They watched the mothers, asked Epstein what to do with them, built an offshore arm “especially for vaccines,” and then called us the profiteers. Sixteen years of documents, connected.
🧵View the X thread dedicated to this article.
In May 2021, NPR told the country that for people like me, “misinformation is part of a business.” Three weeks later, the Center for Countering Digital Hate put a number on it: an “Anti-Vaxx Industry” with “annual revenues of at least $36 million.” The man behind both claims, CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed, explained the business model in one sentence: “Once they’ve managed to hook someone, they can then sell to them for a lifetime.” (NPR, as documented in my October 12 analysis)
Hold that sentence in your mind. Now put it next to a different one, written ten years earlier by Jeffrey Epstein to two of JPMorgan’s most senior executives while they designed a charitable vaccine fund for Bill Gates:
“The tension is making money from a Charitable Org. Therefore the money making parts need to be arms length.” (EFTA01835356, The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
One of these sentences was broadcast on public radio, repeated from the White House podium, and used to remove twelve Americans from the platforms. The other sat in a federal evidence vault until this year.
Over the past eight months I have published the pieces of this story one at a time. This is the first time I am putting them in a single line, in the order the documents were written. When you read them that way, three things that were always presented as separate turn out to be one operation:
A plan, funded by the Gates Foundation, to watch mothers who asked questions about vaccine injuries.
A proposal, sent to Jeffrey Epstein, to recruit mothers into an army that would get other mothers to vaccinate.
A campaign to brand the people those mothers were reading as profiteers, while the people running the campaign sat on top of the largest pool of vaccine money in history.
Surveil the mothers. Enlist the mothers. Discredit whoever the mothers listen to. And call the discredited ones the grifters.
2010: The plan to watch the mothers
Among the files the Department of Justice released this year is a 45-page report written by “Consultants to BMGF,” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, dated December 2010 (EFTA01121818). On page 17, the authors concede something the public was never told: there are “real and suspected adverse events following immunization.” Then they warn that concern about those events “may be exacerbated by negative publicity from the media, proponents of alternative medicine and opportunistic politicians,” and that people “are accessing anti-vaccination websites.” (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)
Their answer was not better information about the real injuries. It was this:
“A vaccine rumor surveillance system will be established and a diagnostic tool developed to determine the characteristics, scale and timing of vaccine rumors, i.e. the threshold, when intervention is needed.”
Watch. Measure. Decide when it is too much. Intervene.
Heidi Larson has said her Vaccine Confidence Project was launched in January 2010 “with seed money from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” and that its founding idea was “to monitor online news media as a way to detect rumors.” (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)
The Foundation’s own staff understood what they were looking at. Their internal slides, which traveled with that report, say parental hesitation “may stem from mis-information; or from a lack of information regarding AEFIs,” meaning adverse events, and list “side effects” and bad experiences at clinics among the causes of lost trust (EFTA01072442, EFTA01072451). (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)
So the Foundation knew some injuries were real, knew parents were being told too little about them, and chose surveillance.
2011: The money side of the same year
While that plan circulated, the money was being arranged.
In February 2011, JPMorgan sent Epstein a questionnaire from “the JPM team putting together ideas for Gates.” By July he was writing to Jes Staley and Gates’s chief science adviser, Boris Nikolic, about “a silo based proposal that will get Bill more money for vaccines” (EFTA01860211). In August he told Mary Erdoes, head of JPMorgan’s asset and wealth management arm, “we should be ready with an offshore arm — especially for vaccines,” projecting “billions of dollars” in the first two years and “tens of billions by year 4,” in a fund that would “exist in perpetuity, with succession controls” (EFTA01256269). (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
The formal version, “The Gates & J.P. Morgan Charitable Giving Fund,” reached Version 13 by August 31, 2011. It proposed a “foreign private charitable foundation in a tax neutral jurisdiction,” designed for “donor anonymity,” with a budget slide for polio, meningitis and rotavirus vaccines and $20 million to “finance the surveillance network in Pakistan.” Among the proposed committee members was Seth Berkley, chief executive of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
Then came the sentence that explains everything that followed: the money-making parts “need to be arms length.”
The record shows these were planning discussions. It does not show, on its face, that the fund was executed as drafted. But it shows what the people inside the room were thinking about, in their own words: vaccines, offshore structures, perpetuity, anonymity, and keeping the profit at a distance from the charity.
