Jay Littlepage

Husband, dad, grandfather, USATF runner, artist, retired tech executive

[The HighWire @HighWireTalk]

🚨NIH's own emails, obtained by @ICANdecide after a two-year FOIA fight, show Fauci, Collins, and Tabak all knew about neurological injuries following COVID vaccination by April 2021, and pushed back on publishing the findings.

NIH senior investigator Avindra Nath had drafted a manuscript on 24 patients with neuropathy-like symptoms following vaccination, noting early treatment with corticosteroids could reverse them. When it was rejected by NEJM, Collins asked Koroshetz, "what do you make of this?" and called the approach "very troubling," writing that collecting these cases "will have the main consequence of feeding vaccine hesitancy and social media overreaction." Tabak's private reply to Collins was blunter: "I don't understand why Walter does not shut this down."

The manuscript never ran in a peer-reviewed journal. The preprint didn't surface until May 2022, a full year later. It took @ICANdecide filing a federal lawsuit in June 2025, two years after the original FOIA request, just to get these emails released at all.

https://t.co/w2F6qoLoGm

[Save Standard Time @SaveStandard]

@LeslieManookian Thank you! Please tell US senators to OPPOSE the Sunshine Protection Act (permanent Daylight Saving Time mandate) and SUPPORT the new Sunshine for Our Kids Act (permanent Standard Time restoration): https://t.co/WCRgtwRQdT

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

DOGE found the waste, but Big Spenders in both parties put it right back in.

Zero of it became law. Zero. The debt is still climbing, interest payments are approaching $2 trillion a year, and both parties are to blame.

[Jan Jekielek @JanJekielek]

Sen. Ron Johnson just shattered the lie that the Covid shots “saved 3 million lives.”

“It’s farcical.”

“In 2019, before the pandemic, there were 2.85 million deaths in America.”

“The year of the pandemic shot up to 3.4 [million].”

“2021 was the year of the vaccine.”

“If [the vaccine] really was gonna end the pandemic, you would think we’d come down back toward that normalized baseline.”

“We didn’t.”

“We went to 3.5 million.”

“The next year, we came down a little bit to 3.3 [million], but we’re still way above the normalized rate of deaths.”

“They’re claiming in this Commonwealth Fund study that the vaccine saved 3 million lives in both 2021 and 2022.”

“In order [for] that to be true, you’d have to assume we were going to have 5 million deaths per year in both 2021, 2022.”

“I don’t need a… sophisticated mathematical analysis to just show there’s no way the injection saved 3 million lives in 2021 and 2022.”

@SenRonJohnson

[Dr. Lynn Fynn-derella (ret) 🐭 @Fynnderella1]

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.

The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.

The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.

The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.

The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.

The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.

The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.

Now it is today.

Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New “consensus”.

He/She is confident.

He has always been confident.

The confidence has never been the problem.

The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem as he/she shuts down questions or opposing views.

[Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 @FmrRepMTG]

The UK has arrested Andrew because of the Epstein files and over here the President signed an EO protecting cancer causing Glyphosate in our foods and we have zero Epstein related arrest and investigations since release of the files.
And we are on the verge of going to war against Iran.
That’s the current state of MAGA and MAHA.

[Sam Knowlton @samdknowlton]

The metrics we use to assess livestock's climate and nutritional impact are fundamentally flawed and influence misguided policy decisions that ultimately harm ecology and human health.

Firstly, methane isn't carbon dioxide and shouldn't be accounted for as such.

Prevailing accounting methods treat methane as 27× more potent than CO₂. This conflates two gases with drastically different atmospheric behavior.

CO₂ accumulates for centuries. Meanwhile, methane breaks down in about a decade. Yet this distinction isn't accounted for.

Under the GWP* (a newer metric that accounts for this difference), reducing livestock methane by just 0.35% annually would halt further warming from agricultural methane. A 5% annual reduction would actually reverse warming to 1980 levels.

This reduction can be achieved easily through accessible and scalable management practices like fermented forages, seaweed supplements, livestock genetics, improved grazing, and microbiological manure management.

Second, standard accounting methods blame livestock for their emissions while overlooking the emissions that would occur in their absence.

If we remove livestock from a grazing landscape, that ecological role doesn't remain vacant.

Wild herbivores move in. Termite numbers surge. Wildfires become more frequent and intense. All of these produce significant greenhouse gas emissions, often comparable to or exceeding those from livestock.

Also, healthy grassland soils contain methane oxidizing bacteria that naturally absorb and break down atmospheric methane. This acts as an emissions sink that's quantifiable but rarely factored into Life Cycle Assessments.

