Everett Chiropractic Center Blog

Bellingham Herald@BhamHeraldGas prices broke records in September. Which WA counties have cheapest options?bellinghamherald.comGas prices broke records in September. Which WA counties have cheapest options?

Story One: Why Is Gas Cheaper in Ferry County Than in Seattle?

Synopsis: Why would gas cost less in a remote county far from any refinery?

The Bellingham Herald reports gas prices broke records in September, yet little Ferry County, served only by trucks, has some of the lowest prices in the state. Dangerous Rhetoric points to tribal stations: under Senate Bill 5272 (2007), tribes with fuel tax compacts collect the full 37.5-cent state gas tax, but the state refunds 75% of it, about 28 cents a gallon, and some tribes, like the Yakama Nation, are exempt entirely. “Just imagine if this tax reduction was given to YOU, Western WA.”

Chris Martz notes prices have risen everywhere since the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz blockade, but blue states still run higher, mostly because of gas taxes and rules like California’s cap-and-trade.

Washington drivers are asking why Olympia isn’t suspending gas taxes the way Georgia did. Nationally, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calls his power-sector rollback the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history, worth more than $300 billion, and promises oil and gas relief to lower prices at the pump.

The U.S. Oil & Gas Association says taxpayers have paid environmental groups more than $20 million since 2013 to sue the government and settle, and Bjorn Lomborg notes Europe closed 30 refineries and now has record-high diesel.

Supporters of climate rules say they push cleaner fuels. Supporters of common sense say there is no climate crisis to justify “going green,” and families shouldn’t have to pay for it at the pump.

From the Bookmarks:

Bellingham Herald: “Gas prices broke records in September. Which WA counties have cheapest options?”

11:00 AM · Oct 5, 2026 · 249 Views1 Reply · 1 Like

Dangerous Rhetoric on Ferry County: the state refunds 75% of the gas tax to compact tribes, “approximately 28 cents per gallon.”

Dangerous Rhetoric@nancydchurchillHow weird. According to this report, little Ferry County, which is far, far, far from refineries and railroads and only serviced by trucks running on expensive diesel… we have some of the lowest gas prices in the state? Perhaps gas price is also influenced by local property…

Bellingham Herald @BhamHeraldGas prices broke records in September. Which WA counties have cheapest options? https://t.co/kunPorpsuH7:15 PM · Oct 8, 2026 · 48 Views2 Reposts · 1 Like

Chris Martz: red-state vs. blue-state gas prices “primarily boil down to gas tax rates.”

Curt J: “States are removing gas taxes to help their economy and working people. Are house Dems considering this here in Wa.?”

Curt J@TherealCurtJGas prices are coming down. $4.36 per gallon nationwide avg. States are removing gas taxes to help their economy and working people. Are house Dems considering this here in Wa.? Are dems trying to destroy our economy? @JimWalshLD19 @Susan_Dupresnbcnews.comTracking U.S., state and county gas prices, in maps and charts

7:20 PM · Oct 5, 2026 · 127 Views3 Replies · 1 Repost · 7 Likes

Lee Zeldin: “The LARGEST POWER SECTOR DEREGULATORY ACTION in U.S. history, with over $300 BILLION in savings.”

Lee Zeldin on new oil and gas relief “LOWERING PRICES AT THE PUMP.”

Lee Zeldin@epaleezeldinI was just in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where I spoke @NMOilAndGas about the Trump EPA’s work UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY. In the upcoming days, we will release a significant proposal to provide regulatory relief for America’s oil and natural gas producers, including small and…8:45 PM · Oct 7, 2026 · 8.75K Views25 Replies · 100 Reposts · 349 Likes

U.S. Oil & Gas Association: “Since 2013, taxpayers have paid environmental groups more than $20 million to sue the federal government and then settle.”

Bjorn Lomborg: “Self-inflicted: Europe closed 30 refineries 2009-24. Now diesel is record-high compared to oil prices.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright on refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: “We give you a barrel today, you give us one and a quarter barrels back.”

Why Is Gas Cheaper in Ferry County Than in Seattle?

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. If you find The Roundup helpful and want to and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Story Two: Microsoft Suspended From the Green-Card Program

Synopsis: Should a company that lays off Americans keep sponsoring foreign workers for green cards?

Vice President JD Vance announced Thursday that Redmond-based Microsoft is suspended indefinitely from the Labor Department’s PERM program, which lets employers sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency. Vance said Microsoft laid off about 6,000 American workers last year while benefiting from 6,300 H-1B visas and nearly 3,000 green cards, and said no company has abused the system more. Adobe and six IT outsourcing firms were also suspended.

Workers keep their current H-1B status. Microsoft told reporters that most of its U.S. employees are Americans and that 80% of its H-1B applications last year were to extend or change the status of existing employees, not to hire new people.

Separately, the Labor Department’s inspector general launched a J-1 visa investigation of major universities. Supporters say American workers should come first. Microsoft says it follows the rules and pays some of the highest wages in the industry.

From the Bookmarks:

Beth Dutton: “6,000 laid off. 6,300 H-1B visas. Nearly 3,000 green cards. Redmond. … That’s a suspension. Not a conviction.”

Eric Daugherty quoting Vance: “NO company has abused this more than Microsoft.”

Labor Department Inspector General: “Break the law and screw the American people, and I will personally cuff you in the university square.”

Eric Daugherty on the J-1 probe: subpoenas served on nine schools, including Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and MIT.

Microsoft Suspended From the Green-Card Program

Thanks for reading The Roundup!

Please like, comment or share to help this newsletter reach a wider audience!

Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.

We’re grateful for your support!

Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

✍🏻 Federal Register: Activities To Reduce Homelessness

Do you have thoughts on the Housing First and the addiction crisis?

Be sure to make a comment on the Federal Register 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Influencing Olympia Effectively

A Notice by the Housing and Urban Development Department on 09/11/2026…

a day ago · 1 like · 1 comment · Nancy D Churchill

You’re currently a free subscriber to Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Leave a Comment

JFK 1961

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 2:25 pm

All those years ago, JFK knew. And he said it out loud. No wonder he was assassinated. Listen to this speech. He lays it out precisely & it is exactly what we are still facing today.

“We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.”

Read that again. Monolithic. Ruthless. Conspiracy.

This wasn’t some fringe radio host. This was the sitting President of the United States, on live television, telling the American people that a shadow network of power — operating through intelligence agencies, media complicity, and institutional capture — was working against the republic itself.

And then he said the quiet part out loud:

“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Sound familiar?

This is why I track and share information from the Promethean Action Group, FYI. It is not just communism.

Leave a Comment

Friday Funnies: 450 Degrees

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 11:44 am

and rising

DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 9

Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it via email, social media, or crosspost!

Financial security brings independence, peace of mind, and the freedom to make choices without constantly worrying about paying the bills. Debt, particularly high-interest debt, can become a trap that limits those choices and leaves families vulnerable when hard times come.

Living within your means, paying down debt, and building savings are not just sound financial practices. They are essential steps toward personal freedom and self-reliance.It is remarkably easy to spend your entire life chasing things that ultimately bring very little happiness.