February 2012: The forward to Epstein, and the Mother’s Army
On February 2, 2012, Violaine Mitchell, then an interim deputy director in the Gates Foundation’s vaccine delivery division, sent about fifty colleagues the pre-reads for an internal retreat on routine childhood immunization. Attached were the 94-slide strategy deck and the 2010 report with the rumor-surveillance paragraph on page 17. (Who Forwarded the Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Strategy to Jeffrey Epstein?)
About twelve hours later, the whole package landed at jeevacation@gmail.com, Epstein’s private address. The sender’s name is redacted. The covering note reads:
“Can we discuss this over the weekend? ... the one where I think there is room for coolness that no one has tried might relate to your idea about Mother’s Army. So the suggestion would that you don’t even need health care workers to do this. Train a handful of mom’s and set them free. Sort of create like a Rotary Club or Lion’s Club or something similar with the full scale mission of getting moms to immunize their kids. Check out the slides. See if you think it is appropriate. If you do, I will make the proposal and the deck.” (EFTA00702570)
“Mother’s Army” was not an abstraction. On February 22, 2010, Sarah Ferguson announced a “Mothers’ Army Initiative” at UN headquarters as a commitment toward the Millennium Development Goals. At 9:16 that same morning, she emailed Epstein asking him to put his lawyers on the trademark (EFTA01989646). As I laid out in September, the forward describes it as his idea and a company he had designed. (Who Forwarded the Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Strategy to Jeffrey Epstein?)
Here is the first dot most people miss. The same email carried both halves of the strategy. In the attachment: a plan to watch mothers who asked questions and decide when to intervene. In the note on top: a plan to train mothers to go out and get other mothers to comply, no health workers needed. The mother who asked was a rumor to be managed. The mother who complied was a recruit. Neither was treated as a witness.
And the person being asked whether this was “appropriate” was a registered sex offender, more than three years after his conviction for procuring a minor.
2012: The surveillance gets funded
That August, I reported that the Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges program had awarded $100,000 to a University of Connecticut psychologist for “Establishing an Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System,” meant to “establish an internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analyzing, and counteracting misinformation communication campaigns regarding vaccines.” (Gates Foundation Funds Surveillance of Anti-Vaccine Groups, 2012)
I wrote then that any voice questioning universal vaccination could end up inside a system like that. At the time, it sounded like a guess.
2013: The surveillance gets a list, and the mothers are on it
In April 2013, UNICEF published a working paper called Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks. It analyzed conversations from roughly 22,000 people between May and July 2012. Its appendix of English-language “influencers” lists Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Mothering, Thinking Moms’ Revolution, and “Greenmedinfo.com.” Its regional influencer tables list “moms” again and again. (UNICEF, 2013)
The voices it quotes are mothers. One Polish mother writes that her daughter reacted to a vaccine at five months and was later diagnosed with autism. The report’s own finding: “Personal testimonies of other parents, especially negative stories, have a huge impact.” (UNICEF, 2013)
Its recommendations put into practice what the 2010 Gates report had described:
“Identifying and ‘influencing the influencers’” as part of any effective strategy.
Search-engine optimization so that “pro-vaccine information should rank on top of the search engine results.”
For the most committed parents, “monitoring trends in the sphere but not engaging with it.”
“On-going monitoring of social media.”
I reported it that September under the headline “UNICEF Surveils, Defames Health Sites Over Vaccines.” (GreenMedInfo, 2013)
To be precise: the UNICEF paper does not name the Gates Foundation, and I have no document showing Gates commissioned it. The link is the alliance itself. UNICEF is a founding partner of Gavi, alongside WHO, the World Bank and the Gates Foundation, which put up $750 million to launch Gavi and holds a permanent board seat. (GAVI Tried to Bring Back Attacks; From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox) The plan was written for the Foundation in 2010. By 2013 a founding partner of the Foundation’s vaccine alliance was running it, with names.