Third, livestock water footprints are not measured accurately.

Most water footprint calculations treat rainfall falling on grazed land as consumed water. This artificially boosts the water usage figures for grassland-based systems, even though it has no actual effect on scarce freshwater resources.

As a result, areas like mountain pastures (which can't support crop farming anyway) are assigned enormous water footprints.

Meanwhile, the real issue – how much these systems truly compete for limited water resources – gets overlooked.

Fourth, protein quality is more important than quantity, but that's not accounted for.

The Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) – a measure of how well proteins provide essential amino acids – for milk and meat typically ranges from 100-120%. In contrast, plant-based meats score between 60% and 80%.

The nutrition facts label on grass-fed beef is nearly identical to that of plant based alternatives, but metabolomics studies show a 90% difference in nutritional profiles.

Beef is significantly more abundant in health-promoting metabolites like amino acids, vitamins, dipeptides, phenols, tocopherols, and more.

Even more problematic, basic carbon footprint labels might encourage choosing low-emission but nutrient-poor options like sugary processed foods over high-quality, nutrient-dense foods.

Lastly, the sheer efficiency of livestock cannot be overlooked, but too often it is.

Ruminants convert grass and food industry byproducts into high-quality protein, upcycling 3–4× more net protein to human diets than pigs or chickens.

Crops occupy about 12% of Earth's land. Livestock utilize an additional 37%, mostly land that can't grow crops.

The efficiency question isn't livestock versus crops. It's what's the best nutritional output from land that has no alternative use.

No single metric captures the complexity of livestock systems.

We need a multifactorial assessment that factors in methane's distinct atmospheric behavior, overlooked ecosystem baselines and sinks, accurate water scarcity measures, nutritional bioavailability and quality, and ruminants' essential role on marginal land.

[Five Times August @FiveTimesAugust]

We all have a lot of really hard and personal work to do. What becomes clearer and clearer to me every day is the blatant agenda to divide us, keep us hating each other, choose a “side,” and stay distracted while believing someone up at the top is going to save us and fix everything. When in truth, no matter what “side” you’ve chosen, your hero at the top has no sincere interest in helping you. The appearance of it all is merely marketing and branding for the figure.

In the meantime, the average Joe continues to become more and more callous and hateful towards his neighbors and community because, well, that’s the whole idea. Politics has become no more than one football team vs the other. Everybody is just wearing their team’s jersey out of an over zealous commitment to “winning” regardless of how bad the players are. The truth is everybody is losing except the team’s owners.

We have to start working past this. It’s just not working. And the trajectory we’re on for humanity is really really bad. If we truly want things to change we’re eventually going to have to set aside emotionally manipulated and amplified political differences, recognize them as such, and come together through whatever little common ground is left. We must admit both “sides” have been played by very corrupt and evil people with no other interest than keeping us all slaves to them.

Do not fall prey to these cartoon characters. You will find that you are much smarter and more powerful than them once you stop buying the bread and circus they keep selling.

I suggest this week you extend an olive branch to someone in your life you’ve kept distance from as a result of the last decade of division. It may not lead anywhere, but we have to start trying again. I don’t want to sit around not talking to my fellow man because he voted one way or another, especially at the precipice of AI robots taking over society. Like it or not, we’re eventually going to need each other.

Think on it.

[Children’s Health Defense @ChildrensHD]

🚨 COVID mRNA vaccines were designed to deliver spike protein instructions temporarily and locally.

But a peer-reviewed lab analysis found residual DNA persists in final vaccine products, including RNA:DNA hybrids that resist standard DNase cleanup and are missed by routine regulatory tests.

Depending on the assay used, DNA levels varied by 100-fold, meaning contamination may be systematically underestimated.

According to Children’s Health Defense Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., this raises serious questions about long-term biological effects, including abnormal gene expression and cancer risk.

[Emily Kopp @emilyakopp]

NEW FOIA'd documents show that Fauci privately acknowledged "impressive" data showed natural immunity was more protective than COVID vaccines even as the Biden admin implemented mandates in 2021.

Privately officials acknowledged the strength of a study of 770,000+ people showing natural immunity to be 13x more protective. Publicly they touted a CDC MMWR study of 250 people.

This challenges a common refrain that people lost trust in NIH, CDC and FDA because policy couldn't keep up with evolving science. The emails confirm once and for all Fauci and others had the science in their inboxes AT THE TIME showing vaccine mandates were unjustifiable.

New FDA leadership is investigating deaths after the COVID vaccine. Families deserve to know if loved ones died abiding by vaccine mandates that officials knew were redundant.