We are taught to measure success by income, possessions, status, and others’ approval, yet rarely stop to consider what all that striving is costing us. There is nothing wrong with hard work, ambition, or financial security, but somewhere along the way, the pursuit of more can become a trap.

A bigger house means more expenses, a higher salary often means more responsibility, and the freedom we thought we were working toward keeps slipping further away.

Real wealth is having control over your own time, being present for the people you love, maintaining your health, and finding satisfaction in the life you have built.

There is a profound difference between making a living and actually living. And in the end, no amount of money can buy back the years spent pursuing things that never really mattered.

JGM

You’re currently a free subscriber to Malone News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Leave a Comment

Thunderbird Tai Chi Championship Announcement

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 8:44 am

Leave a Comment

October 8, 2026

The Roundup for Thur Oct 8, 2026

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 3:01 pm

The best of Washington State News on X: Seattle taxes up 172%, A governor’s promise, Girls walk off the line

OCT 8

Jason Rantz on Seattle Red@jasonrantzSeattle taxes jumped 172% since 2013 while population grew just 31%, new report findsseattlered.comSeattle taxes up 172% since 2013, far outpacing growth

Story One: A Revenue Problem or a Spending Problem?

Synopsis: Is Washington short on money, or spending too much of it?

A new report finds Seattle’s taxes grew 172% from 2013 to 2025, while population grew 31% and jobs grew 23%. Vijay notes the city’s collections went from $900 million in 2013 to $2.8 billion in 2026 and asks whether any service got better.

Now King County is adding a new countywide sales tax: the County Council passed it 6-3 without a public vote, and starting Jan. 1, 2027, it is expected to raise about $10 million a year for shelter, rental assistance, and family support, pushing Seattle’s sales tax to 10.56%.

At the state level, Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center says spending outside K-12 has grown nearly three times as fast as school funding since 2019, accounting for nearly three-quarters of budget growth. Supporters of the new county tax say rising family homelessness and limited shelter space demand more funding. Critics say families are already paying some of the highest costs in the state, and Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

From the Bookmarks:

Jason Rantz: “Seattle taxes jumped 172% since 2013 while population grew just 31%, new report finds.”

1:48 PM · Oct 7, 2026 · 4.69K Views26 Replies · 90 Reposts · 294 Likes

FOX 13 Seattle: taxes grew 172% between 2013 and 2025, “compared with 31% population growth and 23% employment growth.”

FOX 13 Seattle@fox13seattleThe report found that Seattle taxes grew 172% between 2013 and 2025, compared with 31% population growth and 23% employment growth.fox13seattle.comReport: Taxes in Seattle have grown 5 times faster than population

5:15 PM · Oct 5, 2026 · 90.9K Views142 Replies · 201 Reposts · 785 Likes

Vijay: “Yet is there anyone who believes that a single service got better in Seattle?”

Vijay@VijayInWA”Seattle’s tax collections more than tripled from $900 million in 2013 to $2.8 billion in 2026, outpacing population growth by over five times.” Yet is there anyone who believes that a single service got better in Seattle? Did school outcomes improve? Did crime go down?

FOX 13 Seattle @fox13seattleThe report found that Seattle taxes grew 172% between 2013 and 2025, compared with 31% population growth and 23% employment growth. https://t.co/ukMwaBdtga2:22 AM · Oct 6, 2026 · 50.8K Views53 Replies · 219 Reposts · 2.19K Likes

Beth Dutton: “King County just raised your sales tax. You didn’t get a vote.”

Future 42 lays out Ordinance 2026-0086.2, a new 0.01% countywide sales tax for shelter and housing.

Ryan Frost: “Lawmakers need to explain why the rest of state government costs $21 billion more per biennium than it did just six years ago.”

Matt McIlwain: “WA has a spending problem not a revenue problem.”

Matt McIlwain@mattmcilwainwhy voting Yes on I-645 is so important. WA has a spending problem not a revenue problem. state income tax not till 2028 and we already have MASSIVE tax increase.geekwire.comSeattle’s tax burden shifted to business as jobs slipped away, new report finds

7:40 PM · Oct 5, 2026 · 1.79K Views7 Replies · 32 Reposts · 145 Likes

Rip Wheeler on a three-day rental car: “That $149.94 rental became $186.06.”

A Revenue Problem or a Spending Problem?

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. If you find The Roundup helpful and want to and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

GeekWire@geekwireOpinion: Washington’s new state income tax must be repealedgeekwire.comOpinion: Washington’s new state income tax must be repealed

Story Two: Can a Governor’s Promise Protect Your Paycheck?

Synopsis: If the governor promises to protect the $1 million threshold, does that settle it?

Gov. Bob Ferguson says he’ll veto any lower threshold or higher rate while he’s in office, but Vote Yes 645 points out that lawmakers rejected writing those limits into the constitution, and future governors aren’t bound by today’s promises.

Brian Heywood highlights Sen. Manka Dhingra, a prime sponsor of the tax, who he says once wrote on her campaign website that a progressive income tax is unconstitutional; asked by KIRO 7 whether people might leave, she compared the tax to fee increases at Amazon and Netflix.

A GeekWire op-ed says the new income tax must be repealed, and the Citizen Action Defense Fund says its court challenge will be heard Feb. 5, 2027.

The ballot also carries five state Supreme Court seats, including Position 5, where Ferguson appointee Theo Angelis faces Judge Dave Larson. Supporters of the tax say it only reaches the very top. Critics say voters have rejected an income tax ten times in 93 years and should get the final word.

From the Bookmarks:

Vote Yes 645: “Future governors aren’t bound by today’s promises.”

Brian Heywood on Sen. Manka Dhingra: “on her campaign website until just earlier this year she asserted that a progressive income tax is unconstitutional.”

GeekWire: “Opinion: Washington’s new state income tax must be repealed.”

4:51 PM · Oct 7, 2026 · 28.4K Views21 Replies · 67 Reposts · 360 Likes

Citizen Action Defense Fund: “The fight over Washington’s income tax heads to court on February 5, 2027.”

Viet Nguyen: “WA voters have rejected state income taxes 10 times over the last 93 years.”

PNW Conservative: under Janus v. AFSCME (2018), Washington public employees can opt out of union membership and dues.

PNW Conservative@PNWConservativeIt should be noted that Washington law allows public employees to opt out of union membership. U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) gave employees the option to opt out of membership and paying the outrageous dues, which are just a money laundering scheme for

The Center Square Washington @TCSWashington5,000 Washington public employees left their unions last year. With dues often $1,000 or more a year, many not wanting to fund politics they disagree with.7:39 PM · Oct 7, 2026 · 5.07K Views15 Replies · 70 Reposts · 257 Likes

King County GOP on Supreme Court Position 5: Ferguson appointee Theo Angelis vs. Judge Dave Larson and his “18 years of proven judicial experience.”

Can a Governor’s Promise Protect Your Paycheck?

Beth Dutton@1BethDuttonTwo 16-year-old girls walked off the line in Camas rather than race a boy. Initiative 638 is the November vote. Yes keeps boys off the girls’ team. They shouldn’t have had to choose.

