Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

UK Covid Inquiry blatantly discounted evidence that didn’t fit their narrative

Four dissenting groups, including HART, requested core participant status for the ‘UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4’ on vaccines and therapeutics. This was refused but each group was asked to submit a Witness Statement under Rule 9 which we all duly did.

Each one of us was initially asked not to publish our statements, as the Inquiry team wished to publish statements contemporaneously as the hearing progressed. We were assured that our statements would be used to inform lines of questioning. However, when the inquiry hearings were postponed from July 2024 to January 2025, we set up the People’s Vaccine Inquiry and published our statements, as we were unwilling to further delay placing all this information in the public domain.

In the event, none of the authors of these statements were called to give oral evidence but even then, it was suggested that they might be published at the end of the hearings or at the time of publication of the Module 4 Report.

The Module 4 Report was published in April 2026 and our witness statements have still not appeared on the Inquiry website. We enquired as to why they had not been published and were told, “The Inquiry only publishes witness statements and documents on its website if they are formally adduced during the hearings and/or when the Chair is preparing her report.” 

In response to further questions from Dr. Ros Jones, the legal team graciously replied, “While CCVAC’s [Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council] witness statement was not formally adduced, we are grateful to you for taking the time to provide it. The Inquiry does not object to CCVAC sharing its witness statement publicly, should it wish to do so.”

Hence, we are reposting all four statements here on the HART website as a public record of those who spoke out to raise multiple concerns about the safety and efficacy of these products, and the regulatory and ethical failures.

In addition, on the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website is a long and detailed multi-authored statement from Doctors for Patients UK. All the co-authors of this document are clinicians working in front-line services throughout 2020-2025, with hugely concerning testimony about the changes they were seeing in their day-to-day work from 2021 onwards. Speaking out on this subject has been at great personal risk to their careers.

The failure to publish these and other statements was covered recently in The Telegraph. Camilla Turner elicited the following from an Inquiry team spokesperson: “The inquiry publishes witness statements that are entered into evidence during or after the inquiry’s hearings. The inquiry publishes evidence that the chair considers sufficiently relevant to its hearings and reports. It does not comment on material which is not sufficiently relevant to be published.”

Please do go to the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website, where you will find other witness statements not submitted to the UK Inquiry, and also links to conferences and presentations which we held to ensure the public could access all the information which Baroness Hallett has deemed irrelevant.

We invite our readers to judge for themselves whether our evidence is irrelevant. For example, is it irrelevant that the vaccines rolled out were different products from those tested in the clinical trials, or that southern hemisphere deaths started with vaccine roll-out, not covid, or that covid infection rates and cardiovascular problems were higher in the vaccinated, or that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) missed safety signals?

Keep reading

The View’s Sunny Hostin Hates ‘Privilege’… Except For Her Own

No one hates “privilege” more than Sunny Hostin.

The slightly black co-host of The View, who earns $2 million annually and lives with her orthopedic surgeon husband in a 12,000-square-foot New York City apartment, repeatedly castigates those—usually white—who exercise their “privilege.”

However, when it came to throwing her weight around with the cops to protect her son from allegedly illegal conduct, the whole idea of “privilege” vanished from Hostin’s mind.

Hostin, a former federal prosecutor with a pretty face, landed herself a gig on The View, a show that is aggressively woke. In that context, Hostin often complains about privilege—all kinds of privilege that imply that talent and hard work are meaningless. Here are some notable examples:

In April 2019, when he was running for the Democrat nomination, Pete Buttigieg made obeisance to the race and sex hustlers by reflecting on his “white privilege or male privilege.” Hostin was thrilled that Buttigieg had this empathetic insight into his privilege.

In May 2024, while the shrews…er, hostesses were discussing Caitlin Clark, Hostin stated, “I do think that there is a thing called pretty privilege. There is a thing called White privilege. There is a thing called tall privilege, and we have to acknowledge that.

Most tellingly, though, for purposes of this essay, in September 2019, when actress Felicity Huffman was trying to get a more lenient sentence for her role in a college admissions scandal, Hostin was outraged that someone prominent, wealthy, and generally in a better (presumably whiter) situation than other people, would dare ask for leniency: “She had wealth, privilege and a platform, and she didn’t use it appropriately.”

I couldn’t help thinking of these (and other) attacks on privilege when I read about Hostin throwing around her privileged weight as co-host of The View when she tried to stop police from arresting her son who had allegedly been caught walking along the railroad tracks in chi-chi Westchester County last month:

“The View” co-host Sunny Hostin tried to talk cops out of issuing her Ivy League-educated son a trespassing citation — telling them he “has no criminal record” and repeatedly citing her legal background, according to newly released police bodycam footage.