[Del Bigtree @delbigtree]

This video reveals the striking difference between a television funded by cereal and vacuum cleaner ads and a television funded by pharmaceutical ads. See if you can spot the difference.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

I’m very sad for our country but so happy for my friend Marjorie. I’ll miss her tremendously. She embodies what a true Representative should be. Everyone should read her statement; there’s more honesty expressed in these four pages than most politicians will speak in a lifetime.

[Robby Starbuck @robbystarbuck]

Hey @BillCassidy — Genuine question that I hope you’ll answer: 1 out of every 5 million kids will get Hepatitis B, nearly always at birth from Mom.

1 in 600,000 who get the Hep B shot will suffer extreme side effects like Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, optic neuritis or anaphylaxis, not to mention less serious side effects experienced by a MUCH larger number of people.

This is math. This is scientific.

So if you have a healthy child in a healthy area with no Hep B in the mother, why should you accept those dangerous risks which are much more likely to occur than contracting Hep B?

Can you admit that you’re wrong about this? That the math just doesn’t make sense for kids?

[Brady Holmer @Brady_H]

I have been an avid reader, my entire life.

Now that I read basically for a living, my pleasure reading has dropped.

But every weekend, I will at least try to sit on the couch and read a book unrelated to my work for around an hour.

I realize that reading has now become a skill. It’s hard to do, especially when we are used to the quick digestible content that comes with scrolling social media.

But it makes me realize that practicing the skill of reading is probably essential and it’s doing something unique to the mind that we need to maintain in this modern era.

[The Real Mike Rowe @mikeroweworks]

Ryan McWeeny writes…
Sadly, Mike is one of many demonstrably intelligent and reasonable people that has somehow been captivated and caught up in the crossing over from healthy skepticism to conspiratorial mysticism. I will never understand how this happens, but they all eventually become convinced of some thing or another and put the burden of proof on you to disprove their “evidence” which deceptively looks as though it supports their claim by the sheer nature of its unfalsifiability… which is a far cry from it being true.

Hello, Mr. McWeeny, and thanks for your comment. I found it this morning on a flight to LA, buried in a flurry of similar disappointment regarding my recent conversation with Gavin de Becker about his new book, Forbidden Facts: Government Deceit & Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines.” In spite of my “demonstrable intelligence” (thanks for that!), you seem to believe I'm mistaken to be curious about the role vaccines might be having on childhood illness. Obviously, you’re not alone. There’s a great hew and cry in the comment section today, and more pearl clutching than usual. But I wonder, Mr. McWeeny, what else you might have in common with those who believe the science is settled. Four possibilities come to mind.

1. You didn’t read the book (which you can get here. https://t.co/V0GinUPSrp)
2. You didn’t watch to the interview (which you can watch here. https://t.co/QBIREyXGf5)
3. You have no intention of doing either (which you can accomplish pretty much anywhere.)
4. You believe, like so many others who actually spelled it out for me (often in CAPS and with multiple exclamation points,) that with respect to all things vaccine-related, “THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN SETTLED!!!”

To your credit, you didn’t use those actual words, but lots of others did, and I’m wondering if you share their desire to throw the scientific method out the window at a time when both science and skepticism are so critical to our country. Forgive me if you already know this, but I feel it needs to be said, even from a non-scientist like me.

The scientific method has less to do with “settling” things and more to do with “testing” things. This is because scientists are always learning and, therefore, often mistaken. It’s the essence of the job. Once upon a time the best minds in science believed the sun revolved around the earth. The finest doctors drained most of the blood from George Washington in a failed attempt to save his life. Like bloodletting, lobotomies were very common, as were tonsillectomies and radical mastectomies. Physicians used to recommend smoking and diets high in sugar, and it was the scientific community who put poor Iggy Semmelweis – the man who paved the way for modern germ theory - into an insane asylum for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands before performing surgery, where he died, ironically, of blood poisoning.

Honest question. Mr. McWeeny, for you and all the others who believe @GDBAProtects is a “science denier” and I’m some sort of conspiracy nut. Would you have supported Galileo’s arrest and imprisonment for daring to question the way our solar system actually worked? Would you have accused him of putting the burden of proof on you to disprove the “evidence” by the sheer nature of its unfalsifiability? Most people alive back then did exactly that, and I wonder if you’d be among them. I wonder the same about myself.

