Connect with us


An Open Letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree



Broaching the Existence of Viruses & Terrain to Your Respective Audiences is Well Overdue

D. Alec Zeck

Jan 31, 2023

Dear Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree,

My name is Daniel “Alec” Zeck. I’m a husband, a father, a West Point graduate, former Army Captain, podcaster, and the chief story teller at, where we’re “charting the path towards health, freedom, and awareness for all of Mankind.” I sincerely appreciate the work both of you have done to wake swaths of people up to the surface-level aspects of corruption within the medical establishment. Like many others, your work had a tremendous impact on my initial awakening journey regarding government corruption, vaccines, and the anti-health nature of the pharmaceutical industry and the allopathic medical system at large. I learned a tremendous amount of true information regarding all of those things from both of you, and I thank you for that.

I “woke up” to the truth about vaccines between 2016-2018, well after both of you. At that time, I was an active duty officer in the US Army working well over 40 hours a week. With the help of my wife, I obsessively researched the truth about vaccines over those years. I can now regurgitate the exact same information that both of you continue to shout from the massive platforms of your respective organizations, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)/The Highwire.

Between 2020-now, I’ve learned the truth about virology and the germ “hypothesis” (it’s not even a proper scientific theory). Most of my learning occurred in early 2021. I am one of a handful of others (a relatively small group compared to the general “anti-vax” crowd) leading the charge to expose the truth about virology. I refer back to the time it took for me to learn both the nature of vaccine corruption and the truth about virology to make a point: it was a relatively quick process to learn this information, and the lack of proof of viruses is something that almost anyone can easily understand. It simply requires that one sets aside their preconceived notions and dogmas, and to look with a logical, scientific lens. What we’re talking about is the evidence for the claim that there are pathogenic, submicroscopic particles called SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted from person to person. The conversation regarding what causes symptoms— and especially the amalgamation of symptoms with a name “COVID” (which are not “new,” by the way)— amongst two or more people in the same space is a separate discussion. 

Here is what I’ve come to understand in a relatively little amount of time: There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Virology does not adhere to the scientific method. Virology does not adhere to logic. Hell, they haven’t even been able to prove that disease is passed via the fluids of sick people— let alone microbial life— in the countless experimental attempts to do so. There are plenty of other plausible explanations for what causes disease, many of which we haven’t adequately studied because, collectively and especially in professional circles, we’ve been so myopically focused on the unproven idea that submicroscopic pathogenic particles are passed from person to person (If you’re new to this conversation, please read this, watch this, watch this, visit this website, and read these FOI requests, and you’ll be almost completely up to speed on the nonsense of virology).

Your jobs, from my understanding, are to act as both mouthpieces and knowledge-based “experts” of sorts on vaccines and general health, exposing scientific corruption, and delivering the truth about health and disease. We can point to the mission statements of your respective organizations to clarify: 

According to the ICAN website, the mission of ICAN is “to put the power of scientifically researched health information in your hands and to be bold and transparent in doing so, thereby enabling your medical decisions to come from tangible understanding, not medical coercion.”

According to the CHD website, the mission of CHD is “to work tirelessly to end the childhood health epidemics by working to expose causes, eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, seek justice for those injured, and establish safeguards to prevent future harm.

The intent of your organizations, per their own mission statements, is to put the power of scientifically researched health information in the hands of the people, expose causes, establish safeguards for future harm, and work tirelessly to end the childhood health epidemics. 

This is not a matter of opinion: the conversations surrounding the existence of SARS-CoV-2 (and viruses in general) are central and fundamental to both the vaccine program and to the entire charade of the last three years. The foundation for EVERYTHING that’s happened over the last three years rests on this entirely unproven, pseudoscientific assumption. It is the root for the entire fraud. Every single thing that’s happened rests on the shoulders of a ghost, a mental construct, a fairytale fiction; there is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 (or any other virus) causes any sort of disease, or that it even exists. All of the harms committed over the past three years, and all of the harms committed by the vaccine industry over the course of its history, quite literally rely on the existence of pathogenic viruses. 

An increasing number of people comprising the health freedom community are concerned that, not only have neither of you two gentlemen attempted to gently broach this central, fundamental topic on your large platforms, we are also concerned that, at this point, it seems like you are both outright avoiding it. Given what’s included in the mission statements of your respective organizations, it is more than reasonable to expect this topic to be given the coverage it deserves. We are not talking about two men who are sharing and focusing on what they feel is important in a private capacity; we are talking about two men who are at the helm of the health freedom movement, charged with delivering the truth about corruption, health, and real science. And let me paint a picture for you: if you search “Tom Cowan,” one of the 2 most prominent voices in the “no virus” camp, on the CHD website, you will find a total of 3 results. Only 2 of those results have anything to do with the no virus position; one is a webinar panel featuring Tom alongside several other doctors discussing the COVID shots, his voice and the magnitude of his words being drowned out in the process, and the other is a video interview, “Terrain Theory with Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan,” from my former organization, Health Freedom for Humanity (HFfH)’s now cancelled segment on CHD.TV (cancelled prior to the HFfH dissolution, by the way, for what CHD told us was budgetary concerns). Del, to my knowledge, the only time you’ve covered anything to do with terrain/“no virus” on your show, The Highwire, was when you interviewed Dr. Kaufman after your audience repeatedly asked you to.