Story Three: Girls Walk Off the Line in Camas

Synopsis: What should a 16-year-old girl do when she’s told to race a boy?

Beth Dutton reports two 16-year-old girls in Camas walked off the starting line rather than race against a male runner. Five female athletes who say they faced male competitors or shared locker rooms with them spoke out in Vancouver ahead of the vote, the Columbian’s Matt Calkins reports.

Brandi Kruse is urging Washington voters to vote yes on I-638, and John Braun says Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has voted against policies that would keep men out of women’s sports. Supporters of I-638 say girls shouldn’t have to choose between competing and fairness.

From the Bookmarks:

Beth Dutton: “Two 16-year-old girls walked off the line in Camas rather than race a boy. … They shouldn’t have had to choose.”

Brandi Kruse @BrandiKruseSierra and Charlie are breaking their silence. The 16-year-old cross-country runners chose to WALK OFF the starting line rather than race a biological boy from Camas, Washington.1:15 AM · Oct 8, 2026 · 7.11K Views50 Replies · 152 Reposts · 897 Likes

Matt Calkins: “five female athletes who have faced biological males in sports and/or shared a locker rooms with them spoke out in Vancouver.”

Matt Calkins@Matt_CalkinsAhead of a historic vote in Washington state, five female athletes who have faced biological males in sports and/or shared a locker rooms with them spoke out in Vancouver.foxnews.comWomen who faced biological males in girls’ sports and locker rooms speak out ahead of Washington state vote

2:21 PM · Oct 6, 2026 · 27.9K Views16 Replies · 99 Reposts · 764 Likes

Brandi Kruse: “Vote YES for girls and for common sense.”

Brandi Kruse: “Gee, which one is the boy?”

John Braun on Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: “She campaigns like a moderate and votes like a liberal.”

Thanks for reading The Roundup!

Please like, comment or share to help this newsletter reach a wider audience!

Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.

We’re grateful for your support!

Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Leave a Comment

The Roundup for Wed Oct 7, 2026 (Trump Accounts)

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 2:39 pm

The best of Washington on X: A wrestler goes to the Supreme Court, $1 million per household, Watching the count

NANCY D CHURCHILL OCT 7

Rip Wheeler@WheelerRipWAThe weak minded half boys take scholarships, accolades, and pride away from these amazing girls. When will the experiment end? A Camas High School athlete raced on the boys’ cross country team, then switched to the girls’ team mid-season and is now ranked second among female…3:14 AM · Oct 7, 2026 · 480 Views6 Reposts · 17 Likes

Story One: Who Protects Washington’s Girls on the Mat?

Synopsis: Should a 15-year-old girl have to wrestle a boy without anyone telling her?

Kallie Keeler, a Washington teen wrestler, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order after a federal judge and the Ninth Circuit refused to stop officials from matching her against male athletes this season.

She alleges a trans-identified male opponent sexually assaulted her during a December 2025 girls’ match, and she and her mom say no one told them the opponent was male.

Closer to home, posts describe a Camas High School runner who switched from the boys’ to the girls’ cross-country team mid-season and is now ranked at or near the top of the girls’ field. Brian Heywood says the teachers union is spending big against I-638, and Olympic rower Carol Brown is speaking up for girls’ sports.

Women’s groups have also filed a Supreme Court brief in the Olympus Spa case over Washington’s rules on sex-separated spaces. Supporters of I-638 say girls deserve fair play and privacy. Opponents, including the teachers union, are urging a no vote.

From the Bookmarks:

Jaimee Michell reports Kallie Keeler’s emergency request: “The district refused to promise she wouldn’t face a male again, or even to warn her mom first.”

Brandi Kruse: the Camas runner “went from being the 76th ranked boy to being the 1st ranked ‘girl’ … all in the same season.”

Rip Wheeler shares Clark County Today’s report that the athlete is now ranked second among female runners.

Brian Heywood: “The teachers union is spending big money to tell these girls to shut up and just train harder.”

Brian Heywood – That Damn Mormon@bkheywoodThe teachers union is spending big money to tell these girls to shut up and just train harder Boys do not belong in girls locker rooms, on their podiums, or taking their scholarships. Vote Yes I-638 to protect girls sports

Let’s Go Washington @letsgowaHere’s some of the girls the opposition wants to erase. They’d rather attack them and silence their voices than stand up for fairness in their sports. We won’t be silenced. Vote YES on I-638 to protect their sports and spaces.3:53 AM · Oct 6, 2026 · 1.73K Views5 Replies · 75 Reposts · 220 Likes

Brian Heywood shares an interview with Olympic rower Carol Brown on why protecting girls’ sports matters.

Erin Friday says women’s groups filed a Supreme Court brief in the Olympus Spa case, arguing Washington law opens “every sex-separated space” to males.

Erin Friday, Esq.@ErinFriday75490Today, Our Duty, DIAG, and Womenarereal filed a brief in the Olympus Spa case in which a male who claims to be a female wants to parade around naked with naked females who do not want him there. Washington non-discrimination laws make every sex-separated spaces open to males.…12:05 AM · Oct 6, 2026 · 33K Views29 Replies · 138 Reposts · 773 Likes

Who Protects Washington’s Girls on the Mat?

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. If you find The Roundup helpful and want to and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Let’s Go Washington@letsgowaIt’s not a $1 million deduction per person, it’s per household. And if sitting legislators have anything to say about it, that amount will drop significantly and quickly. Stop their money grabs – vote yes on I-645.

Story Two: $1 Million Per Person, or Per Household?

Synopsis: Is the “millionaires’ tax” really about millionaires?

Let’s Go Washington points out the $1 million deduction is per household, not per person, and PNW Conservative says Washington Democrats are openly talking about lowering it to $250,000 per household.

Steve Gordon asks why, if no retiree makes $1 million, lawmakers removed 11 protections that kept retirement income from being taxed. Viet Nguyen reports $11.5 million is being spent to keep the tax, $10.4 million of it from unions, including unions that bargain with the state.

Vote Yes 645 notes voters rejected ten income-tax proposals from 1934 to 2010, and this one was passed without a vote of the people. Joe Wallin reminds readers that five state Supreme Court seats on the Nov. 3 ballot could decide whether income is property under the constitution.

Supporters of the tax say it reaches only the wealthiest. Critics say the line is already moving.

From the Bookmarks:

Let’s Go Washington: “It’s not a $1 million deduction per person, it’s per household.”

Joe Wallin @joewallinA $1 million deduction is a number in a statute. Rep. Cindy Ryu has already proposed reaching households at $250,000. Married couples share one deduction. Two paychecks, one threshold. The threshold can move. Vote YES on I-645.11:13 PM · Oct 6, 2026 · 1.94K Views1 Reply · 43 Reposts · 144 Likes

PNW Conservative: Democrats support lowering the threshold “from $1,000,000 per household to $250,000 per household.”

PNW Conservative@PNWConservativeWashington Democrats are openly supporting lowering the income tax from $1,000,000 per household 👇 $250,000 per household. They say $250,000 is “enough” for a family. Is it?1:20 PM · Oct 6, 2026 · 5.06K Views20 Replies · 27 Reposts · 65 Likes

Steve Gordon: “No retiree is making $1,000,000. So why remove the 11 protections that kept them from being taxed?”