Three of the names on that 2013 list, Mercola, Tenpenny and GreenMedInfo, would reappear eight years later on the Disinformation Dozen. (Children’s Health Defense)
Watch the SEO recommendation. Between April 2018 and August 2019, GreenMedInfo’s visibility on Google fell by just over 81 percent. In June 2019, Mailchimp shut down our newsletter, more than ten years old and reaching 300,000 subscribers, for “anti-vaccine content.” (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox) I cannot prove the 2013 recommendation caused the 2018 drop. I can show that someone wrote down, in 2013, that pro-vaccine content should rank on top, and that five years later a library of peer-reviewed studies on vaccine injury could no longer be found.
2020 to 2021: The label changes from “rumor” to “profiteer”
Then came the pandemic, and the vocabulary changed.
In May 2020, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, with BBC Click and NewsGuard, published a report declaring that public discussion of “Bill Gates, George Soros, the Rothschilds and Jeff Bezos” in connection with pandemic profiteering was far-right conspiracy. Its appendix listed 34 websites. GreenMedInfo was sixth. ISD’s funders included the Gates Foundation and Open Society Foundations, and none of that was disclosed in the report. Three months later, the Gates Foundation gave ISD’s US arm $199,704 “to research public discourse on vaccines.” (The Real Pandemic Profiteers; From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)
So the first move was to make the profit question unspeakable when it pointed up.
The second move was to point it down.
In March 2021, CCDH published the Disinformation Dozen. In May, NPR’s senior science correspondent emailed me that I had “come to [his] attention because of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ report.” Four of his seven questions were about my revenue, my subscribers and my personal income. None asked whether anything I had published was true. His story, “For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business,” named no false claim. Its profit thesis came from Imran Ahmed. (For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business)
When I asked about NPR’s own funding, the reporter answered candidly: “As far as I know, we continue to receive funding from the Gates Foundation. It goes in part towards our global health coverage.” The Foundation’s database lists a $4 million, 35-month grant to NPR committed in November 2020, six months before the story ran. That same year, the Foundation spent $220 million on vaccine development alone. (For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business) I have no evidence the grant paid for that particular story. I am pointing out that NPR applied the follow-the-money test to me and not to itself.
On June 1, 2021, CCDH published Pandemic Profiteers: The Business of Anti-Vaxx, calling us a “fifth column” and demanding that the platforms remove us permanently. (The Real Pandemic Profiteers) By CCDH’s own description to Parliament, the $36 million figure was “based on a limited view” of self-reported filings and revenue estimates for 22 organizations. (For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business)
In July, the President said of the twelve of us: “It’s killing people.” In August, Meta said there “isn’t any evidence to support this claim,” and that the twelve accounted for “about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.” (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox) The retraction did not travel. The label did.
Who are the grifters?
Put the numbers next to each other.
WhatAmountTreated asCCDH’s estimate for the entire “Anti-Vaxx Industry,” 22 organizations$36 million a yearA moral emergency requiring deplatforming (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)Excess pandemic profits of 17 of the top 25 US corporations, per OxfamAbout $85 billionA tax-policy discussion (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)Epstein’s projection for the Gates-JPMorgan offshore vaccine arm”Tens of billions by year 4”Sealed in a federal evidence file until 2026 (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)Gates Foundation commitments to GaviMore than $4 billionPhilanthropy (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)US taxpayer contributions to Gavi, 2016 to 2020$1.38 billionForeign aid (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)Gates Foundation vaccine development spending, 2020 alone$220 millionPhilanthropy (For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates)World Bank pandemic bonds triggered by COVID-19$195.84 million paid outFinancial innovation (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
Oxfam’s $85 billion is about 2,400 times CCDH’s $36 million. Oxfam’s remedy was a tax. CCDH’s remedy was removal. (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
The profiteer label was never about scale. It was about direction. When money flowed through foundations, alliances, offshore vehicles and bond markets toward vaccine programs, it was called philanthropy, preparedness and innovation. When a mother paid for a membership to read peer-reviewed studies on vaccine injury, it was called a grift.
What is a grift, if not this: dressing up profit as charity and keeping “the money making parts” at “arms length”? Those were not our words. They were written by the man the Gates Foundation’s vaccine strategy was forwarded to, while he was designing an “offshore arm — especially for vaccines” for the Foundation’s chairman.
