We are living in a day in age where social media “fact-checkers” are patrolling the internet calling into question information, science, opinion and testimony from countless amounts of doctors and scientists, as well as independent media outlets who source this information, simply because it opposes the information that we are getting from the World Health Organization(WHO) for example, or other government health authorities. One great example to illustrate this point is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug, according to many, that can help treat COVID-19 patients.

This idea has been a common theme throughout the pandemic, which begs the question, if it’s true, why wasn’t the drug administered and made available for doctors to use and treat COVID patients during this pandemic? Why was it ridiculed by mainstream media and why did Facebook fact-checkers claim that Hydroxychloroquine was not useful, and possibly dangerous? Facebook fact checker Health Feedback, for example, states that there is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine can cure or prevent COVID-19.

Recent testimony from Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health is one of many, who in my opinion seem to represent a large majority, says otherwise. He provided an evidence based presentation for safe early outpatient HCQ treatment for high-risk Covid-19 patients to reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

Senators and colleagues: thank you for convening this hearing. We all understand the endemic disease that we are facing, that we have to face it head-on and not hide from it hoping that it will go away. I want to give you my perspective.

In May of this year I observed that results of studies of a drug suggested to treat Covid, hydroxychloroquine, were being misrepresented by what I thought at the time was sloppy reporting. We have heard from Dr. McCullough how Covid disease progresses in phases, from viral replication, to florid pneumonia to multi-organ attack. Viral replication is an outpatient condition, but the pneumonia that fills the lungs with immune-system debris is hospitalizable and potentially life-threatening. We have also heard how each phase, each pathologic aspect of the disease, has to have its own specific treatments that apply to its own biologic mechanisms. Thus, I was frankly astounded that studies of hospital treatments were being represented as applying to outpatients, in violation of what I learned in medical school about how to treat patients.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

I reiterate: we are considering the evidence for early treatment of high-risk outpatients to prevent hospitalization and mortality. That is it. Treatment starting in the first five days or so after the onset of symptoms. Treatment of older patients or patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, immune-system diseases, survivors of cancer etc. These are the people most likely to die from Covid, and they are the people most needing protection. I have sought to obtain reports of every study of every medication pertaining to early treatment of high-risk outpatients. I monitor the literature daily. And what I have found is actually quite remarkable. What I have observed is that while there have been positive reports about a number of drugs, every study of outpatient use of one drug, hydroxychloroquine, with or without accompanying agents, has shown substantial benefit in reducing risks of hospitalization and mortality.

These studies break down into two major types. The first is double-blinded, randomized controlled trials, and the second is non-randomized but still controlled trials. You have heard from various government and scientific personalities that randomized controlled trials provide the strongest form of evidence. Many of these people have also claimed that randomized trials provide the only trustworthy form of evidence. There is some truth in these assertions, but there is also lots of falsehood. We know for example that the great majority of drugs used to treat heart diseases were established with non-randomized trials. Cholesterol-lowering drugs were in widespread use before randomized trials were ever done. Azithromycin, the most commonly used antibiotic in children, was not established by randomized trials. The idea that only randomized trials provide trustworthy evidence is a simplistic notion that may sound good in theory, but the comparison between randomized and non-randomized trials is something that has actually been extensively studied in the medical literature. I am an epidemiologist because even though I love biological theories, I develop them all the time to study how nature works, but it is from the human empirical data that we learn how indeed nature works.

And we have huge amounts of empirical data to show that randomized trials and their corresponding non-randomized trials give the same answers. Dr. Tom Frieden, previously Director of the CDC, in 2017 wrote an extensive essay in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that non-randomized trials can provide fully compelling evidence, especially when they are done carefully to account for reasons why patients received the drugs, and importantly, when circumstances are such that the cost of waiting for randomized trials involves major sickness and mortality as we have been experiencing this year. But Dr. Frieden’s essay, as authoritative as it is, provides only snapshots of the empirical evidence for his observations. The real evidence comes from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses done by the Cochrane Library Consortium, a British international organization formed to organize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions. The Cochrane investigators examined what involve tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found that the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions. This is the real evidence about why good non-randomized trials comprise evidence every bit as important as randomized trials. Large amounts of consistent empirical data are the evidence, not plausible but simplistic assumptions, no matter who says them.