Viet Nguyen: “$10.4 million of it is union money, including unions that bargain their contracts with the state.”

Vote Yes 645: “Lawmakers enacted a new income tax without first submitting it to voters.”

Joe Wallin on Culliton (1933) and Quinn (2023): “Same Constitution. Different label.”

Joe Wallin@joewallin1933: Culliton held income is property, so the uniformity rule and the one-percent limit apply. 2023: Quinn called a tax on gains an excise. Same Constitution. Different label. The label decides whether the limits apply. Five Supreme Court seats are on your ballot. Vote by Nov 3.2:33 PM · Oct 6, 2026 · 558 Views2 Replies · 2 Reposts · 15 Likes

$1 Million Per Person, or Per Household?

Family Policy Institute of Washington@FPIWThe WA Governor and the Secretary of State have received notice of accountability from the Trump Administration: You will be held liable for elections that lack integrity. Thank you, Glen Morgan, for this report.youtube.comHarmeet Dhillon (DOJ) confronts WA Sec of State Hobbs with legal threats for illegal voters…

Story Three: Who’s Watching the Count?

Synopsis: Who will be watching when Washington’s ballots are counted?

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon says the DOJ Civil Rights Division is sending trained monitors for the midterms in what she calls the largest monitoring effort in history.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington, citing Glen Morgan’s reporting, says Gov. Ferguson and Secretary of State Hobbs have been put on notice by the Trump administration that they’ll be held liable for elections that lack integrity.

Benny Johnson highlights Scott Presler’s method in Pennsylvania: matching people disqualified from jury duty as noncitizens against the voter rolls, which led to thousands of removals. The Election Integrity Network urges families with loved ones in nursing homes or memory care to ask who helps residents vote and how consent is confirmed.

Supporters say more eyes mean more trust. Critics of federal monitors say states run their own elections.

From the Bookmarks:

Harmeet Dhillon: “This will be the largest monitoring effort in history!”

Family Policy Institute of Washington: the governor and secretary of state “will be held liable for elections that lack integrity.”

8:58 PM · Oct 6, 2026 · 17.9K Views8 Replies · 82 Reposts · 324 Likes

Benny Johnson explains how Scott Presler used non-juror records to remove noncitizens from Pennsylvania’s rolls.

Election Integrity Network: “Make one phone call today. Ask the facility who assists residents with voting, how consent is confirmed.”

Thanks for reading The Roundup!

Please like, comment or share to help this newsletter reach a wider audience!

Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.

We’re grateful for your support!

Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

✍🏻 Federal Register: Trump Accounts

Get your children and grandchildren signed up…

Next step, leave a comment on the Federal Register if you have concerns!

Sample comments in the post below.

Influencing Olympia Effectively

A Proposed Rule by the Internal Revenue Service on 09/30/2026…

5 days ago · 5 likes · 8 comments · Nancy D Churchill

You’re currently a free subscriber to Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Leave a Comment

A Desperate Campaign Spreads Rural Healthcare Lies

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: healthcare, philosophy, politics — doctordilday @ 2:19 pm

They say he cut rural care. The law he voted for is sending rural money here.

NANCY D CHURCHILL OCT 7

A postcard landed in Eastern Washington mailboxes with a shout in big type: “BAUMGARTNER CUT YOUR HEALTHCARE.” Under that, a line about Ritzville giving up inpatient beds to survive. Then a local jab: “Our Republic community already pays $400,000 in local taxes to Ferry County Hospital. Michael Baumgartner wants you to pay more.”

Who paid for the scare? The fine print says the card was brought to you by eastern Washington residents and paid for by “Together for Working People” from a P.O. box in Seattle—a Seattle based political action committee manipulating elections in Eastern Washington.

The hospital that dropped inpatient beds is not in Republic. Ferry County Memorial Hospital is still a Critical Access Hospital. It is a 25-bed hospital with an emergency room, general medicine beds, and two cardiac and intensive care beds. Washington has one rural emergency hospital. It is not in Ferry County.

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ritzville’s Trouble Started at Home

The postcard points at East Adams Rural Healthcare in Ritzville and treats the loss of inpatient beds as proof that Congress cut care.

In late 2025, that hospital faced a severe financial crisis. Leaders found $13.4 million in hidden losses from 2022 to 2024. The cause was administrative mismanagement and concealed audits. The CEO was terminated. More than 100 employees were laid off. A WARN notice in November 2025 warned of possible closure or bankruptcy by January 7, 2026.

Read the dates. Those hidden losses ran from 2022 to 2024. That debt was on the books before this Congress and before President Trump’s second term. A corrupt CEO and near bankruptcy is not the same as a vote in Washington, D.C.

To avoid collapse, the hospital took a $2 million grant from the Washington State Hospital Distressed Fund. It reclassified from a Critical Access Hospital to a Rural Emergency Hospital. Federal approval came in April 2026. The new designation raises Medicare reimbursement. It also requires the end of inpatient care and swing beds.

That was the trade the local board made to stay open. By early 2026 the hospital was back in the black. It ended 2025 with $190,000 in reserves and kept a reduced primary care clinic.

The Tax Gimmick They Do Not Want You to See

Progressive states found a loophole in Medicaid policy. They began taxing hospitals and medical providers at inflated rates. Federal matching rules then sent money back to cover that tax. The higher the state tax, the more Washington, D.C., paid. Federal rules already said those taxes must be broad-based, uniform, and not simply recycled back to providers. A safe harbor approved taxes up to 6 percent of net patient revenue.

The Working Families Tax Cut Act freezes that tactic. No new provider taxes. No increases. In Medicaid expansion states, including Washington, the safe-harbor cap steps down from 6 percent to 3.5 percent between 2028 and 2032. Nursing homes and intermediate care facilities are excepted. The phase-down runs over years, not overnight.

Olympia was gaming the system. The postcard sponsors are not concerned about rural health care. They are mad they got caught and mad the grift is ending.

Money on the Way

The Working Families Tax Cut Act also created the Rural Health Transformation Program. That is $10 billion a year from 2026 through 2030, $50 billion in all. States file plans. Money follows rural population and the number of facilities. Uses include access, workforce, technology, and hospital stability.

Washington applied and is receiving $181 million. According to the Baumgartner campaign, the congressman was briefed by the state. The money is on the way to rural hospitals in the district. Most are expected to receive roughly half a million dollars.

The mailer says Rep. Baumgartner cut rural care. The statute he voted for is sending rural health care money here now.

What the Record Shows

Rep. Baumgartner’s rural health work did not start with one bill.

He has backed the CONNECT for Health Act, H.R. 4206, so seniors and rural families can see a clinician without an hours-long drive. He is a cosponsor of H.R. 1585, the Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act. Each state can place 30 foreign doctors a year in shortage areas. Washington has used that program every year, and many of those doctors have gone to Eastern Washington.

He has supported the Volunteer Transportation Network, neighbor rides that get veterans to appointments when winter roads would keep them home. In 2026 he received the National Association of Community Health Centers Distinguished Community Health Advocate Award. He secured $2 million for the Chewelah Expansion and Workforce Development Center at NEW Health, and $1 million for the Clarkston Family Medicine Residency Project at TriState Health.