Look, I understand (although completely disagree with) the argument that the majority of society, and the health freedom community is not ready to hear the “no virus” position. I get it, it’s a lot of cognitive dissonance to sort through. Both of you have expressed your unwillingness to cover it until it becomes a more widely accepted viewpoint amongst health freedom crowds. However, you both have arguably the two largest health freedom platforms, and you’re refusing to cover it. Quite the catch-22, eh? It’s a self-defeating prophecy of sorts, being led by the gentlemen who are supposed to bring the health freedom movement the truth about science and corruption. I mean, there’s taking a hard stance on it, and then there’s at least giving it the time of day. Neither of you and your respective organizations have done either. Del, you appeared on an interview with Sacha Stone, and you stated that it would be too difficult to cover this topic because you’d have to cover the details of terrain for the majority of each episode. That’s like saying that, when you discusses literally any issue pertaining to vaccines, you’d have to cover all of the context for vaccines on each episode. Of course you don’t do this, because of course each episode builds upon the context of previous ones. At the least, it would be fairly easy to refer back to any number of presentations, websites, compilations or essays, like Mark Bailey’s A Farewell to VirologyChristine Massey’s FOI requests to government and scientific institutions around the world who cannot provide any evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virusMike Stone’s website, or our group presentation “Debunking the Nonsense,” so that your viewers and listeners can learn the required additional context. Mark Bailey’s essay is the literal definition of science-based— wouldn’t it be great if CHD published Mark’s essay in a feature article so that we can “establish safeguards to prevent future harm?” And speaking of government corruption— my God! Christine Massey’s FOI requests are the literal definition of exposing government corruption. Unfortunately when you search either Mark Bailey or Christine Massey on either or, no results can be found (just like the FOI requests to governments regarding the existence of the virus— credit to Bill Huston for originally pointing out the irony of this in his article here).

And of course, I would also understand (but again, strongly disagree with) the argument that you two are unwilling to cover the no virus position because you “take no position [on the existence of SARS-CoV-2], as stated by CHD CEO Mary Holland when interviewing Michael Wallach, producer of “The Viral Delusion”  docu-series, and are focused on vaccines and vaccine safety (related note: aside from our HFfH video, I’m pretty sure this is the only other time anyone representing the “no virus” position has been featured on CHD). Again, I strongly disagree because the existence of viruses is central and fundamental to not only the last three year charade, but the entire vaccination program. But all of that is irrelevant because CHD and ICAN/The Highwire both frequently promote and discuss the completely unproven, science-fiction-esque, fear-inducing gain of function, lab leak narrative to their respective audiences.

And, for additional context, Del, you stated during your speech at The Greater Reset 4: Activation (two time-slots after my presentation, where I spoke about the lack of proof of viruses and the need to dissolve fear surrounding symptoms of disease), that the germ vs. terrain argument is “all bullshit” and that “if you are pure in mind and totally connected, you absolutely cannot catch any disease.” I mostly agree with that, and I am happy that you stated it! Why then, do you consistently promote the gain of function narrative to your audience? 

I want you both to think for a moment: within the context of germ hypothesis, which of the two has scarier implications for the future?: lab-made viruses funded by people with perceived nefarious intentions, shrouded in uncertainty and mystery, with greater lethal potential than their natural counterparts, or the one-in-gazillion chance natural virus that jumps from a bat to a pangolin to a human (is the pangolin still part of the story?) that rarely occurs across species? Again, neither of these are true whatsoever— both are completely unproven fantasies that make for great science-fiction movies. I believe “they” (whoever they are) are allowing gain of function to be discussed more frequently in mainstream conversations, and of course amongst the surface level alternative crowds where they’re carried by pseudo-celebrity alternative talking heads, to feint a controlled leak of the (completely false) “truth.” And all of the alternative talking heads and their followers shouted “see! Now the truth is out! The virus was made in a lab. Alas, we’ve solved the mystery of COVID.” 

But have we? Or are we just setting ourselves up for this nonsense to continue Ad Infinitum? And this time it’s even worse: it’s being paraded around by the 3-year-censored alternative pundits. And as the mainstream position continues to lose its popularity with the controlled demolition of the death-cult, pharmaceutical backed narrative, the alternative talking heads will rise in popularity, and those who’ve not resolved their consciousness of blindly outsourcing to anyone, regardless of whether they’re alternative or mainstream, will take the future bait hook-line-and-sinker. 