So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.

About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil; 199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226 nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled trials that have been published.

Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.

We have spent the last six months with formal government policies and warnings against early outpatient treatment, with large government investments in vaccines and expensive new treatments yet to be proven and almost no support of inexpensive but useful medications, and a quarter of a million Americans have died from this mismanaged approach. Even with newly promising vaccines, we have almost no information about how they will perform in older and high-risk patients, in whom respiratory virus vaccines are known to have weak efficacy; it will be a number of months before they become widely available; and we don’t know how long vaccine immunity will last, or even if the vaccines will work for the newly increasing mutant strains of the virus. As I have said on many occasions, the evidence for benefit of hydroxychloroquine used early in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong, and the evidence against harm is also equally strong. This body of evidence dramatically outweighs the risk/benefit evidence for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies or the difficult to use bamlanivimab that the FDA has approved for emergency use authorizations while denying the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. This egregious double standard for hydroxychloroquine needs to be overturned immediately and its emergency use authorization application approved. This is how we will get on the road to early outpatient treatment and the major curtailment of mortality. Thank you.

Why This Is Important: The thoughts shared above have been a common theme throughout this pandemic. For example, Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19. In an interview with KABC-TV, Cardillo stated:

Every patients I’ve prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free…So, clinically I am seeing a resolution…We have to be cautious and mindful that we don’t prescribe it for patients who have COVID who are well, he said. “It should be reserved for people who are really sick, in hospital or at home very sick, who need that medication. Otherwise we’re going to blow through our supply for patients that take it regularly for other disease processes.”

According to Cardillo, it’s the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine that does the job. “[Hydroxychloroquine] opens the zinc channel” allowing the zinc to enter the cell, which then “blocks the replication of cellular machinery.”

This was also hinted to by the testimony from the Yale professor.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a board-certified family practitioner in New York, said in a video interview that a cocktail of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc Sulfate and Azithromycin are showing phenomenal results with 900 coronavirus patients treated.(source)

These are just a few examples out of many. The issue is that these opinions and this type of evidence and testimony was blocked and censored by various social media outlets, and deemed “fake news.”

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. –  Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH

This has also recently been emphasized by Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

Concluding Remarks: We are at a point in time where decisions made by the government, which are supposedly done in our best interests, are completely influenced by powerful corporations that seem to dictate government policy in some sort of way. This has been a problem for quite some time, and combined with big tech this ‘medical industrial complex’ is able to influence the thoughts, minds, perception and overall consciousness of the masses when it comes to COVID and various other topics.

Do governments really execute the will of the people? When will we draw the line? Is it really justifiable for people who don’t get vaccinated to lose their rights and freedoms they were accustomed to prior to the pandemic? Why are so many doctors and scientists who oppose these measures being censored and unacknowledged?

COVID-19, just like 9/11, is forcing more people to ask questions about how our world really operates and whether or not governments actually execute the will of the people.

At the end of the day we have to ask, why are controversial topics so poorly covered and ridiculed by mainstream media? Why do so many of us have so much trouble looking at new information, especially information that contradicts what we believe and have been made to believe? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and effective if we are clam, centered within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?

What Happened: The Canadian government has announced that it’s implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines. According to the government, the program “will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.”

This means that people who are vaccinated to protect themselves against COVID-19, or vaccinated for any other disease and experience an adverse event or injury after the immunization, will be eligible for compensation.

This program is a “no-fault” program, meaning the vaccine manufacturer (pharmaceutical company) nor the government will be held liable for the vaccine injury. It’s is similar to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created by the United States in 1986, which is now referred to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program has paid approximately $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children, while shielding pharmaceutical companies from any wrongdoing. The funds come from taxpayer money.

Health Canada claims that they approve vaccines after reviewing scientific evidence that shows the benefits outweigh the risks. According to Health Minister Patty Hajdu, “Canadians can have confidence in the rigour of the vaccine approvals system, however, in the rare event that a person experiences an adverse reaction, this program will help ensure they get the support they need.”

