanding resistance to dissent #4 Deeper processes that limit new knowledge contributions Critiques of COVID-19 policies (lockdowns, masking, social distancing)? Exploration of rival paradigms (interventions outside of mass vaccination)? Links between official treatments and VAERS, plus other iatrogenic concerns? What is the agenda of powerful funders who presume to know how best to tackle global challenges? (Carnegie Corporation, B&MGF, Rockefeller Foundations) Exploration of relationships between funders and what is funded, versus what isn’t? Socio-political relationships across investors, funding organizations and recipients { Mr Bill Gates, The Rockefeller Foundation, The World Health Organisation , The World Economic Forum, The Open Society Foundation, Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), National governments, Health departments, Regulators, Universities} Missing rival paradigms Undone science Suppression of dissent Censorship Issue of incorporated science Martin, B. (2024). Censorship in Science: Deeper Processes. 13 , 1-5. https://social- epistemology.com /2024/03/06/censorship-in-science-deeper-processes- brian -martin/  © The Nutrition Network - 2025 40

41. Understanding resistance to experts Research outputs & outcomes Research outputs Review article on institutional resistance to dissent Exemplary case study research – hard cases Framework for resistance to dissenting experts’ contributions Three research papers Monograph Outcomes/impacts Identify major problems, and increase awareness of them Policy impact: suggest solutions © The Nutrition Network - 2025 41

42. © The Nutrition Network - 2025 42 4 Credits and gratitude

43. Research credits 43 Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices theme Academic Free Speech focus area investigators Dr Piers Robinson Co-Director at Organisation for Propaganda Studies Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes Dr David Bell Independent public health expert Dr Travis Noakes Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences Cape Peninsula University of Technology Dr Corrie Uys Statistical analyst Infrastructural funder - legal and payments Jana Retief The Noakes Foundation Social media and grant proposals Dr Karen Heath The Noakes Foundation Maritza Hulley The Noakes Foundation Academic support from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology Dr Dirk Bester Faculty Research Coordinator Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences Associate Professor Izak van Zyl Faculty of Informatics and Design 43

44. Presentation prepared for The Nutrition Network ® (Pty) Ltd Copyright © 2025 of The Nutrition Network ® , Cape Town, South Africa. Pty (Ltd) establi5hed in 2017. All rights reserved. All trademarks are used with permission. For requests to use these slides in any manner, contact accounts@ nutrition-network .org The Noakes Foundation logo is a registered trademark. Copyright © 2016–2025 of The Noakes Foundation ®, Cape Town, South Africa. PBO established in 2014. All rights reserved. All trademarks are used with permission. Shushmoji ™ images courtesy of Create With®, Copyright © 2022-2025 of Crafty Pixels CC t/a Create With ® established in 2008. All rights reserved. www.createwith.net For requests to use the images in any manner, email [email protected] Stop, dumb bot! sticker set available on Shopify at create-with-cc.myshopify.com Stop, dumb bot! chat stickers soon available in the Shushmoji app in Android and Apple stores 44

45. 45 Thank you Questions, comments or concerns on this presentation? [email protected] Learn more via https://thenoakesfoundation.org/research/academic-free-speech-and-digital-voices + The Noakes Foundation's Lab for Questioning the Science™ @ researchgate.net/lab/The-Noakes-Foundation-Lab-for-Questioning-the-Science-Timothy-D-Noakes © The Nutrition Network - 2025