The TV personality and former federal prosecutor was on the phone with her 24-year-old son, Gabriel Hostin, when he was stopped by police along Metro-North Railroad tracks in Westchester County last month.

“My name is Sunny Hostin and I’m one of the co-hosts of ‘The View’ and I’m a former federal prosecutor,” the 57-year-old mom can be heard saying to the responding officers in the bodycam footage obtained Friday by The Post.

You and I both know that she talked about her role on The View as a subtle threat to the police: I’m powerful, I know people, and I can use my show to destroy you is the privileged subtext of that statement.

Keep reading

Academia Embarrasses Itself… Again

Over at Twitchy, a publication that curates the news in funny yet insightful ways, a headline reads, “Head of Medical School Tells Congresswoman the Vast Majority of Pregnancies Occur in Women.”  Sure enough, Twitchy is telling the truth.

During witness testimony before a congressional committee examining the impact of forced “diversity,” preferential (non-merit-based) admissions, and “woke” ideology upon the quality of medical schools, the chancellor of UC San Francisco testified under oath that not all pregnancies come from women.  That chancellor, Samuel Hawgood, is not some administrative bureaucrat with a made-up bachelor’s degree in the discriminatory effects of man-made “climate change” upon “transgender” Pakistanis (and an obligatory master’s in why American taxpayers must foot the bill for all “sex change” surgeries around the world).  No, Hawgood is an actual pediatrician who previously served as UCSF’s dean of the School of Medicine.  A man who did his residency at the Royal Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Brisbane cannot tell us how babies are made.

It is astounding to watch just how far down the propaganda rabbit hole so-called “institutions of higher learning” have dragged society.  Until very recently, this kind of public display of sophistry would have embarrassed an intellectual of the lowest order.  For a medical doctor and university chancellor to pretend that men can get pregnant is a flashing neon sign warning just how corrupt and dishonest all of academia has become.  These days, university leaders sound indistinguishable from North Korean spokespeople assuring starving citizens that they are better off than anyone else in the world.

How did we get to this point in time when professors tell rank lies to the American people, while hiding behind their titles as false evidence that those lies are somehow “truths”?  Well, social media favorite “Oilfield Rando” points to part of the problem.  In an X post responding to the doctor’s pseudoscientific testimony, Rando includes an itemization of Chancellor Hawgood’s university pay and accompanying benefits.  The man in charge of one of the country’s top educational institutions takes home well over a million dollars each year.  Unless Chancellor Hawgood is a moron who genuinely believes men can get pregnant, it is likely that he is willing to sell his intellectual reputation and personal honor for a seven-figure salary.

What does that say about the current state of our society?  The modern university arose from Christian monasteries dedicated to God’s truth.  This is why divinity degrees are generally accorded highest honor during processions accompanying graduation ceremonies.  As monasteries developed into secular institutions of higher learning, they remained places dedicated to the pursuit of truth.  Harvard’s motto, veritas, simply means “truth.”

For hundreds of years, faculty members did not take positions on college campuses because they sought fame or fortune.  They became scholars and professors because they were dedicated to the rigors of their calling.  Just as a Christian monk lived in poverty because the pursuit of truth provided spiritual nourishment and personal fulfillment, a scholar embraced a penurious life within academia in exchange for the privilege of seeking authentic truth.  The reward — unvarnished enlightenment — was understood to be more valuable than money.

Keep reading

House Dems Suddenly Mum When Confronted By Radical Democratic Socialists of America Plans to Destroy Key Institutions

The Gateway Pundit reported on a recent interview with Gustavo Gordillo is the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in New York City.

Speaking with Fox News host Martha MacCallum, DSA tried to clarify its position on abolishing key institutions in the United States, including eliminating the Senate and replacing the President and Supreme Court with “an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

From DSA’s website:

For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

During the discussion, Gordillo showed that he does not even understand the difference between the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, nor does he understand the system of government he and his fellow radicals are so eager to destroy.

“The United States Senate is an undemocratic institution. It gives more representation to people in smaller states than to the 30 million people in California.”

The Yale graduate apparently thinks the founders created a democracy.  They did not and that was done with forethought.  We are a constitutional Republic.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court’s AI Collision Course

Imagine a tight House race in a swing state. In the final weeks of the campaign, a new super PAC begins spending heavily against the incumbent. It runs ads on local television and reaches individual voters with highly tailored texts. The messaging is hard-hitting and seems to be swaying the electorate. None of it traces back to the opposing campaign.