That is what I mean when I call this an international vaccine cabal. I mean it in a specific, documented sense: a closed circle of foundation capital, a vaccine alliance that by its own description includes manufacturers and donor governments, a bank designing offshore and anonymous vehicles, and the NGOs and newsrooms the same money funds. Its members set the agenda, financed the products, profited at arm’s length, paid for the surveillance of their critics, and then funded the people who called those critics profiteers.
2024: “We need to bring back”
By 2024, the public had moved on. CCDH’s leaked minutes show what happened next.
On January 8, 2024, agenda item 36 read “GAVI/roundtables.” The minute records that CCDH had told Gavi it would hold one to three roundtables before March, because “anti-vaxx” had “fallen off the radar for many people, so we need to bring back.” By February 19, the first was scheduled for that Wednesday. Neither organization has disclosed the arrangement, and Gavi does not appear on CCDH’s IRS Schedule R. (GAVI Tried to Bring Back Attacks; CCDH minutes, DocumentCloud)
In the same meeting, Ahmed’s final recorded comment: “RFK - black ops being set up to look at RFK.” (GAVI Tried to Bring Back Attacks)
Seth Berkley, Gavi’s longtime chief executive, is the same man listed as a proposed committee member in the 2011 Gates-JPMorgan offshore vaccine fund. (GAVI Tried to Bring Back Attacks)
So the arc closes on itself. The Foundation that commissioned the 2010 surveillance plan built the alliance. A founding partner of that alliance published the 2013 list. The Foundation funded the think tank that put my library on a 2020 list. The group that turned the list into the Disinformation Dozen and the “profiteer” label then promised the alliance, in 2024, to bring the pressure back.
What the record does not show
I hold myself to the standard the people who labeled us never held themselves to.
These documents do not prove that one person directed every step. They do not show that the Gates Foundation chose ISD’s or CCDH’s targets, that Gavi paid CCDH, or who was setting up the “black ops.” The UNICEF paper does not name Gates. The 2011 fund records are planning documents, not proof of execution. We do not know who forwarded the strategy to Epstein, or whether “Mother’s Army” ever became a proposal. And nothing here proves any specific action against GreenMedInfo was triggered by the 2010 plan.
What the record does show is a written method, a consistent funding network, the same targets across sixteen years, and an asymmetry in who gets called a profiteer. The burden of explanation has shifted. It belongs to them now.
Coda: Where the plan met my life
I have written this whole piece the way I was trained to write: dates, Bates numbers, what the record shows and what it does not. Now I want to tell you what it looks like from the inside, because the global story above and my life are not two stories. They are one story told from opposite ends of the same email.
In June 2012, I published a vaccine research guide on GreenMedInfo: a page that gathered peer-reviewed studies on vaccine adverse effects from the National Library of Medicine and made them free to read. (GreenMedInfo) I did it because readers kept writing to me, and most of them were mothers. They were asking the question the Gates Foundation’s own consultants had admitted was legitimate: was what happened to my child real?
I did not know that four months earlier someone had forwarded the Foundation’s childhood immunization strategy to Jeffrey Epstein, with a note about training mothers to get other mothers to comply. I did not know that the report attached to it described people like me, “proponents of alternative medicine” running “anti-vaccination websites,” as the problem a surveillance system was being built to catch.
That August, I wrote about a $100,000 Gates grant for an “Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System.” I warned that dissenting voices might end up inside a system like that. (Gates Foundation Funds Surveillance of Anti-Vaccine Groups, 2012) I was describing, from the outside and without the documents, a plan I would not be able to read for another fourteen years.
The next September, I found my site’s name in a UNICEF appendix, between “Alternative Medicine blog” and a list of mothers’ forums. (GreenMedInfo, 2013) People told me I was flattering myself. Why would the United Nations care about a library of abstracts?
Then the library got harder to find. Then the newsletter that 300,000 people had signed up for disappeared overnight. Then a London think tank put me on a list next to the far right. Then the President of the United States said I was killing people. A month later, the platform he was talking about said there was no evidence for that, and it made no difference. (From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox)
In between, a reporter for a newsroom that, by his own account, was receiving Gates Foundation money for its global health coverage asked me whether this work was my “main gig,” and what kind of “personal financial hit” I was worried about. (For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business) Through all of it, the head of the group that had named me compared people like me to “groomers” in Parliament, where he could not be sued for saying it. (The Real Pandemic Profiteers)
In June 2025, a party in a UK proceeding I was not part of asked a judge, without notice to me, for authority to arrest me and seize my devices, citing my lawful American speech. The judge refused it in full. (The Real Pandemic Profiteers) It went from a label in a London report to an attempt to have me physically detained. That was the human cost, and it did not fall on me alone. It fell on my family, and on everyone who had ever been seen near my name.