The federal government also says that the chances of someone experiencing a truly serious adverse reaction after vaccination are “extremely rare – less than one in a million.”

This is a comforting thought, but no statistics or data were given to back up this claim, and it’s also a clam that’s made by the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) in the United States with no evidence provided either. These claims have been heavily debated by many. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States cause injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim.

The main doctors involved with the study were Michael Klompas, M.D. and Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci.

Klompas is a Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Lazarus was a Harvard Medical School professor for 11 years, and was a professor there during this pilot study.

Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference.

If we look at examples from individual vaccines themselves, there is also some confusion. For example, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

Why This Is Important: Information about vaccines is important especially in a time where, at least it seems, vaccines are going to be mandatory in order for some people to work, travel, go to a concert or the cinema and more. A lot of people are asking if this is justified, as it is not blatant mandatory vaccination measures, but rather a way of mandating a vaccine in another form that will take away some of the rights and freedoms that people were used to prior to the pandemic.

There are a number of concerns many doctors and scientists are raising about vaccines, and have been raising about vaccines for quite some time. Here’s one example I recently wrote about, out of many.

It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, and it’s one of many to do so.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project.

According to her.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

The point is that there is information on both sides of the coin, information that sometimes completely contradicts what we often hear from mainstream media. The strange thing is that the points made by vaccine safety advocates and informed-consent supporters remain completely unacknowledged by mainstream media, and as a result a large portion of people are completely unaware of these concerns.

Why does mainstream media always use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” and ridicule?

A paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social democracy titled, “Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State Pharma Nexus” by Professor Paddy Rawlinson from Western Sydney University may provide the explanation.

What Happened: Update: According to Children’s Health Defense, Brandy Vaughan passed away due to gallbladder complications, a medical issue that she privately struggled with throughout 2020. We will continue to provide more updates as/if more information becomes available.

2nd Update: I have been in contact with a close friend of Brandy. According to her, she was find, ate a lot over thanksgiving and seemed totally healthy. Apparently it was a sudden death that happened out of nowhere.

“A great friend, amazing warrior, and loving mom, Brandy Vaughan of Learn The Risk has passed. Please send your prayers for her 9 year old son, her dogs, her cats… Her son was her world. Her son is in safe hands currently. We don’t have many answers yet — please try to avoid engaging in rumors out of respect to her and her son. Thanks to all who have been reaching out to offer condolences, and asking for ways you can help. We are so deeply saddened by this news.” –  Tina Maria, close friend, via GoGetFunding Campaign to find out what happened. This was one of Vaughan’s requests if she were to be found deceased, more on that later in the article.

“It is with such a heavy heart that I list yet another activist found dead, and this time it is my friend and colleague, Brandy Vaughan, the founder of the well-known non profit Learn The Risk. She was found dead by her son who is a minor.” – Erin Elizabeth, founder of Health Nut News.

Tragedy has struck in the alternative/independent media world as Brandy Vaughan, a well-known drug, health & vaccine safety advocate, and former Merck (pharmaceutical company) representative, was found dead in her home leaving behind a nine year old child who found her. This information comes from multiple friends of Vaughan across social media outlets, as well as Facebook itself, having now posted a note atop her Facebook page.

Little is known about her death right now.

Vaughan was the founder of learntherisk.org, a website/non-profit organization that created awareness about the dangers of various pharmaceutical drugs and concerns that many scientists and doctors have been raising about vaccines.

Her background, working for pharmaceutical giant Merck, inspired her to do the incredible and brave work that she did. She was a legend and worked extremely hard with enormous amounts of passion and determination. While working in the pharmaceutical industry she sold Vioxx, a painkiller that was found to double the risk of stroke and heart attacks and was eventually taken off the market as a result. “From that experience, I realized that just because something is on the market doesn’t mean it’s safe,” explained Vaughan. “Much of what we are told by the healthcare industry just simply isn’t the truth.”

Her organization created awareness in a very credible way. She gathered countless doctors and scientists from around the world and archived published peer-reviewed research outlining the concerns being raised in the scientific community about various drugs and vaccines.

