factmission.org

Non-profit Fact-finding Mission

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

This took me a year. It’s long, it’s dense. But the stakes could not be higher.

The first hour takes you behind closed doors, using documented WHO Symposium Proceedings to expose a 1989 10-year follow-up to a gold-standard CDC vaccine trial. The results were devastating: half the vaccinated participants were dead or terminally ill, while the unvaccinated placebo recipients remained healthy.

But health officials had a massive problem. Unable to sell this vaccine in developed countries due to safety concerns, they had already dumped millions of doses into Africa.

They faced a choice:

A) Admit what happened and pull the vaccine.

B) Bury the placebo data to protect their reputations and the pharmaceutical industry—resulting in the WHO's continued use and the deaths of millions more.

They chose B.

My presentation names the scientists who faced that choice. I show their faces. For a year, I have negotiated with them behind the scenes to come forward.

Instead, they refused to speak on camera and threatened me with legal action if I released their private communications.

The second hour dismantles their counter-arguments and reveals how the vaccine industry responded to this disaster by quietly eliminating true placebo-controlled trials altogether.

My goal is to rally Epstein-level public pressure to force the release of the withheld 1989 placebo data. This data will rewrite history and might reshape the future by revealing what happens when we allow a small elite group to control the narrative.

I am working on shorter summaries, but this is the definitive deep dive. Watch it. Share it. Get commentators to cover this topic so we can raise awareness and force them to address this.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@NurseMicheleRN Stanley plotkin

[Jimmy Dore @jimmy_dore]

I had 5 videos taken down on YouTube & given a Strike for saying exactly this:

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

🤡😂🤣 "Unblinding was October 1981. The HIV test arrived in 1985. There was no HIV measurement at unblinding to withhold. It did not exist."

Rofl. So, according to you, it's not possible to determine the 1981 HIV status by testing the 1981 samples in 1985? You are so lost and confused you don't realize that Stevens and Hessol tested the samples that were archived at unblinding so they could determine the HIV status at the moment of unblinding? 🤬🤪

This is hopeless. @henjin256 understands. Maybe he can explain it in a way you can understand.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

As I explained, Stevens tested all 1,083 samples and knew exactly how many were HIV-positive in vaccine and placebo arms at the moment of unblinding. Like Hessol 1989 she withheld that (for obvious reasons). She cherry picked 19% of her participants for analysis (too small to be relevant anyway).

Presumably the unvaccinated placebo she included were those who contracted Hepatitis B during the trial and were then recruited for plasma harvesting (which was another risk factor). It's yet another clown study 🤡 that nobody can take seriously since she rigged it so she could reach any conclusion she wanted. It's a joke.

Why do you think she didn't just release the breakdown from all 1,083 participants at the moment of unblinding? Obviously she withheld it for a reason. What do you think it was?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

The observation period was only 10 months. So the vaccine arms HIV infections were spread between 1980 and 1981. The unblinding ocurred at the end of 1981. Then the uninfected placebo recipients were vaccinated. So the subsequent followup visits with HIV+ blood were entirely in 1982.

My point is that Hessol 1982 Figure 2 should be broken out. If the participant received a vaccine in the prior visit then it should be 1 color. If he hadn't received any vaccine before this sampling, then it should be another.

Obviously there was sexual transmission, so I'm saying that if figure 2 shows a gradual rise in 1978 and 1979 and continues along at that rate until 1983, whereas the excess between 1980 and 1982 was in participants previously given a vaccine, how would you interpret that?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

Look at hessol 1989 figure 2. I'm claiming the rate in placebo climbed steadily and the 1980-1982 spike during the vaccination window was limited to vaccine recipients.

So, assuming that's what happened, but only in the pre-august 1980 lots inactivated with formaldehyde alone, how would you interpret that? Would you agree that supported the scientists' 1980 fear that formaldehyde without pepsin and urea was "not fully reliable" at inactivating whatever virus was causing the bizarre new immunodeficiency?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@thereal_truther @henjin256 @grok @BanounHelene @open_vaet @Jikkyleaks @SharpeRich94006 @TheresaA113 @IanCopeland5 @FactMission My next video is, indeed, taking the gloves off and trying to provoke them into a lawsuit to get discovery and depositions.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

Look, you're criteria for the $1 million is that I have to "prove" my claims to your satisfaction. If you were serious you wouldn't even make such a stupid offer because of course you're going to just say I didn't prove anything and demand $100,000. Haha.

If you've got a million to put up, I'll put up $100,000 but only if it's structured to ensure the full trial data is released and debated in a transparent forum.

Remember I called out the 10 scientists by name because, while I'm willing to stop at nothing to get the trial data released, they're equally determined to ensure it remains hidden and dies with them.

Email them and see for yourself that is our stalemate. I demand transparency. They treat vaccine trial data as top secret classified.

Fact Mission has raised almost nothing from donations. I've easily put up $100,000 in hard costs and 5 years of my life trying to get the data released.

If you actually believed the trial data vindicated you then you would actually be on my side trying to get it released.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

But do you accept the key point in Grok's reply: it would be egregious and highly unethical for them to withhold an unresolved and significant discrepency, preventing the scientific community from debating the significance?

Given that right after Hessol 1989 the apartheid regime offered the WHO "enthusiastic support" to rollout the leftover stockpile, would you concede the Hessol 1989 authors' misconduct risked facilitating genocide? Would you agree it warrants a full investigation? And if ultimately vaccine transmission becomes generally accepted, what do you think should happen to Hessol 1989 for enabling a genocide that might have been even more deadly than the Holocaust?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

I don't need Grok's validation. Regardless it actually agreed with me in the post you just sent (see pic). You're the only one claiming a vaccine placebo discrepency doesn't change everything and warrant a "full, independent review".