For most of those years, the hardest part was not the deplatforming or the money. It was that every time I described the pattern, the description sounded like proof of what they said I was. One event at a time, it looked like bad luck. Connecting them made me sound paranoid. That is how it was designed to work.
Then, this year, I opened EFTA00702570 and read the words “your idea about Mother’s Army.”
I cannot fully describe what it is like to find, in a convicted sex offender’s inbox, the plan that described you before anyone knew your name. It is not vindication, exactly. It is closer to finally seeing the room you were being discussed in, and seeing who was sitting in it.
This is where the personal and the global meet. The plan was never really about me. A rumor surveillance system does not measure a writer. It measures readers. The “threshold” was always the moment when enough mothers were reading. I was the place where the mothers’ questions collected, and so I was the place where the system pushed back. When they called me a profiteer, the real message was aimed at my readers: you have been conned, so stop listening.
The mother at the kitchen table in 2010 was my reader. In the system’s logic I was worse than she was, because I made the studies her question pointed to free for anyone to read. (Why Every Mother Should Read the Epstein Files) In the documents, she shows up three ways: a rumor to watch, a recruit for someone else’s army, a customer of someone else’s grift. She never shows up as what she actually was, a witness to what happened to her own child.
In 2017, Epstein wrote to Bill Gates proposing that philanthropists be organized “to decide a shadow governmental grants structure” to “blunt” the “bad pr risk” (EFTA01041100). (Why Every Mother Should Read the Epstein Files) I spent fifteen years arguing with that structure without knowing who was in it. I was the bad PR risk. So was she.
I am still here. So are the studies. So is she. And the question no one in that room has answered can be asked in nine words: Who forwarded the Gates Foundation’s vaccine strategy to Epstein? (Who Forwarded the Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Strategy to Jeffrey Epstein?)
They called us the profiteers. I have shown you their paperwork and my life, side by side. Decide for yourself who was running the grift.
The book behind the record
Everything in this piece comes from a record most people will never read: nearly 3.5 million pages of federal Epstein files. I read them. Shadow Empire: The Epstein Files maps what they show: the architecture of power, philanthropy, and protection that kept a convicted predator useful to the world’s most influential institutions. Every claim is footnoted to a document you can check yourself, and the book separates what the documents establish from what they do not.
Start with the free reader’s guide, 12 documents and how to read them. The hardcover, from Skyhorse Publishing and Children’s Health Defense, is available for pre-order at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. You can also read why I wrote it.
Check the argument. Don’t trust it.
Read the documents yourself
All Epstein-file documents can be pulled by Bates number at justice.gov/epstein.
EFTA01121818 (p. 17, stamped EFTA01121834): Gates Foundation-commissioned report, December 2010, “vaccine rumor surveillance system.”
EFTA00702570: The February 3, 2012 forward to Epstein, “your idea about Mother’s Army.”
EFTA01072417: Gates Foundation routine immunization retreat slides (see EFTA01072442, EFTA01072451).
EFTA01989646: Sarah Ferguson to Epstein, February 22, 2010, Mother’s Army trademark.
EFTA00904739, EFTA01860211, EFTA01256269, EFTA01835356: The 2011 Gates-JPMorgan vaccine fund correspondence, including “offshore arm — especially for vaccines” and “arms length.”
EFTA01041100: Epstein to Gates, July 9, 2017, “shadow governmental grants structure.”
UNICEF, Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks, April 2013
The series
The Real Pandemic Profiteers (February 22, 2026)
BREAKING: Leaked Minutes Show Global Vaccine Group GAVI Quietly Hired the Team Behind the ‘Disinformation Dozen’ (August 15, 2026)
Who Forwarded the Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Strategy to Jeffrey Epstein? (September 10, 2026)
From the Gates Foundation to Epstein’s Inbox to the Disinformation Dozen (September 29, 2026)
Why Every Mother Should Read the Epstein Files (October 3, 2026)
For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business (October 12, 2026)