Not to belabor the point, scientists are not supposed to be certain; they’re supposed to be skeptical – especially when they think they’re correct. They’re supposed to doubt their own findings, and then, if their findings are peer reviewed and accepted as fact, and a consensus forms, a proper scientist - like a proper journalist - will keep his ego and his personal opinion out of it. They will remain objective, ever mindful that new evidence or new information might demand a new conclusion. Science requires humility, along with curiosity, and most of all, doubt. Your position, Mr. McWeeny, requires arrogance, certainty, and a level of institutional trust that seems naïve in today’s environment. And no, you don’t need to be a scientist to know this.

Of course, there’s another reason I’m open to the possibility that we’ve been misled, and that’s because we’ve been misled before. Many times. Do you not recall the cover-ups around Agent Orange, Johnson’s Baby Powder, the water in Flint Michigan, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Thalidomide Crisis, the Opioid Crisis, or so many others? Have you forgotten the countless experts who assured us that masking, social distancing, and endless boosters were all scientifically sound? Have you forgotten the way our elected officials, our media, and so many of our top scientists demanded – in the immortal words of Eric Cartman - to “respect my authoritay!!! I fear that you have, Mr. McWeeny. And I worry that lots of other people have, too.

I doubt repetition will help my cause, but I’ll say it again. I haven’t said we’ve been lied to about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. But I’m certainly open to that possibility, because the evidence is compelling. Childhood diseases have exploded in the last two decades. Is it really “conspiratorial mysticism” to wonder if the exploding vaccine schedule might have something to do with that? I know, correlation does not equal causation, and yes, I’m familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, another popular accusation leveled at me in the comment section. (What else would you expect from a “demonstrably intelligent” non-scientist like me?) But why is it so hard for an educated man such as yourself to understand that we can no longer hope to persuade the masses to believe a claim simply because it’s supported by people with the proper credentials? What’s the downside of challenging the status quo, especially in light of new data, or conducting new studies to see what the latest research yields?

It's true that Gavin’s book is controversial, and it’s also true that he is not a scientist. Indeed, he makes the point repeatedly throughout his book and our conversation. But it’s also true that he’s earned the trust and respect of several dozen world leaders, including several US presidents and countless CEOs who have trusted him with their lives and the lives of their families. He’s not some hack writer trying to get rich by riling up the masses. Gavin is already rich. He’s also concerned that a lot of Americans have been misled about something profound and consequential. Yes, he is skeptical of the claim that all vaccines are “safe and effective,” but every single claim in his book is backed by an astonishing amount of research and data, all of which are accessible through hundreds of QR codes throughout.

So, what’s the problem, exactly? Why are you and so many others threatened by a book that encourages people to look beyond the credentials of an expert and a conversation that encourages people to assume a measure of personal responsibility? And why do you suppose there’s never been a large, robust, and completely transparent study that compares the health of thousands of vaccinated kids to the overall health of unvaccinated kids? Moreover, why do you think there’s so much opposition to conducting and publishing such a study today?

I don’t know the answer, Mr. McWeeny, but unlike you, I’m curious to find out.

PS. Gavin's book is #1 in three categories, and sends his thanks to you all.

[Dr. Simone Gold @drsimonegold]

The American Academy of Pediatrics warned that calling breastfeeding “natural” was dangerous—because mothers might start believing natural things are healthier & begin questioning vaccines.

When “natural” becomes a threat, you know it’s no longer about health—it’s about control.

[Senator Rand Paul @SenRandPaul]

“I suggest that President Trump come forward and name three Republicans and three Democrats in the Senate to an official commission to figure this out over a one-month period and come back with a solution. But in exchange for that, I think the Democrats need to open the government for a month, and then we need to pay the workers, pay our soldiers.”
https://t.co/7lO9vgAEdF

[Troy Renck @TroyRenck]

So this is cool and not surprising if you know their friendship, but Peyton Manning made it clear he wanted Demaryius Thomas’ Ring of Fame pillar next to his, with that spot left open for it.
#BroncosCountry
#DenverBroncos
#Denverpost

[The HighWire @HighWireTalk]

🚨X is blocking our ability to promote An Inconvenient Study.

Their policy: "Content questioning the safety or efficacy of approved medical products like vaccines" can't be boosted, even if factual.

"X’s advertising policies are strict about health-related content, especially anything questioning the safety or efficacy of approved medical products like vaccines."
- Grok

We need YOU TO SHARE this post of the film and help us further the discourse.

[Chief Nerd @TheChiefNerd]

Jenny McCarthy on What No One Told Her to Check Before Vaccinating Her Kids

“Check your genetic vulnerabilities, MTHFR gene mutation … I would look into if your kid has low glutathione because … when you get the shot, it makes it harder to detox.”