And who’s at the helm leading the charge for the health freedom crowd? Who is covering the truth that there is no proof of of these pathogenic viruses? I mean, thank God Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andy Kaufman, Dr. Amandha Vollmer, Dr. Mark & Dr. Sam Bailey, Dr. Kelly Brogan, Dawn Lester, David Parker, Mike Stone, Mike Donio, Michael Wallach, Eric Coppolino, Jacob Diaz, Christine Massey, Dr. Jordan Grant, myself and a few others are. But what about its revered, highly respected leaders who’ve received Fox-News-level appeal? Unfortunately, for now, you’re both pumping gain of function and “safe vaccines” (a complete impossibility given vaccines require the existence of viruses), leading your followers the wrong direction, stoking germ-based fears and adding more layers of confusion that your audiences will have to sort through down the line when the terrain position gets “nearer the goal line where the cost/returns ratio improves,” as stated by you, Bobby, in an email correspondence reported by Eric Coppolino.

What exactly does that mean? What is “nearer the goal line”? When is nearer the goal line? Isn’t the goal health, truth, and freedom? And aren’t we teetering on the line between that and technocratic tyranny with vaccine passports and Digital IDs? Well, hopefully the tyranny and digital enslavement will be a little better with “safer vaccines.” One can only hope. Forgive me if I seem a bit frustrated, but it has been three years now. The time to discuss this central, fundamental issue is now. There is no better time than now.

I ended my talk 2 weeks ago at The Greater Reset 4 with this: the health freedom community has become frustrated with allopathic medicine for its propensity to mask and perpetuate symptoms instead of addressing and treating the root cause of illness. Ironically, that’s exactly what we’re doing when we don’t address the fraud of virology. By addressing masks, vaccines, lockdowns, and the like, we are only addressing the symptoms— and when calling for “safe vaccines” and promoting mythical “gain of function” viruses, we are perpetuating them.

What we need right now are courageous leaders who are willing to chop away at the root of the tree instead of whacking at the branches. We need leaders who are willing to “choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with the half truth when the whole can be won,” a line from the cadet prayer that I was taught during my time at West Point (the irony of the overwhelming majority of Army officers succumbing to the agenda en masse isn’t lost on me). The harder right is very clear here, gentlemen. And the whole truth can be won, but it’ll take more bold leaders using their platforms and calling their audiences to explore the whole truth. Let’s put an end to this nonsense. That is The Way Forward (pun intended). One can only hope that you both will soon become those leaders, carrying the torch alongside team no virus, completely chopping down the tree of tyranny. But as Dr. Cowan says, “hope is for suckers.” Only time will tell.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


What Went Right This Week: How The World Got Kinder, And More Good News





Continue Reading


Universal Cancer Immunotherapy May Be Possible Through Protein Engineering | The Optimist Daily





Oncology medicine and cancer treatment concept as a tumor or tumour being treated with white blood cells attacking the disease as an immunotherapy 3D illustration.

Scientists at ETH Zurich have made significant progress in developing a ready-to-use immunotherapy treatment for cancer. A synthetic protein modification can allow immune cells from any donor to be delivered to any patient without the risk of an adverse immunological reaction.

What is immunotherapy?

The human immune system is a robust first line of defense against disease, but cancer has a few sneaky tricks up its sleeve that allow it to hide and avoid elimination. Immunotherapy is a new treatment that gives the immune system the upper hand by supercharging a patient’s immune cells to seek out and destroy cancers.

Typically, the approach involves extracting a patient’s immune cells, genetically modifying them to spot cancer, and reintroducing them into the body. Not only does this require time, which many cancer patients lack, but it isn’t always practical if a patient’s immune system isn’t up to the task.

Immune cells from a healthy patient would be ideal, but this comes with its own set of challenges. Because immune cells are adept at recognizing and attacking “foreign” cells, donated cells frequently end up targeting the recipient’s healthy cells.

What is TCR-CD3?

The ETH Zurich researchers discovered a solution to potentially overcome this obstacle in the latest study, paving the path for standardized, off-the-shelf immunotherapy. The researchers focused on a specific chemical combination known as TCR-CD3, located on the surface of killer T cells, and activate them towards specific antibodies – including both desired triggers such as cancer and unwanted ones on healthy cells.

The researchers developed a synthetic version of the TCR-CD3 complex that prevents killer T cells from attacking healthy cells while yet allowing them to be modified to target cancer cells. So far, laboratory tests on human cells have been positive, with no signs of harmful immunological responses.

While there is still much work to be done, such as testing in human patients, the team believes that the research will eventually lead to a standardized, off-the-shelf cancer therapy product that can be administered to any patient without the need to remove, engineer, and return their own immune cells. This would make it far less expensive, simpler, and faster to roll out to patients.

The researchers have applied for patents and intend to establish a spin-off company to assist in bringing the approach to the market.

The post Universal cancer immunotherapy may be possible through protein engineering first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Continue Reading


How The UK Became More Liberal, Despite The Culture Wars





Continue Reading