It also doesn’t trace back to any human operative. The super PAC is funded by a single LLC whose donor cannot be identified, and its spending decisions are being made by an AI agent that has been given a budget and a political objective and is now operating without any meaningful human direction. The “consultants” placing the ads are software. The text messages were crafted by the AI.

This is not a hypothetical we will face in some distant future. The technology already exists. A wealthy person, foreign government, or corporation that wants to influence an election without ever exposing themselves to scrutiny could set up such a campaign operation today. And under the Supreme Court’s current campaign finance doctrine, the states and Congress may have little power to stop it.

The AI industry has emerged as one of the largest forces in American politics. Super PACs funded by AI companies and their investors have raised well over $100 million to shape the 2026 midterms, backing candidates in both parties who share the industry’s preferred approach to regulation, and attacking those who don’t. So far, their ads rarely mention artificial intelligence at all. They talk about issues like immigration, corruption, and cost of living, and it isn’t obvious to the average viewer that these ads were funded by a multi-billion dollar industry with its own unspoken legislative wish list.

But there’s a deeper, less-obvious dynamic operating in the background. The constitutional doctrine that currently protects the right of these companies to spend millions in our elections is the same doctrine that will be asked to protect something even stranger: The “speech” of artificial intelligence itself.

Modern campaign finance doctrine has been established, affirmed, and extended by Supreme Court decisions over the last 50 years. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), it held that raising and spending money in political campaigns is tantamount to speech itself, and, therefore, that most legislative efforts to address the influence of money in elections would be subject to strict judicial oversight. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) extended this framework to corporations, and then, most famously, Citizens United v. FEC (2010) extended it further to independent spending.

The court’s campaign finance jurisprudence was not built with artificial intelligence in mind, but its logic isn’t confined to the campaign finance context. If “speaker identity” does not matter for corporations and unions and super PACs, why should it matter when it comes to AI platforms?

Keep reading

DHS Issues Funding Warning To States That Don’t Purge Voter Rolls

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Friday said that states that do not purge their voter rolls of potentially ineligible voters and noncitizens could lose funding.

It came as he said the DHS has identified more than 250,000 noncitizens who were illegally on voter registration rolls in four states: California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

“We know Iran hacked state voter files and attempted to compromise our systems where military members used to vote,” he said, adding that DHS “security enhancements” will be mandatory.

“If these states want a grant, and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they’re going to have to implement security measures.”

Voting systems have to be secured, and voter registration lists need to be “scrubbed,” Mullin said.

“We need to make sure that individuals that are legally able to vote are voting,” he said.

When a staff member discovered the relationship with the prospective defendant, Johnston fired the employee, according to Hanaway.

“President Trump is correct when he said that election security is national security … this is just exposing what took place and to make sure it never happens again.

“And there’s some really easy steps that can be taken to secure our elections, and it shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Keep reading

REPORT: Champagne Socialist Ilhan Omar Spent Thousands in Campaign Cash on Luxury Hotels in Recent Months

Far left Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is facing new scrutiny after it was revealed that her campaign spent thousands of dollars on luxury hotels from April to June of this year.

Isn’t it odd that Omar is often in the news for scandals related to her finances?

Also, have you noticed that like her far left pals AOC and Bernie Sanders, she rails against the ‘rich’ while enjoying the finer things in life? It’s just so typical for the left.

FOX News reports:

Squad Dem in the hot seat after spending spree at luxury hotels: ‘Champagne socialist’

A far-left “Squad” Democrat is facing scrutiny after spending thousands of dollars in donor cash at lavish hotels nearly 2,000 miles away from her home district, a Fox News Digital review of FEC records found.

“Squad” Rep. Ilhan Omar’s, D-Minn., campaign dropped over $6K on high-end hotels and private transportation between April and June, including payments to a Ritz-Carlton resort in Palm Springs, a hotel with sweeping views from the Hollywood Sign to downtown Los Angeles, and a luxury stay in the heart of Times Square, the congresswoman’s latest financial filings show.

The payments, covering April 1 through June 30, included $2,131.90 to W New York in Times Square, $1,613.23 to The Godfrey Hotel Hollywood, $1,143 to Blacklane Transportation, $926.80 to Ace Hotel & Swim Club Palm Springs and $682.41 to the Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

Overall, the campaign reported more than $28,000 in travel expenses and more than $23,000 in food, beverage and catering expenses during the three-month filing period.

The Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage bills itself as a luxury Palm Springs resort overlooking the Coachella Valley and San Jacinto Mountains, with an exclusive Club Lounge, dedicated concierge service, spa, salon, fitness center, main pool, adults-only Vista Pool and whirlpool.

Does this make Omar part of the ‘oligarchy’ that Bernie is always railing about?