The Working Families Tax Cut Act also blocked what the Baumgartner campaign calls the largest tax increase in history. It cut taxes on tips and overtime, eased the Social Security tax bite for many seniors, protected the child tax credit, and grants $1,000 for babies born from 2025 through 2028.

Judge the Record, Not the Mailer

A desperate campaign needs a scare. This one picked a hospital crisis that began before the Congressman took office, had losses hidden for years, then pasted the congressman’s name on it. A Seattle PAC paid for the card. The law the mailer hates freezes a progressive tax gimmick and actually sends Washington State $181 million for rural care.

You can believe the postcard. Or you can read the dates, the Working Families Tax Cut, and track the incoming support for rural health care. For the 5th Congressional District, the record points one way. Vote Michael Baumgartner.

Position Three: David Stevens

Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack, X, and occasionally Rumble.

SOURCES:

1) Postcard mailer, “BAUMGARTNER CUT YOUR HEALTHCARE,” paid for by Together for Working People, Seattle

2) The Inlander, “Ritzville health leaders say hospital will remain open after closure warning following hidden debt discovery.” https://bit.ly/4zfuTEI

3) The Spokesman-Review, Jan. 8, 2026, “Ritzville hospital has righted the ship.” https://bit.ly/4j5HLZd

4) Washington State Department of Health, Ferry County Memorial Hospital snapshot (March 2026) and state Critical Access Hospital list, https://bit.ly/4xWQ7pL

We can change the Supreme Court… but you must VOTE!

Get to know the Supreme Court Candidates!

Position One: Scott Edwards

Position Five: Dave Larson

Position Seven: Todd Bloom

Also Recommended:

Position Four: Sean O’Donnell

Subscribe to InfluencingOlympia on Substack!

Influencing Olympia

Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.

We’re grateful for your support!

Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

You’re currently a free subscriber to Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Leave a Comment

The Plague Grift

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 1:42 pm

When Fear of Plague Becomes the Product

DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 8

Audio Version:

LISTEN NOW · 11:58

By Dr’s Robert W. Malone and Jill G. Malone

One unconfirmed plague death in Russia. No outbreak. No spread. But the fear merchants in the United States and elsewhere are already selling antibiotics.

A young laboratory worker died in Siberia following a reported laboratory accident. Russian authorities have refused to identify the organism responsible. There has been no confirmed plague diagnosis, no confirmed secondary case, and no evidence of an outbreak spreading beyond the laboratory incident. That is what we know.

What we have instead is a growing national and international panic about engineered plague, biological weapons, and the next pandemic. And wherever there is fear, there are people ready to make money from it. In fact, that panic is even being fueled by some in the conservative media for financial gain.

The death of Darya Shipilova at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Institute deserves a serious investigation. Reports describe a broken laboratory tube, a delayed diagnosis, and a twenty-eight-year-old woman who died after developing severe pneumonia. Nearly two hundred people were reportedly isolated or monitored. Russian authorities insist the situation is under control but have not disclosed what killed her.

That secrecy has consequences. Inside Russia, people are buying antibiotics. Outside Russia, commentators and companies are turning one unexplained death into a marketing campaign.

The pathogen has not been identified. The sales pitch has.

First, the panic

On October 1, Yandex recorded roughly 14,500 searches for чума, the Russian word for plague. By October 3, that number had reached nearly 685,000, a forty-seven-fold increase in two days. Google Trends showed searches for plague rising approximately 3,200 percent over the previous week. Residents of the Irkutsk region were among the most concerned.

The fear quickly translated into purchases. On October 3, journalists surveyed pharmacies in Irkutsk and nearby Shelekhov and found residents buying antibiotics used to treat plague. Some pharmacies had exhausted their supplies. Others could not obtain replacements. In Shelekhov, pharmacies reported selling out, with no resupply expected before October 5.

There was, and still is, no confirmed outbreak.

People were buying antibiotics because they were frightened, and they were frightened because their government would not tell them what happened. Moscow’s silence had created the very public anxiety its reassurances were supposed to prevent.

But the Russian government is not the only institution taking advantage of uncertainty.

Then came the American salesmen

On October 7, Dr. Peter McCullough posted a video stating that “Bioweapons-grade Yersinia pestis is likely to be more pathogenic than the plague organism of decades ago.” His accompanying Substack commentary carried the headline Bioweapons-Grade Pneumonic Plague.

The historical existence of biological weapons research involving plague is not in dispute. What is missing is evidence that the organism involved in Shipilova’s death was engineered, unusually virulent, antibiotic-resistant, or even confirmed to be Yersinia pestis.

No isolate has been publicly identified. No genomic sequence has been released. No evidence of genetic manipulation has been presented.

Yet the words bioweapons-grade pneumonic plague were already in the headline.

There is a commercial connection worth examining. The video appeared on Just the News and Real America’s Voice with a sponsorship banner for The Wellness Company, including a promotional discount. McCullough serves as the company’s chief scientific officer. The Wellness Company sells emergency medication kits containing prescription antibiotics, including doxycycline.

This creates an obvious financial conflict that audiences deserve to understand.

On October 6, CDM Press published an article titled The Plague? A Reminder The Next Pandemic Is Just One Accident Away. The article used the Russian incident to introduce the supposed need to stockpile antibiotics, then directed readers to The Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency Kit.

Two days later, on October 8, Breitbart published an explicitly sponsored article titled The Plague? One Accident Could Spark the Next Pandemic. It promoted the same company’s emergency medication kit, offering readers a $30 discount with a promotional code.

Conservative commentator Grant Stinchfield also released an episode titled Plague Before the Polls?, accompanied by promotion for The Wellness Company’s emergency kit and a personalized discount code.

The company’s kit has been advertised at approximately $300. Its marketing identifies doxycycline as useful for plague exposure, among other conditions.

So, hypothetically, what would one expect to pay for a prescription of doxycycline at a pharmacy?:

CHAT-GPT analysis of cash price for Doxy in the USA – although note that prices can vary widely

There is nothing inherently improper about selling legitimate emergency medical supplies. Antibiotics can save lives when appropriately prescribed, and preparedness is a reasonable subject for public discussion.

But consider the sequence.

One death in a Russian laboratory. No confirmed plague diagnosis. No confirmed spread. No demonstrated threat to Americans.

Within days, American media personalities and commercial outlets were using that incident to promote prescription antibiotic kits.

A woman died in Siberia. Americans are being offered discount codes.

The science doesn’t support the scare

The suggestion that respiratory transmission or antibiotic resistance establishes the biological weapons engineering occurred is scientifically unsound.

In 2013, a naturally occurring pneumonic plague outbreak in Madagascar infected twenty-two people. The responsible strain was resistant to streptomycin through a spontaneous chromosomal mutation. Researchers documented similar mutations arising independently in other natural plague strains. All nineteen patients who received antibiotic treatment recovered; the three who died had not been treated.

Multidrug-resistant Yersinia pestis has also been documented in naturally occurring Madagascar isolates, including strains carrying transferable resistance plasmids.

