May 19, 2026 newsletter
Greetings and Best Wishes,
May 5, 2025:
Investigative journalist Michael Bryant sent a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) document about “vaccines” used in aquaculture to myself and others, and Dr Mark Bailey shared a video of an Automatic Fish Vaccination Machine said to perform 20,000 injections/hour.
So I placed a FOIA order (pgs 1/2) with the USDA for all studies in the agency’s possession/custody/control, authored by anyone, anywhere, since January 1, 1900:
- that scientifically proves or provides evidence of the existence of any alleged virus said to infect any type of fish, or
- if there are no records for #1, that at least describe purification of particles alleged to be viruses that infect any type of fish, directly from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of “hosts”, or
- wherein the purported “genome” of any such alleged virus was found intact in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of a “host” (as opposed to fabricated in silico, aka modelled on a computer), or
- that scientifically demonstrate contagion of the illness / symptoms allegedly caused by any supposed fish virus, or
- wherein any test for any alleged fish virus was validated (which would of course require the alleged virus to first be shown to exist).
As usual, I asked that if any records match the above description and are available elsewhere, I be provided citations so that I could identify and access them.
May 29, 2025:
Nicholas Mantzaris acting as FOIA Analyst – Contractor, Freedom of Information Act Division, Office of Information Affairs (OIA) responded (pgs 3/4, emphasis added):
The request, as written, is overbroad and unperfected and can not be processed by the OIA…
Please provide the name of the USDA agency in which you are directing this request. It is most likely that the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the USDA agency most likely to have records. Please confirm that you would like the ARS to process this request.
Additionally, the request is overbroad because it would require the records custodian to review all available information on fish viruses line-by-line and determine if any of the qualifications provided in the request are included in the research record. A reviewer would need first figure out if each and every fish virus research record describes, “the purification of particles that are alleged to be viruses that allegedly infect any type offish” or if it includes, “the purported “genome” of any such alleged virus was found intact” or if the research paper “scientifically demonstrate[s] contagion of the illness / symptoms that are allegedly caused by any said virus” or if the research paper describes “any test for any such alleged virus”. This would be an incredibly time-consuming and arduous task…
The request would be more feasible to process if you were to amend to something like all ARS published research on fish viruses from the last ten years…
As stated above, the request is overbroad and cannot be processed at this time. It will be paused until clarification is received…
My response to Nicholas that same day (pg 5):
…If the Agricultural Research Service is the USDA agency most likely to have records regarding alleged viruses in fish, then yes, please have them process the order.
Note that numerous institutions, including the CDC, have already responded to the same order regarding other alleged viruses that I expect would involve far more publications. For example, here and attached is the CDC’s official confession to the same order regarding the alleged “HPV”, and here is their confession regarding various alleged feline viruses. They simply confessed that they didn’t have any responsive records – which was easy to anticipate given that virologists have never adhered to basic logic and the scientific method and successfully shown the existence of any alleged virus. You can find many more examples in my online newsletters.
People at the USDA claim to know for a fact that various alleged viruses exist and cause specific “diseases”, and that they have valid tests for them. The department postures as though it has expertise and competence in this area. If this were true, then the “experts” there would already be familiar with the literature and methodologies, and not have to read countless studies line by line (as though for the very first time) to find out whether any are responsive and if so which ones.
For this reason, the order is perfectly reasonable as is, and I will be reporting the response or lack thereof to the public.
June 16, 2025:
Nicholas got back to me with a “responsive document set” consisting of 2.5 pages listing 28 citations and a final response letter from Alexis R. Graves, Director, Office of Information Affairs, Office of the General Counsel (USDA FOIA No. 2025-REE-07136-F; see pgs 6-11), stating (emphasis added):
…A search for responsive records was conducted by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the USDA’s chief scientific in-house research agency. The ARS completed a search of its research database for peer-reviewed publications from the aquaculture program (Aquaculture : USDA ARS) since 1900 that contain the word “virus.” Responsive records totaling three (3) pages were identified. The records are being provided to you in full, with no FOIA withholdings applied…
So the “experts” at USDA provided an irrelevant response and pretended that a printout of publications containing the word “virus” is a “responsive document set”… thereby giving the superficial appearance of responsive records.
The first citation on USDA’s list (pg 9) is:
Pierce, L.R., Willey, J.C., Palsule, V.V., Yeo, J., Shepherd, B.S., Crawford, E.L., Stepien, C.A. 2013. Accurate detection and quantification of the fish viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSv) with a two-color fluorometric real-time PCR assay. PLoS One. 8(8): e71851.
This study is not designed to scientifically test for evidence of a virus or contagion of symptoms attributed to a virus, nor does it even describe purification of alleged viruses from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement, or the finding of an intact “genome”.
The authors claim to have assessed accuracy of their new PCR “test”… by comparing its results to the results of additional tests/procedures that don’t actually test for a virus. And they challenged some fish via injections or immersions with a so-called “isolate” called MI03GL which they claimed to be “Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia virus”.