Keep reading

DOJ seeks to invoke the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for first time since its creation

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted an application to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) to initiate the never-before-used legal process to deport foreign nationals deemed to be terrorists.

The application was submitted on Thursday, July 16th, and its contents remained sealed. The document’s cover sheet indicates that the information inside is classified. The person the application intends to process has not been publicly identified.

The ATRC was established in 1996 by Congress, which authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate five U.S. district court judges to review applications for illegal immigrant terrorists to be quickly removed from the country. However, until this week, the court has not received an application from the Attorney General in 30 years and has not conducted deportation proceedings.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 in response to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. At the time, American extremist Timothy McVeigh, aided by Terry Nichols, detonated a makeshift bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

If an application is approved, the court will need to hold a public removal hearing where the government bears the burden of proving that the individual is an “alien terrorist.”

8 U.S. Code defines an alien terrorist as any non-citizen who has engaged or is reasonably likely to engage in any terrorist activity.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines terrorist activity as any unlawful act including:

  • Hijacking or sabotaging an aircraft, vessel or vehicle;
  • Seizing, detaining, or threatening to kill or injure another person to compel a third person or government to an action;
  • Assassination;
  • A violent act upon an internationally protected person;
  • Using biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons with intent to harm;
  • Material support to a certified Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) or to any individuals the actor reasonably should know has committed or plans to commit terrorist acts.

The DOJ’s filing may indicate an escalation in President Donald Trump’s administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Keep reading

FLOCK SAFETY: The Great Normalization (Nobody Declared Martial Law… Yet America Began Looking Like It Anyway)

There are stories that announce themselves with explosions, riots, or breaking-news headlines, and then there are stories so subtle that they quietly rewrite an entire society before anyone realizes what has happened. This is one of those stories. During the preparation of this investigation, several retired police officers, private security professionals, emergency responders, and ordinary citizens described nearly identical experiences despite living hundreds or even thousands of miles apart. None believed they were witnessing anything extraordinary at first. It was only when they looked backward—sometimes over a decade—that a disturbing pattern became impossible to ignore. Streets had not become military checkpoints overnight. Neighborhoods had not suddenly filled with surveillance towers. Instead, the changes arrived one camera, one drone, one security contract, and one “temporary” emergency measure at a time until extraordinary security became indistinguishable from ordinary life. What follows is not an argument against public safety, nor an attempt to romanticize a past that was hardly free from crime or violence. It is an examination of a transformation that has occurred quietly enough for most people to stop seeing it altogether.

There is an old saying among investigators that people rarely notice change while it is happening. They notice it only when they compare today’s reality with memories that have remained frozen in time. Memory preserves snapshots, while history moves continuously. That disconnect explains why so many citizens insist that nothing fundamental has changed even as the physical landscape around them becomes increasingly populated by surveillance cameras, armed guards, automated license plate readers, biometric scanners, drones, and predictive security technologies. No single installation appears revolutionary. No single policy seems capable of altering the character of a society. Yet history rarely advances through dramatic leaps. More often, it advances through thousands of small decisions that seem perfectly reasonable when viewed independently but become historically significant when examined collectively.

Keep reading

UNBELIEVABLE! Hunter Biden SLAMS Merrick Garland for Not Aggressively Prosecuting More Conservatives Following January 6: ‘The Single Greatest Mistake of My Father’s Administration

Disgraced Hunter Biden declared that what he considers the “single greatest mistake” of his father’s administration was Attorney General Merrick Garland’s failure to move more aggressively against conservatives following January 6.

The comments came during Hunter Biden’s appearance on the “I’ve Had It” podcast hosted by Jennifer Welch, where he launched into an extended attack on Garland while arguing the Biden Justice Department should have opened sweeping investigations much earlier.

“The single greatest mistake of my father’s administration was the leadership of Merrick Garland,” Hunter Biden said.

Hunter acknowledged that, ultimately, responsibility rested with then-President Joe Biden because he appointed Garland.

“The buck has to stop with my dad. He was the president. He chose him,” Hunter said.

He tried to thread the needle by claiming the “buck stops with my dad” because Joe Biden chose Garland, but quickly pivoted to the usual “church and state” separation nonsense at the DOJ, while simultaneously complaining that Garland didn’t go hard enough after conservatives from the very beginning.

Hunter then launched into a full-throated defense of the J6 “insurrection” hoax, claiming it was a “concerted and planned effort” that began before the 2020 election, and bizarrely citing alleged Steve Bannon tapes from Mother Jones talking to Miles Guo the day before the election about the laptop and challenging the election results.

Keep reading