Frankly, I think that the editors of the Epoch Times buried the lede on this one. This is a far larger story of government malfeasance than the relatively benign headline seems to indicate. Of course corporate media has completely overlooked <eg. buried> the story. This is yet more evidence of the US Government deploying Fifth Generation (cyber)Warfare/PsyOps/Propaganda technologies on its citizens, in this specific case against US Licensed physicians that contradicted officially promoted false narratives concerning the COVIDcrisis and the abysmal public health policies which were promoted by the WHO, US HHS, and specifically the CDC.
As I have said many times before, how can a democratic society exist when the government is willing and able to deploy fifth generation PsyOps/PsyWar technologies against its own citizens? The concept of personal sovereignty and autonomy becomes obsolete, an anachronism, when this becomes accepted practice.
So now, according to the Epoch Times, we have the CDC Foundation, which receives funding from a wide range of donors (here is a link to the 2022 donor report from the foundation) including the likes of Merck, Pfizer, PayPal, Fidelity, Blackrock, the Imperial College of London, Emergent Biosolutions, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (as in J&J) and so many other major corporate and state donors, has been funding Cyberstalking and "Gang Stalking" of licensed physicians. Cyberstalking is both a federal crime and a crime in many states.
18 U.S. Code § 2261A - StalkingSome background, which is important to understand the corruption that is occurring in the present day:
(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(iv) the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or
(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that —
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.
I am very familiar with the CDC Foundation, having first encountered it decades ago when I was working as Director for Business Development and Project Management for the AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation. AERAS was one of the first wave of "Gatelets"; the non-profit companies set up to receive "donations" from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), so that the BMGF foundation could get the tax benefits of donating to non-profit organizations. AERAS happened to be the one that taught the BMGF how Merck Vaccines does business, as the CEO (Jerry Sadoff) had once been a Director at Merck Vaccines, and had kept the various business and training manuals from that firm which he then brought into AERAS, and then used these corporate manuals to instruct the BMGF in "industry best practices" for vaccine companies.
At a time when I was looking hard for new clients, and I was brought in to this situation as a consultant proposal manager/author/subject matter expert by a Vice President of AERAS to salvage a poorly written grant/contract proposal prepared by an AERAS employee, lets call him "Larry". Larry used to work for the CDC in the tuberculosis group, and still had good contacts there. The tuberculosis research group at CDC had a problem- they could not get authorization for additional staff (full time employees or FTE). They could get money to develop offshore clinical research sites, just not money for additional employees. In DoD federal contracting and Washington DC slang, this is called having an issue of "the color of money".
AERAS had a problem- they needed more money (and legitimization via CDC) to develop clinical research sites in India and South Africa at which the new TB vaccines they were developing (with BMGF funds) could be tested in places where there is a lot of tuberculosis. A deal had been cooked with the CDC so that AERAS would "donate" money through the CDC Foundation to fund the desired additional tuberculosis researchers (FTE) at the CDC. And the quid pro quo was to be that the CDC would "solicit" a proposal from a qualified TB vaccine innovator (written so that only AERAS would qualify) for clinical research site development. The problem was that "Larry" was not able to write a decent federal proposal, his submission had already been judged inadequate once by CDC reviewers, and AERAS was only going to be allowed two shots on goal. So I became the hired gun brought in to write a second version of the proposal. The mission was accomplished, the award was made by the CDC, and the donation was made by AERAS.
And from this, I learned yet another lesson in how DC really works- how this congressionally approved "CDC Foundation" back door actually worked to allow private entities to influence federal public health policy. In the precise way that it was not supposed to work. Just like the Foundation for NIH, which funneled Pharma money into the COVID "ACTIV" clinical trials.
Rules on Gifts in the Federal GovernmentBasically, no-one and no company is allowed to give "gifts" to the federal government because of the risk of resulting conflict of interest (otherwise known as corruption).
Government ethical rules restrict giving and accepting gifts among employees and from outside interests. Policies on exchanges of gifts among employees — as well as on acceptance of gifts or hospitality from other sources — are set by government-wide rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 5 CFR 2635 201-205 and 301-304.
In the case of the CDC foundation and the Foundation for the NIH, these rules have been specifically waived by congress. This allows Pharma and a variety of other interests to do exactly what the law was intended to prevent- to influence federal agency policies and actions by making financial donations.
Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying
Here is some relevant background and definitions from the Cyberbullying Research Center:
Definition of CyberstalkingGang Stalking is a form of Cyberstalking or Cyberbullying. Apparently, unproven accusations of physicians spreading "misinformation" were considered by the CDC Foundation sufficient for engaging in state-sponsored Cyberstalking. What does this weaponized term "misinformation" actually refer to? Misinformation in the context of current public health is defined as any speech which differs from the official statements of the World Health Organization or local health authorities (ergo CDC, FDA, NIH). So, any physician who says, writes or highlights opinions or information which differs from the (current) CDC position is defined as spreading misinformation. Disinformation is such speech which is provided for political purposes.
Cyberstalking involves the use of technology (most often, the Internet!) to make someone else afraid or concerned about their safety. Generally speaking, this conduct is threatening or otherwise fear-inducing, involves an invasion of a person's relative right to privacy, and manifests in repeated actions over time. Most of the time, those who cyberstalk use social media, Internet databases, search engines, and other online resources to intimidate, follow, and cause anxiety or terror to others.
Surprisingly, cyberstalking rarely occurs by a stranger (although we do hear about those cases when they involve celebrities and rabid fans), and most often is carried out by a person the target knows intimately or professionally. For example, the aggressor may be an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend, former friend, past employee, or an acquaintance who wants to control, possess, scare, threaten, or actually harm the other person. In many cases, they have had access to certain personal information, accounts, inboxes, or other private knowledge regarding their target's daily routine, lifestyle, or life choices.
Difference between Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying
We argue that cyberstalking is one form of cyberbullying, especially when considering our definition of the latter ("willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices"). Cyberstalking behaviors may include tracking down someone's personal and private information and using it to make them afraid, texting them hundreds of times a day to let them know you are watching them, "creeping" on their social media accounts to learn where they are so you can show up there uninvited, or posting about them incessantly and without their permission. The common denominator is that the behavior makes the target extremely concerned for their personal safety and causes some form of distress, fear, or annoyance.
Stories of cyberstalking are frequently covered by the mainstream media when famous people are involved (you can find incidents related to Selena Gomez, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, and others with a simple Google search) but media headlines often do not accurately convey the true nature and extent of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, academic researchers have largely neglected studying cyberstalking on a broad scale, and we only have a couple recent national studies from which to draw upon. The cool thing is that their prevalence rates are pretty darn close to another, and I believe paint an accurate picture of how often this is occurring across America.
Malinformation is any such speech which can cause mistrust of the government, even if the information is true. The US Department of Homeland Security has defined mis- dis- and malinformation as a form of domestic terrorism. So apparently federally funded cyberstalking is acceptable when the CDC accuses a licensed US physician of domestic terrorism for the crime of spreading mis- dis- or malinformation concerning COVID public health policies?
Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland (the full bulletin is linked here)Wikipedia and many other sources provide detailed information concerning Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying. I currently have at least five individuals who are actively engaged in Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying me on a daily basis, and I can tell you that it is extremely stressful to both Jill and myself, not to mention the threats from others who are provoked by these people. I refuse to take on the role of a victim, but we are fighting back both legally and by filing complaints documenting the activities with law enforcement, FBI, Substack and Twitter.
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors....The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content.
(1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions;
...
Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:
- The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:
- For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.
- .....
- As COVID-19 restrictions continue to decrease nationwide, increased access to commercial and government facilities and the rising number of mass gatherings could provide increased opportunities for individuals looking to commit acts of violence to do so, often with little or no warning. Meanwhile, COVID-19 mitigation measures — particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates — have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures.
The following is abstracted from the Wikipedia information concerning Cyberstalking:
Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers defines cyberstalking as perpetrated by someone without a current relationship with the victim. About the abusive effects of cyberstalking, he writes that:Distinguishing cyberstalking from other acts
[Stalking] is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect).[7]
There is a distinction between cyber-trolling and cyber-stalking. Research has shown that actions that can be perceived to be harmless as a one-off can be considered to be trolling, whereas if it is part of a persistent campaign then it can be considered stalking.
Cyberstalking is a technologically-based "attack" on one person who has been targeted specifically for that attack for reasons of anger, revenge or control. Cyberstalking can take many forms, including:Identification and detection
- harassment, embarrassment and humiliation of the victim
- emptying bank accounts or other economic control such as ruining the victim's credit score
- harassing family, friends and employers to isolate the victim
- scare tactics to instill fear and more[8]
CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:[10]
When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment and threats.A number of key factors have been identified in cyberstalking:
- False accusations: Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms, or other sites that allow public contributions such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.[11]
- Attempts to gather information about the victim: Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.[12]
- Monitoring their target's online activities and attempting to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.[13]
- Encouraging others to harass the victim: Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
- False victimization: The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him or her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.[14]
On Nov. 12, 2021, five days after the video, Bowden received a text message from the Houston Chronicle that read: "Hi Dr. Bowden, I'm told you've been suspended from Houston Methodist pending further investigation because of your comments on social media. I plan to report that this afternoon but wanted to give you an opportunity to comment."The Anti-Defamation League has recently attacked me as a conspiracy theorist and misinformation spreader for writing about fifth generation warfare, the administrative state, and the Uniparty. In so doing, they have also created a false association between myself, Steve Kirsch, Dr. Joseph Mercola and obscure Neonazis and anti-semites. Based on a recent decision in the Southern District of New York, this type of false association meets the criteria for malicious defamation.