The 2006 study by E. Elsayed et al. wherein “MI03GL” is said to have been “isolated” is behind a paywall; the abstract is here.
The authors describe the typical delusion of thinking that (fish) cells breaking down in a lab dish (after being “inoculated” with ground congested/unhealthy fish organs and no doubt other ingredients not disclosed in the abstract… and quite possibly starved per typical “virus isolation” protocols) equates to “virus isolation” and is somehow evidence that: a virus is the cause of the unhealthy organs, a virus grew in the fish cells in the lab dish, and a virus caused the fish cells in the lab dish to break down. Point-and-declare use of electron microscopy, plus PCR and sequence analysis of some “genes” further “confirmed” the foregone conclusion/cover story.
Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) was isolated from muskellunge, Esox masquinongy (Mitchill), caught from the NW portion of Lake St Clair, Michigan, USA in 2003. Affected fish exhibited congestion of internal organs; the inner wall of the swim bladder was thickened and contained numerous budding, fluid-filled vesicles. A virus was isolated using fish cell lines inoculated with a homogenate of kidney and spleen tissues from affected fish. Focal areas of cell rounding and granulation appeared as early as 24 h post-inoculation and expanded rapidly to destroy the entire cell sheet by 96 h. Electron microscopy revealed virions that were 170–180 nm in length by 60–70 nm in width having a bullet-shaped morphology typical of rhabdoviruses. The virus was confirmed as VHSV by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Sequence analysis of the entire nucleoprotein and glycoprotein genes revealed the virus was a member of the North American genotype of VHSV; however, the isolate was sufficiently distinct to be considered a separate sublineage, suggesting its origin may have been from marine species inhabiting the eastern coastal areas of the USA or Canada.
(As Dr. Tom Cowan pointed out in 2020: if dolphins are getting sick, a logical first question would be “Somebody put some shit in the water here? Like Exxon Valdez?” Instead, virology distracts from plausible explanations like pollution/poisoning and reduces the likelihood of them ever being investigated.)
Back to the first study on USDA’s list, from its Materials and Methods section:
…Fish were obtained, maintained, anesthetized… euthanized with an overdose of 25 mg/ml tricaine methanesulfonate… and decapitated to ensure death… Spleen tissue was removed, placed into individual 1.5 mL eppendorf tubes, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen or stored in RNAlater (Qiagen), and kept at −80°C until further processing.
Animal sacrifice in the name of pseudoscience.
More “fish virus isolation” idiocy is described here with further details, in another study cited by USDA (pg 10).
July 6, 2025:
I responded to Nicholas and Alexis:
Thank you for Alexis’ letter dated June 13, 2025 and the file titled “final document set”, however the letter and document are not responsive to my order and I require a completion of the order…
…I agreed to ARS processing my order, but not to any changes to the order. The order is not for peer-reviewed publications from the aquaculture program that contain the word “virus.” It is not limited to peer-reviewed publications from the aquaculture program and it is far more specific than an order for publications containing the word “virus”…
10 months later… no further communication from anyone at USDA.
If the “subject matter experts” at USDA really believe they have responsive studies on hand, the administration is welcome to get back to me with a list that actually addresses my order instead of wasting my time (and yours) with dozens of irrelevant pseudoscientific studies.
Hanta Hoax Resources
CDC confesses: our DHCPP “experts” have never obtained scientific evidence of any alleged “virus”… including “hantavirus”
Welcome Aboard the Hantavirus Cruise – Dr Sam Bailey
The Hanta Hype, or: A Tale of Bird-Watchers in Toxic Landfills and How I Learned to Smell a Pharma Rat – Michael Bryant
The Hanta Hustle – Mike Stone, viroLIEgy.com
From Rodent Tissues to Digital Sequences: The Making of a Molecular Ghost and the Displacement of the Chemical Environment
#239 Dr Mark Bailey – The latest in viral fraud fear campaigns, the pseudo scientific hantavirus – Fair Food Forager
Hollywood’s Hantavirus – Dr Sam Bailey
The so-called discovery of this strain of so-called Hantavirus – Jon Rappoport
Social Media “Influenza-ers” Trotted Out to Promote the “Ain’t-a-Virus” – Peggy Hall
Official FOI Confessions/Failures Confirm What the Literature Shows: Virology is Pseudoscience
My notarized affidavit regarding the hundreds of freedom of information responses (FOIs) confirming the fraud and delusion of virology, with German and Greek translations, also here.
Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (225 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever.
Excel file listing the 225 institutions.
FOI responses on other imaginary “viruses” (HIV, avian influenza, HPV, influenza, measles, etc., etc., etc.).
FOIs on secretive and unscientifically “mock infected” cells (aka invalid controls) and computer-model “viral genomes”.
3000+ pages of “virus” FOIs in compilation pdfs.
Failed FOI responses on contagion.
FOIs: Do health and science institutions have studies showing that bacteria CAUSE disease?
Because “they” don’t exist and virology isn’t a science.
For truth, freedom and sanity,
Christine