Her organization reached millions of people globally every single month on social media, and tens of thousands through her website alone. They posted 38 billboards which reached over 30 million people, and they have hosted over 30 campaigns and rallies in the past two years. They’ve produced videos and educational materials that reach over 1 million people, and did educational talks and events worldwide.(source)

We are actively changing the conversation around vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry, which should never be trusted with our collective health (source)

She Was Worried: One chilling factor about her death remains, and that’s the fact that she was concerned that she was going to pass away. On December 1st 2019, she wrote the following on her Facebook Page:

The post I wish I didn’t have to write…

But given the certain sudden tragedies over the last couple of years, I feel it’s absolutely necessary to post these ten facts…and please screenshot this for the record

I’ve NEVER had any thoughts of taking my own life, not once, ever. Even before I had my son.

I have a huge mission in this life. Even when they make it very difficult and scary, I would NEVER take my own life. Period.

Bastien means everything to me and I would NEVER leave him. Period. I have sole custody and he needs me as much as I need him. I would NEVER think of leaving him for a second.

I have NEVER been on an antidepressant nor been diagnosed as depressed – don’t believe it if you ever hear anything like this.

I’ve NEVER taken a daily pharmaceutical drug. And I haven’t taken any pharmaceuticals in 10 years (and ten years ago it was one pill, one day). Nothing over the counter, nothing by prescription. In other words, I’m not on anything that could kill me unexpectedly or suddenly. I’ve never done illegal drugs either. Not even once.

There’s no way anyone could get into my house, no robbers, no angry exes (which I don’t have btw), no fanatical people – my house is like Fort Knox…unless it was someone super professional. It just wouldn’t be possible for anyone without highly special equipment and tactics (I.e. remotely taking down my high-level security system, which they have done before, unfortunately). But my place is also highly secure in a hard-wired kinda way. So even if the power was out, most people could still never get in.

If something were to happen to me, it’s foul play and you know exactly who and why – given my work and mission in this life. I’m also NOT accident prone. And I got the highest health rating possible when I went through a battery of medical tests a couple of years ago for my life insurance policy. 

If something were to happen to me, I have arranged for a close group of my friends to start a GoFundMe to hire a team of private investigators to figure out all the details ( I have the team and have passed the info on to them). Oh, and money for a PR firm to make it national news. There would be a press release sent to every journalist in this country (and more). It would not be swept under the rug, and it would be their worst nightmare.

There have been many on this mission or a similar one that have been killed and it’s time this bullshit stopped. The darkness cannot win. I will never stop speaking out for those who no longer can. Even if from the other side, where I image I would be FAR MORE powerful.

I have a team of angels surrounding me every step of this journey, but prayers of protection and love are ALWAYS appreciated

You can access the funding page, here as she mentions in her Facebook post above. 

In a video she made years ago, she outlines the covert intimidation she experienced and has been experiencing for quite a while. It’s quite disturbing and chilling, and as she emphasizes in the video, it was quite scary.

Here’s a recent Facebook post by her best friend, mentioned near the beginning of the article, so we’re not sure how long this video will be up.

Closing Remarks: Little has been made public about her death, or how and when exactly she died, and she is not the first. There are still many unknowns and we will provide updates as more information emerges. Many mysterious deaths have plagued the alternative media/health community over the years, especially when it comes to holistic doctors.

Vaughan was one of many to create awareness about issues, especially concerns about vaccine safety, in a credible way. It’s one thing we pride ourselves on doing here at Collective Evolution. Despite presenting information from credible sources, renowned scientists and peer reviewed publications, concerns raised by vaccine safety advocates are often labelled as “conspiracy theories.” Anybody who presents any type of information that raises any type of concerns about them is always referred to as an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist” while the concerns they raise are never really properly addressed nor countered. This happens to doctors and renowned scientists publishing research all over the world, yet their concerns, again, continue to remain unacknowledged and ridiculed by the mainstream.

Why does this happen these days with so many controversial topics? What’s going on here? Here’s one topic on the issue, out of many, that is a great example of what I am talking about.

Our sincerest thoughts go out to all of her family and friends, we will continue to do what she would want all of us in this space to do, keep going.

I’d like to leave you with this quote to reflect on, taken from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.