Stunned, Bowden responded that the text was the first she had heard of the suspension.
The suspension turned out to be the tip of the iceberg. Over the following months, Bowden's life was thrown into chaos as multiple social media influencers targeted her. However, the most dogged was a pharmacist named Savannah, who posts under the handle @rxOrcist.
"Savannah has over a million followers. She made a video about me because I have been calling out, online, pharmacists that were refusing to dispense ivermectin," Bowden told The Epoch Times. "The majority of them happen to be Asian. So she, therefore, concluded that I was racist against Asians and called me a 'xenophobic, racist [expletive],' among other things.
"Because she has so many followers, when she makes a video about you, you get an army of people coming after you. A lot of fake people [writing] reviews. That's one of the biggest things. You can't get them removed. I've tried to get them removed, and I can prove that they're not my patients."
Bowden added that she'd been kicked off of TikTok, is on probation on YouTube, had complaints filed against her, and has even been threatened at her office, necessitating that she call security.
In the video, Savannah showed that she reported Bowden to the Texas Medical Board. The board declined to investigate her specific complaints. Still, they are pursuing two other complaints: one filed by Houston Methodist claiming a violation of patient care and one filed by Texas Health Huguley Hospital for prescribing ivermectin.
In the comments of Savannah's video, Tyler Kuhk, a nurse and previous Team Halo member, according to web archives, and who posts under @thatsassynp, wrote, "How these loons still have licenses is beyond me. Why is an ENT even treating COVID?" Savannah is part of a group called Shots Heard, which calls itself a "rapid-response digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the online safety of health care providers and practices." Kuhk is also a member. Savannah joined Shots Heard on Aug. 6, 2020, and Kuhk joined on Feb. 13, 2021.
According to its website, Shots Heard is an initiative under The Public Good Projects (PGP), a "public health nonprofit specializing in large-scale media monitoring programs, social and behavior change interventions, and cross-sector initiatives."
Another of PGP's initiatives is the Public Health Communications Collaborative (PHCC), which sits within the CDC Foundation — a nonprofit arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established by Congress.
The goal of the communications collaborative, according to PGP, is to decrease misinformation and increase vaccine demand worldwide. And it's using social media influencers to silence vaccine detractors.
.....
Since its creation, the CDC Foundation has started more than 1,300 "health protection programs" and raised more than $2 billion in support for the CDC.
One of those health protection programs is PGP partner PHCC, which, according to its website, was formed in August 2020 to "provide unbiased communication about the COVID-19 pandemic." And one of the ways PHCC accomplishes that is by putting out "Misinformation Alerts," which are powered by PGP.
For example, on March 23, PHCC posted on its website that a "well-known anti-vaccine physician" claimed that COVID-19 vaccines caused an increase in miscarriages and stillbirths. It labeled it a "high-risk alert" and recommended "directly addressing and debunking the misinformation."
That "debunking," according to PHCC, includes using a "strong, robust social mobilization" to amplify messages from the World Health Organization and UNICEF, encouraging social media organizations to flag "misinformation," and promoting "trusted pro-vaccine voices."
Enter Shots Heard.
Shots Heard and Team Halo
On its homepage, Shots Heard states, "If you stand up for vaccine science, we'll stand up for you." It includes a link for people to apply to "sign up to defend vaccine advocates." It also provides a link to "Alert the Shots Heard Cavalry," plus a link to a members-only Facebook group, which currently has 1,176 members.
An insider in the group who requested to remain anonymous for fear of being kicked out supplied The Epoch Times with screenshots and messages of the Shots Heard Facebook group.
In one "alert," a Shots Heard member named Bernadine Huff posted, "It's important for all of us to stop the insanity and to call out other healthcare workers that don't believe in science."
She encouraged Shots Heard members to "report" a graduate nurse named Megan to the Ohio Nursing Board for providing information on how to get a medical exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine. The replies from numerous Shots Heard members simply state, "reported."
In another "alert," Shots Heard group administrator Jeff Sykes posts, "Hey Shots Heard, it's been brought to our attention that Dr. Scott Jensen has been using his online platforms to spread misinformation about COVID-19. ... We need your help reporting him."