Antibiotic resistance is not proof of engineering. Neither is pneumonic transmission. And neither characteristic has been established in the Irkutsk incident.

There is a legitimate scientific investigation to conduct. Whole-genome sequencing, examination of resistance determinants, plasmid characterization, and comparison with known natural lineages could help establish what organism was involved and whether anything unusual had occurred.

Russia has not released the information necessary to perform that assessment.

That should be the story. Instead, speculation about weaponized plague is being packaged for an audience already conditioned to expect the next pandemic. Unfortunately, this is coming from conservative media.

The technique is familiar. The headline makes an alarming assertion. The article retreats into possible, consistent with, and cannot be ruled out. The qualifications provide protection when challenged, while the frightening headline does the work of attracting attention and garnering fear.

And sometimes, conveniently, there is a product to buy.

Fear is the product. Antibiotics are the upsell.

There is a difference between warning the public about a demonstrated threat and manufacturing certainty where the evidence supports none. There is also a difference between selling preparedness supplies and using an unexplained death in a foreign country to frighten consumers into purchasing them.

The Irkutsk incident may ultimately prove to be an accidental exposure to a naturally occurring plague organism. It may involve another dangerous pathogen entirely. The Russian government has not provided sufficient evidence to settle the question.

But the uncertainty itself has become commercially useful.

The Wellness Company’s appearance across multiple plague-themed promotions, including explicitly sponsored advertising and personalized discount codes, is not an imaginary connection. It is visible marketing of fear. Whether individual commentators were paid, received affiliate commissions, or simply promoted a company with which they were affiliated is a separate question that deserves disclosure.

The broader pattern is unmistakable. A frightening headline creates urgency. The urgency creates demand. The advertisement offers a solution.

This is not a new business model. Fear has always been profitable. What has changed is the speed with which an isolated incident halfway around the world can be converted into an American sales campaign.

There is one dead laboratory worker in Siberia, no confirmed plague outbreak, and no evidence of an engineered biological weapon. Yet the antibiotic kits are already being advertised with discount codes.

Russia owes the public an explanation of what killed Darya Shipilova. Those alleging biological weapons owe the public evidence. And those exploiting her death to frighten Americans into buying prescription medications need to stop. Disclosure does not excuse the practice. Turning an unconfirmed outbreak into a sales campaign is not public health, not medical preparedness, and certainly not science. It is fear-based marketing, and it is grifting.

So, let’s call it what it is.

Grifting.

Support Independent Investigative Journalism

One unexplained death in Russia, and within days American media outlets were promoting $300 antibiotic kits with discount codes.

That story deserved scrutiny, particularly when the people raising the alarm have commercial relationships with the companies selling the supposed solution.

This is why Jill and I do this work. We follow the evidence, examine the scientific literature, identify the financial interests, and ask questions that others would rather leave unanswered. Even if it sets us up for personal attacks.

If you value independent reporting that follows the evidence and is willing to challenge the fear merchants, including those on our own side of the political divide, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The grifters have products to sell. We have questions to answer. Your support keeps us asking them.

References

Echo. (October 2026). “Russians Have Begun Searching for Information About Plague More Frequently.” Russian-language reporting on Yandex search activity following the Irkutsk laboratory incident. https://echofm.online/news/rossiyane-stali-chashhe-iskat-informacziyu-o-chume-v-internete
The Insider. (October 2026). Reporting on antibiotic purchases and pharmacy shortages in Irkutsk and Shelekhov following the reported laboratory death. https://theins.ru/news/297860
McCullough, P. (October 7, 2026). Video commentary concerning alleged bioweapons-grade Yersinia pestis. X.
McCullough, P. (October 2026). “Bioweapons-Grade Pneumonic Plague.” The Focal Points, Substack.

CDM Press. (October 6, 2026). “The Plague? A Reminder The Next Pandemic Is Just One Accident Away.” Article promoting The Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency Kit. https://cdm.press/news/health-freedom/2026/10/06/the-plague-a-reminder-the-next-pandemic-is-just-one-accident-away/
Breitbart News. (October 8, 2026). “The Plague? One Accident Could Spark the Next Pandemic.” Sponsored content promoting The Wellness Company’s emergency medication kit. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/10/08/the-plague-one-accident-could-spark-the-next-pandemic/
Stinchfield, G. (October 2026). “Plague Before the Polls?” Stinchfield with Grant Stinchfield. Podcast episode with promotional messaging for The Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency Kit. https://podscan.fm/player/stinchfield-with-grant-stinchfield/plague-before-the-polls
The Wellness Company. (2026). “Medical Emergency Kit.” Product information describing prescription antibiotics, including doxycycline, and emergency preparedness applications. https://www.twc.health/products/emergency-preparedness-kit
Andrianaivoarimanana, V., et al. (2022). “Pneumonic Plague Caused by Streptomycin-Resistant Yersinia pestis, Madagascar, 2013.” Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab606
Guiyoule, A., et al. (2001). “Transferable Plasmid-Mediated Resistance to Streptomycin in a Clinical Isolate of Yersinia pestis.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7(1). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/1/70-0043-t1
Galimand, M., et al. (2006). “Multidrug Resistance in Yersinia pestisMediated by a Transferable Plasmid.” Research concerning antibiotic-resistance plasmids in naturally occurring plague isolates. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1610074/

You’re currently a free subscriber to Malone News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Leave a Comment

October 7, 2026

The ACIP Case Gets Stranger

Filed under: Uncategorized — doctordilday @ 4:07 pm

A troubling pattern emerges from the court record

DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 7

By: Dr’s Robert W. Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone

Audio Version:

LISTEN NOW · 23:55

Yesterday’s Court Hearing

Yesterday, October 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral argument in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy. What was striking was how little of the forty-five-minute hearing was actually about vaccine science. The three judges kept returning instead to basic questions about standing, statutory authority, final agency action, and the extraordinary remedy imposed by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy. Chief Judge David Barron, an Obama appointee, was particularly persistent. He asked AAP attorney Andrew Pincus to begin with what he called “the narrowest part of the case”: Murphy’s order suspending the thirteen ACIP appointments. Barron wanted to know what statutory authority permitted Murphy to do that and what injury to AAP required such a remedy. When Pincus argued that allowing an unlawfully constituted ACIP to meet would make no sense, Barron cut through the abstraction with six words: “Well, it may not make any sense, but who’s it hurt?” That is the standing problem in plain English. Federal courts do not exist to stop government conduct simply because a private organization objects to it. A plaintiff must show an actual injury caused by the action being challenged, and the court’s remedy must redress that injury [Transcript of Oral Argument, American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy].

Judge William Kayatta Jr., also an Obama appointee, attacked the standing problem from another direction. He asked Pincus to imagine that ACIP met the next day with all thirteen of Kennedy’s stayed members and adopted exactly the recommendation AAP wanted. Would AAP still have been injured by the alleged FACA violation? Pincus said yes, because the committee itself would remain improperly balanced. That answer exposes how expansive AAP’s theory really is. The claimed injury is not necessarily an adverse vaccine recommendation. Under AAP’s theory, the organization can be injured by the composition and existence of the advisory committee itself, even if that committee produces precisely the policy AAP favors. Kayatta also pressed both sides on the causal chain between an ACIP recommendation and subsequent government action, including whether a recommendation has legal consequences before adoption by the CDC Director. AAP identified the Vaccines for Children program as a possible exception, but the broader question remained: is AAP injured by who sits in the room, or by what government officials ultimately do with the recommendations that come out of that room? [Transcript, 26:43–30:41.]

Judge Joshua Dunlap, the Trump appointee on the panel, concentrated on another basic requirement of Administrative Procedure Act litigation: what exactly was the “final agency action” that Murphy was reviewing when he suspended the appointments? AAP offered two answers. It argued that Kennedy had effectively announced and implemented a new policy for reshaping ACIP, and alternatively that the composition of the committee itself constituted final agency action. Dunlap also questioned whether Murphy had really confined himself to judging the overall balance of ACIP or had instead examined individual members and made judgments about their qualifications. But perhaps the most revealing exchange came between Barron and Pincus over the legal authority for Murphy’s remedy. Section 705 of the APA allows a court to “postpone the effective date” of agency action. These appointments, however, had already taken effect. Barron stated the problem directly: “There already was an appointment. There’s nothing to postpone. So how could it be relying on 705?” When Barron later asked Pincus what authority actually supported Murphy’s order, AAP’s own lawyer conceded that §705 was “a little hard” for precisely that reason and suggested the authority might instead come from §706 or ordinary preliminary-injunction powers. Barron then pointed out the underlying problem: Murphy’s order itself does not clearly identify which statutory authority he was using to suspend the appointments. [Transcript, 7:31–8:46; 14:43–17:56.]

There is a larger Supreme Court precedent hanging over all of this. In June 2025, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, a 6–3 decision restricting the power of individual federal district judges to issue universal injunctions that extend relief far beyond the plaintiffs actually before them. The central principle is straightforward: a federal court’s remedy generally should go no further than necessary to provide complete relief to the parties who established standing to sue.

That matters enormously here. Murphy did not merely protect AAP and the other plaintiffs from particular vaccine decisions they challenged. He suspended the appointments of thirteen members of a federal advisory committee and effectively prevented that committee from functioning for anyone, anywhere. DOJ therefore argued on appeal that Murphy cannot escape CASA simply by calling what he did a statutory “stay” rather than an injunction. The Supreme Court left unresolved an important question about the separate statutory remedies available under the APA, so CASA does not automatically decide this case. But it puts the scope of Murphy’s remedy squarely in question: once the vaccine actions allegedly injuring AAP had themselves been stayed, what additional injury to these plaintiffs required a district judge to disable ACIP itself?

What was surprising yesterday was that the judges barely needed to reach CASA. DOJ devoted considerable attention to it in the briefs, but the Supreme Court’s universal-injunction ruling was not a major subject of oral argument. Instead, the panel found more elementary problems with Murphy’s order before ever reaching that larger question.

What injury did AAP suffer merely because these thirteen people were appointed?
What final agency action gave Murphy authority under the APA to review those appointments?
What statutory provision allowed him to suspend appointments that had already taken effect?
And why was disabling the committee itself necessary to redress whatever injury AAP claimed?

Chief Judge Barron eventually suggested that the First Circuit might not need to resolve the larger standing or FACA questions at all. It could conclude simply that Murphy failed to explain what statutory authority supported this extraordinary remedy and what specific harm the remedy was supposed to address. [Transcript, 34:10–35:07.]
That may be the most remarkable takeaway from yesterday’s hearing. CASA raises a serious question about whether Murphy’s remedy went far beyond the plaintiffs’ standing before him. But the First Circuit may never need to get that far, because Murphy’s order may fail on the more basic question of what gave him the authority to suspend the thirteen appointments in the first place.

The Original Case and Why It Matters

To understand why yesterday’s questions matter, it helps to remember just how far Judge Murphy went in the original case. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a private nonprofit professional association. ACIP does not regulate AAP, appoint its officers or direct its members’ medical practices. ACIP is an advisory committee within the federal government. Yet Murphy accepted AAP’s argument that it had sufficient interest in ACIP’s work to challenge not merely a particular recommendation, but the composition of the committee itself under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. FACA requires advisory committees to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed,” but Congress did not supply a formula for determining what “fairly balanced” means. There is no statutory allocation of seats among vaccinologists, epidemiologists, pediatricians, infectious-disease specialists, immunologists, statisticians or dissenting scientific viewpoints. Nevertheless, Murphy moved from reviewing whether HHS had complied with the law to deciding whether the people Kennedy appointed collectively represented an acceptable scientific balance.

That distinction is critical. The appointment of ACIP members belongs to the Executive Branch, with the HHS Secretary responsible for selecting the committee’s voting members. Murphy did not simply identify a procedural violation and send the matter back to HHS. He examined the qualifications of individual members, judged the expertise represented on the committee, concluded that Kennedy’s ACIP was not fairly balanced, and then suspended all thirteen appointments. The result was straightforward: ACIP could not meet. Nothing in FACA transfers the appointment power from the Executive Branch to the judiciary or provides a federal district judge with a formula for deciding which combination of scientists constitutes the proper balance. Judicial review of whether the Executive followed the law is one thing. A judge substituting his judgment about the acceptable composition of a federal scientific advisory committee for that of the official legally charged with appointing it is something considerably different.

There is also an important piece of history that makes the treatment of Kennedy’s ACIP difficult to view as some unprecedented problem created by this administration. Incoming administrations have removed and replaced members of FACA advisory committees before. In 2021, Biden EPA Administrator Michael Regan removed the existing members of two major federal scientific advisory committees, the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and reconstituted them. Former members sued, alleging among other things that the newly constituted committees violated FACA’s requirement that advisory committees be “fairly balanced.” The challenge failed. When Trump returned to office in 2025, his administration again removed Biden-era members of EPA scientific advisory committees and began rebuilding them. The circumstances and administrative records were not identical to ACIP, but the basic exercise of executive authority was hardly novel: new administrations have reconstituted inherited scientific advisory committees before, and courts have confronted FACA challenges arising from those decisions.

That history makes Murphy’s remedy more consequential, not less. Kennedy did not invent the practice of replacing the membership of a federal advisory committee. What is unusual here is that a private professional association successfully persuaded a district judge to evaluate the scientific balance of the replacement committee, examine the qualifications of its individual members, and then suspend every appointment so the committee could no longer function. If that becomes an accepted application of FACA, the implications extend far beyond vaccines or ACIP. Every incoming administration that changes the composition of an advisory committee potentially invites private organizations that dislike the new membership to litigate what “fairly balanced” should mean and ask a federal judge to referee the scientific composition of the committee. Congress required balance. It did not appoint federal judges to choose the balance.

The Defense That Wasn’t Made

Which brings us to the strangest part of this case: the government’s own defense of ACIP. AAP put the qualifications and scientific balance of Kennedy’s appointees directly at issue. If HHS intended to defend that committee on the merits, the obvious response was to build a factual record showing exactly who these thirteen people were, what expertise each brought to the table, and why their combined backgrounds satisfied FACA’s requirement of a “fairly balanced” committee. Yet we have found no evidence that DOJ submitted the complete CVs of the thirteen members or constructed a comprehensive evidentiary defense of their collective qualifications. Instead, the government concentrated heavily on the legal argument that the Secretary had discretion over appointments and that courts should not be second-guessing those choices. Once Murphy rejected that argument and began judging the qualifications of the members himself, the factual record needed to prove him wrong appears not to have been there.

Robert Malone’s case makes the problem concrete. CDC itself publicly described him as a “Vaccinologist, Scientist, Biochemist, Contributor to mRNA Vaccine Technology.” Yet neither HHS nor DOJ asked him for his complete CV for submission in this litigation (CV attached here). Murphy subsequently reduced his relevant vaccine expertise largely to his early work on mRNA technology and discounted that experience because it occurred decades ago. A complete CV would have documented the work that followed, including subsequent vaccine development, clinical research, medical countermeasures and biodefense. Whether Murphy ultimately would have found that record persuasive is unknowable. What matters is that the government apparently never put the complete record in front of him.And now, after Murphy used the record before him to make factual judgments about the qualifications and balance of ACIP, DOJ has told the First Circuit something equally remarkable: “we’re not challenging any factual findings on appeal.”

The omissions do not stop there. The government did not make the previous reconstitution of major scientific FACA committees a centerpiece of its defense, even though the Biden administration had removed and replaced members of EPA scientific advisory committees and successfully defended the resulting litigation. DOJ anticipated that Murphy might interfere with ACIP’s membership, because it proposed as alternative relief that he stay only enough appointments to address whatever imbalance he believed existed while leaving the committee capable of functioning. Yet despite anticipating that possibility, the government apparently did not build the strongest factual record defending the appointments themselves. Murphy rejected the alternative and suspended all thirteen.

What happened next is harder still to understand. After Murphy disabled ACIP, proposed intervenors tried to obtain a stay of his preliminary injunction. The federal government apparently did not seek its own stay of the injunction that was preventing its advisory committee from functioning.DOJ instead sought to stay the underlying district-court proceedings while pursuing its appeal. Later, the government asked for expedited appellate consideration on the grounds that ACIP urgently needed to get back to work. Now, before the First Circuit, DOJ has deliberately confined its appeal largely to Murphy’s treatment of the appointments, while leaving other portions of his vaccine-policy relief unchallenged. The contradiction was obvious enough that Chief Judge Barron asked government counsel Matthew Zorn directly: “How come you’re not challenging the rest of the order then?”

Put the pieces together. No complete CVs. No comprehensive defense of the committee’s collective qualifications. No major reliance on the obvious historical precedent of other administrations reconstituting scientific FACA committees. No government motion that we can find seeking an immediate stay of the order disabling ACIP. An appeal that expressly declines to challenge Murphy’s factual findings. And now a deliberately narrow request for relief that would restore the Secretary’s ability to constitute ACIP while leaving significant portions of Murphy’s underlying vaccine rulings alone.

Any one of those decisions can be explained as litigation strategy. Lawyers make tactical choices. They narrow appeals, abandon arguments, preserve others for remand, and sometimes decide that the quickest route to a favorable judgment is not the broadest one. But taken together, these choices are much harder to explain.

The Hypothesis

There is one fact we have deliberately kept separate from the legal analysis until now. Before this litigation played out, we had been told that senior administration officials did not want ACIP meeting again until after the midterm elections because of the political problems its decisions might create. We have no document showing that the White House or HHS instructed DOJ to lose this lawsuit. We have no email directing government lawyers to mount a weak defense, and no evidence establishing that DOJ attorneys deliberately withheld arguments in order to produce an adverse ruling. Those are serious allegations, and the evidence does not presently establish them.

What we do know firsthand is that keeping ACIP sidelined until after the midterms had been communicated to us as an administration objective. And to that point, the late-winter ACIP meeting on the vaccine-injured was canceled because of the political ramifications, although the government never publicly admitted as much.

So what happens when that fact is placed alongside the litigation record? AAP attacked the qualifications and balance of the new ACIP, but the government apparently failed to build the strongest factual record defending those qualifications. It did not submit the members’ CVs; it did not even ask for them for the record. It did not make the previous reconstitution of scientific FACA committees a centerpiece of its defense. Murphy then suspended all thirteen appointments, accomplishing precisely what we had been told some within the administration wanted: ACIP stopped meeting.

Other parties tried to stay Murphy’s injunction, while the government apparently did not seek its own emergency stay restoring the committee. DOJ instead sought to freeze the underlying litigation. It later argued that ACIP urgently needed to get back to work, yet it now declines to challenge Murphy’s factual findings and has deliberately narrowed its appeal. None of this proves intent. But viewed through the lens of what we had already been told, a series of otherwise puzzling litigation choices begins to look considerably less random.

There is an even more uncomfortable possibility. Was sidelining ACIP the only objective? Or were some within the administration also content to let Judge Murphy’s stays of particular vaccine decisions remain in place? Chief Judge Barron put his finger directly on this problem when he asked DOJ at oral argument: “How come you’re not challenging the rest of the order then?” The government’s answer confirmed that it is not seeking to undo significant portions of Murphy’s other relief in this appeal. That does not prove that HHS wanted those vaccine decisions stayed. But it raises a question that HHS and DOJ should be able to answer plainly: which parts of Murphy’s order does the administration actually oppose, and which parts is it willing to leave in place?

This matters because there are two very different stories here. The public story is that the government lost an important case, Judge Murphy disabled ACIP, and DOJ is now fighting to restore the committee. The alternative hypothesis is more troubling: the court delivered an outcome that some within the administration already wanted, and the government’s litigation strategy was never designed to reverse all of it. That hypothesis remains unproven. But after reconstructing the original defense, following the government’s decisions after Murphy’s ruling, and listening carefully to yesterday’s oral argument, it can no longer simply be dismissed as implausible.

Perhaps there is an innocent explanation for all of this. If there is, HHS and DOJ should provide it. Why were the full qualifications of the ACIP members not put before the court? Why was the historical precedent for reconstituting FACA committees not aggressively developed? Why did the government apparently fail to seek immediate relief from the order that disabled ACIP? Why is DOJ leaving Murphy’s factual findings unchallenged? And why, when Chief Judge Barron asked why the government was not challenging the rest of Murphy’s order, was the answer essentially that it had chosen not to? These are no longer questions about vaccine policy. They are questions about what the government was actually trying to accomplish in this litigation.

After reading the briefs, reconstructing the original defense, and listening to the First Circuit argument, the government’s litigation strategy does not look like the strategy of an administration determined to defend every aspect of its own ACIP and overturn every adverse vaccine ruling.

It looks like something considerably narrower. The question is why.

A Note to Our Free Subscribers

If you are reading this as a free subscriber, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Reporting like this does not come from rewriting a press release or summarizing someone else’s story. We pulled the court filings, reconstructed the litigation history, obtained the First Circuit recording, produced and archived a transcript, and went back through the record to understand not only what happened, but what the government did not do.

That takes time, and there is no corporate newsroom or institutional sponsor paying for it.