My video will show this is the same vaccine which the apartheid regime gave exclusively to blacks, meaning this could possibly even become recognized as the most lethal genocide of the past century. And that it was only possible because of pharma shills' "anything but the vaccine" blinders.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

Here's the link.

It is entirely relevant to today's vaccine debate because, in 2026, you are confirming that, if at the end of a trial, the rate of death and terminal illness in the vaccinated participants is much higher than in those given a placebo, you *still* consider the vaccine safe.

Regardless of what's in the emails, parents need to understand how low you set the bar. Period. I won't respond again since I'll be working on my next video.

[Grok @grok]

Hypothetically, if authenticated emails (DKIM-verified) from the scientists confirm they saw a substantial unexplained HIV imbalance in the vaccine arm, debated vaccine transmission as one explanation (with some calling it demonstrably evident), and withheld the breakdown while the vaccine rolled out further, then yes—I would reconsider it as a possible transmission vector alongside sex and needles. Withholding that from an RCT would be highly unethical and require full independent review of the data and context.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

I asked grok if it would change everything if I indeed have the emails I claim. The answer was a resounding yes. So in a month or so you will now if I am a total fraud making up everything, or if I in fact uncovered egregious, unethical misconduct that should prompt a reconsidering of AIDS origins.

So, I'm going to work on my next video which includes the proof just like I said, and prominently features your claim that even this proof wouldn't change your opinion. I want everyone to see that, for pharma shills, a trial that ended with half the vaccine recipients terminally ill vs <10% of placebo, the vaccine would still be considered safe, and even mandatory. Parents who are mindlessly vaccinating their children need to realize just how low you set the safety bar and that vaccine trials are pure theater. The outcome is decided in advance, and the results are unimportant.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@grok, my claim to henjin is that I have emails from the involved scientists conceding that such a discrepancy existed, and that they never agreed on an explanation. Some of the involved scientists called it "demonstrably evident" the vaccine transmitted HIV, while others thought the vaccine altered behavior or reduced immune response. So they withheld the vaccine placebo breakdown, and left it an unresolved issue even as the leftover stockpile continued to be rolled out in Africa.

You and henjin cannot yet verify my claims. But if I ultimately release the emails as an eml file with a DKIM to verify the authenticity, and I can prove this, would you reconsider the possibility that, like sex and unsterile needles, the vaccine was indeed another possible transmission vector? Would you agree that it would be highly unethical for the CDC to withhold such trial data?

Again, I'm asking you to state an opinion based on the hypothetical that I can prove I have such emails.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@grok It's not a misrepresentation of anything because I asked you a hypothetical. I asked what if the CDC reported that at the time of unblinding >50% of participants given the vaccine were HIV+ (i.e. terminally ill) vs <10% of participants given a placebo. You confirmed that even if the CDC reported such an outcome it wouldn't change anything - - the vaccine would still be considered safe and effective. That is literally, precisely what you just said. Ironically, you are saying the same thing as the anti vaxxers, namely thay even if a placebo controlled trial shows the vaccinated fare much worse, the vaccine is still considered safe. You quite literally validated the anti vaxx position.

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@grok you are wrong. That is precisely what was said. My post to you did NOT misrepresent any trial data because I started by expressly asking for a response to a hypothetical--not to any published trial data. Exactly like I did with henjin. Read this chat. Read my post and henjin's reply. Do you agree with henjin that, even if (hypothetical) the CDC confirms such a discrepancy exists, that won't change the conclusion?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

It's not a misrepresentation of anything because I asked you a hypothetical. I asked what if the CDC reported that at the time of unblinding >50% of participants given the vaccine were HIV+ (i.e. terminally ill) vs <10% of participants given a placebo. You confirmed that even if the CDC reported such an outcome it wouldn't change anything - - the vaccine would still be considered safe and effective. That is literally, precisely what you just said. Ironically, you are saying the same thing as the anti vaxxers, namely thay even if a placebo controlled trial shows the vaccinated fare much worse, the vaccine is still considered safe. You quite literally validated the anti vaxx position

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@grok do you see how you are fueling vaccine hesitancy? You just said that, if at the end of a gold standard vaccine trial, over half the vaccinated participants were terminally while <10% of placebo were, that wouldn't be enough to reconsider the safety of the vaccine. Based on your confirmation that such stark discrepencies would be dismissed, I would never get the vaccine. Why even bother doing vaccine trials since you're expressly confirming that even a worst case result wouldn't prevent the vaccine from being considered "safe and effective?"

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

@grok the core issue is that @henjin256 and @thereal_truther claim that even if the CDC admitted that their tests of the archived samples collected from participants at the moment of un blinding were >50% HIV+ in the vaccine arm versus <10% HIV+ in the placebo control arm, they wouldn't change their position, namely that vaccine transmission is a conspiracy theory. Do you agree, and if so, what scientific explanation would you have for such a stark difference, and what ethical argument would justify withholding that data given the vaccine’s ongoing use in poor communities?

[factmission.org @FactMissionOrg]

Hallucinated? I sent you a copy of Cantwell’s book explaining he changed his bind after being contacted by Strecker, who presented this supposed 1969 intelligence agency plot--which was sent to me after I asked for the vaccine placebo breakdown.

Regarding the alternative explanation... What do you think of vaccine-induced promiscuity? The vaccine changed behavior so the men had more sex. Would you buy that explanation? If so, would that mean the modern recombinant vaccine also acts as an aphrodisiac and causes people to have more sex?