Shots Heard member Marcia Fiamengo posted, "Need help reporting this group," and linked to a group promoting ivermectin. Among the many who replied was New York's Suffolk County Department of Health account, which wrote, "Reported."
Fiamengo also posted on Dec. 29, 2021, "Fantastic news," and attached a screenshot of Dr. Robert Malone's suspended Twitter account. Shots Heard member Angie Anderson states in the comments, "Ooooh, I just reported a few of his posts yesterday. So satisfying when you see real results."
On March 24, 2022, Fiamengo encouraged Shots Heard members to report Bowden. Again, Suffolk County Health responded, this time with "Done."
On May 2, 2022, Fiamengo again made a celebratory post. This time for an American Frontline doctor's being stripped of all state licenses after prescribing ivermectin. "Wooooo!!!! Another one bites the dust!" she wrote.
Shots Heard doesn't limit itself to reporting single health care practitioners. On Sept. 12, 2021, Shots Heard member Liz Ditz reported a preprint by researchers Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, Allison Krug, Josh Stevenson, and Dr. John Mandrola that found that vaccine-induced myocarditis might be worse than COVID-19-induced myocarditis. Shots Heard members were outraged.
....
Moreover, Shots Heard doesn't limit itself to simply "reporting." When Bowden posted on Twitter, "Are Americans supposed to take this [expletive]? We don't want your shot, and we especially don't want it for our kids," her post was flagged and flooded with Shots Heard member comments.
Such tactics are called "gang stalking," Nicole Sirotek, a registered nurse in Nevada and the founder of American Frontline Nurses, told The Epoch Times.
"[Shots Heard members] make videos about [the offending health care worker] saying they need to be delicensed, then [Shots Heard] followers go and hunt down the nurse and swarm the licensing board," she said.
Sirotek has been the victim of many such attacks from Shots Heard and Team Halo — the two groups share many of the same members.
For example, in December 2022, Team Halo member Jess, who posts under the TikTok handle @jesss2019, doxed Sirotek on TikTok by revealing a previously court-sealed name change. Jess is a "Featured Influencer" for The Health Influencer Council, another PGP project that includes Shots Heard, and This Is Our Shot — a "diverse coalition of health heroes" who engage on social media to combat misinformation and build vaccine trust, according to its website.
An Inside Look
Tyler Hardy, a previous Team Halo member known as "your favorite field epidemiologist" until he ignited a social media firestorm for lying about some of his credentials, told The Epoch Times he's seen both sides of the social initiates.
"I joined Team Halo at the beginning of 2022, in January. I was invited by nurse Jess [@jesss2019]," Hardy said. "I wanted to educate, and that was why I thought Team Halo would be good because it would give me the exposure to do that.
"As I got behind the scenes of these big creators, right, these people like Dr. Cat and Dr. Jon, Jess, @thatsassynp, I learned that they were, pardon my French, just [expletive]. And they let that stardom of being part of Team Halo get to their head."
During his time at Team Halo, Hardy said Team Halo members communicated over a private WhatsApp chat. According to Hardy, any time a Team Halo member disagreed with someone online, they would "just put it in the chat, and then every single person in Team Halo would instantly jump on them, get them fired."
"They would have all of their followers reach out to the nursing boards to basically attack them in several different ways," he said. "And so it was very much a situation where if you didn't support Team Halo, you were part of the problem.
"I mean, Nicole's [Sirotek] entire life was put on display for the world to see because of Jess and Tyler. They posted her car and where she lives. We knew all about Nicole, like in and out, intimate details of her because of what Jess did."
Hardy also said that because Team Halo and TikTok had an agreement, TikTok didn't apply the same community standards to Team Halo members' accounts.
"When you go with Team Halo, you get special privileges," he said. "TikTok lets you basically bully and harass people and do things that other people can't do, and you don't get the community guidelines violations. You get whitelisted."
Congress must act, because this executive branch is out of control, and routinely pursues a strategy of disregarding the Bill of Rights and federal laws in a game of "catch me if you can". The administrators who have authorized these practices need to be held accountable, tried in federal court, and if found guilty must bear the same penalties as any US citizen engaging in cyberstalking should be subjected to.
The US Government should not be allowed to engage in these practices.
Cyberstalking and cyberbullying is both a federal and in many cases a state crime.
The Foundation for NIH and the CDC Foundation must be dissolved. They have created slush funds which the NIH and CDC use for what would otherwise be prohibited or congressionally unfunded activities. The Foundation for NIH and the CDC Foundation enable these executive branch administrative units to engage in what would otherwise be unlawful or prohibited activities.
Comment: See also: