Image is from PeopleImages/Shutterstock

If you want the largest single example of an institution abandoning responsibility for the harm it caused, look at COVID. Roughly seventy percent of Americans eventually took the vaccine, most also took a booster, and most were never told plainly that these products had not gone through the normal seven-to-ten-year safety and effectiveness process we require of every other vaccine in history. That timeline was compressed to months. Why the rush, and why the intolerance of alternatives? Because federal law says that if an existing, approved treatment already provides comparable benefit to a drug under emergency development, the new product loses its emergency authorization. So existing, inexpensive, already-approved medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had to be publicly discredited, not because the evidence demanded it, but because the law required it, if the emergency vaccine program was going to proceed. A small number of physicians, no more than a few dozen in the entire country, tried to treat patients early using their clinical knowledge of the underlying conditions anyway, and were threatened with the loss of their licenses for it.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a single unelected federal official, told the country in 2021 that criticism of him was equivalent to criticizing science itself — an extraordinary thing for any single human being to say about himself, and something no century of actual scientific progress was ever built on, because science has always advanced by welcoming challenge, not silencing it. And nearly every institution that should have pushed back — the major papers, the broadcasters, the medical boards, the platforms — instead enforced that framing. I knew Kary Mullis personally.

We talked many times on my show, and I filmed nearly two hours of conversation with him at his home by the ocean in Los Angeles, footage that millions of people have since watched because he told the truth plainly and without flinching. Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, and he was blunt that the technique was built for research amplification, not for standalone clinical diagnosis, and that running it through too many amplification cycles would surface fragments and cellular debris that told you nothing reliable about active infection. During the pandemic, testing protocols in many labs ran that cycle threshold far higher than the low twenties Mullis’s own research would have supported — in some documented cases into the forties — and years later, independent studies found that a large share of “positive” results at those high cycle thresholds did not reflect an active, transmissible infection at all. Consider, too, the historical echo here: thalidomide, a sedative marketed as safe in the late 1950s including for pregnant women, was pulled from the market only after it caused thousands of severe birth defects worldwide, because it had never been adequately tested in pregnancy before being sold as safe. We are supposed to have learned that lesson permanently. And yet during COVID, pregnant women were excluded from the initial vaccine trials, out of the same caution that shaped every drug-safety rule since thalidomide — and then, within months of authorization, the same women who had been excluded from the safety data were told the vaccine was recommended for them specifically. Both positions cannot rest on the same evidence. Either the caution that kept them out of the trials was warranted, or the confidence that pushed them toward the vaccine was. Nobody in authority has ever squared that circle for the public, and the honest answer is that the guidance changed because the data was still being gathered in real time on the people who were supposed to have that data before, not after, being told what to do with their own bodies.

Either the caution that kept pregnant women out of the trials was warranted, or the confidence that pushed them toward the vaccine afterward was. Nobody in authority has ever squared that circle for the public.

Meanwhile the theater around it defied common sense in ways we simply agreed not to notice. A virus that supposedly filled the air couldn’t cross six feet of open space, so we drew circles on grocery store floors. You had to wear a mask to walk into a restaurant, but the moment you sat down to eat for an hour, breathing unmasked the entire time, you were safe — except the staff standing over your table, who had to keep theirs on. You could be arrested for kayaking alone in open water without a mask, but you could walk into a liquor store maskless without issue. A mother sitting alone in an empty stadium bleacher, watching her son play soccer, was tased for not wearing one. People were stressed, isolated, and frightened for months by messaging that treated their own family members as biohazards, and cortisol and the other stress hormones that flood the body under sustained fear do their own long, slow damage that no agency has ever accounted for either.

We would later learn, from a floor speech given by then-Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard in her final hour in office, specifically timed so it could not be censored, that Dr. Fauci’s agency had been funding gain-of-function research — the deliberate enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility or lethality — at more than a hundred laboratories around the world, research that is functionally indistinguishable from biological weapons development regardless of what euphemism is used to describe it in a grant application. Congress held hearings. Officials testified under oath. And in every single case, the answer was the same: nothing to see here, no one responsible, no referral for prosecution. That is worth sitting with, because it is the same pattern we saw with the California high-speed rail project, which has consumed twelve billion taxpayer dollars without laying a usable mile of track and no one has ever had to explain where the money went. It is the same pattern the independent investigator Nick Shirley has spent the last several years documenting on the ground, camera in hand. He first drew national attention exposing fraudulent daycare operations inside Minnesota’s Somali community, the same environment that produced the separate, federally prosecuted “Feeding Our Future” scandal, in which prosecutors say more than two hundred and fifty million taxpayer dollars meant for children’s meals was stolen by operators who fed almost no one. Then, in a single investigation released in March of 2026 and viewed tens of millions of times, Shirley documented roughly one hundred and seventy million dollars in questionable hospice and daycare billings across California — nearly five hundred licensed hospice agencies clustered inside a three-mile radius of Van Nuys, eighty-nine of them registered to one single address, buildings with dead phone lines and unopened mail and parking lots full of luxury cars, and not a single patient in sight. Hundreds of millions of dollars, in both cases, moving through programs meant for children, the sick, and the elderly, while the agencies charged with overseeing those programs somehow never noticed until one man with a camera forced them to look. And it is the same pattern in our politics more broadly. Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as a permanent way of life. Hillary Clinton once said if someone here illegally commits a crime, deport them, no questions asked. Barack Obama said plainly that we cannot allow people to pour across the border undetected and unchecked. Chuck Schumer called illegal immigration wrong, plain and simple. Every single one of those public commitments was abandoned in practice by the same people who made them, and not one of them has ever had to answer for the gap between the promise and the policy. Iatrogenic harm — injury or death caused by medical treatment itself — remains among the top three causes of death in America, and there is still no serious institutional push toward prevention, because prevention doesn’t generate the same revenue that treatment does.

It wasn’t always this way, which is exactly what makes the last few decades so telling. Fifty years ago, a president resigned in disgrace over a comparatively small break-in and a cover-up, because Congress, the press, and the public would not let the matter go until it was resolved. Whatever else you think about that era, it proved accountability was possible at the very top of American government. Compare that standard to what followed: officials who presided over illegal wars, financial collapses, and public-health catastrophes that dwarfed Watergate in the scale of harm caused, walking away with speaking fees, foundation seats, and in at least one case a Nobel Prize. Somewhere between Watergate and now, we quietly renegotiated what accountability means in this country, without ever holding a vote on it.

I want to be careful here, because it would be easy to turn all of this into a simple story about villains and victims, and that isn’t quite right either. The truth is closer to this: every one of these systems — the fund that strips a company for parts, the corporation that settles rather than admits, the agency that changes its story without ever admitting the story changed — survives only because we keep feeding it. Which is exactly why Wall Street, corporate America, and government agencies all show up in the same essay. They are not three separate problems. They are one machine with three names, and every one of us has a hand on a lever somewhere in that machine, whether we’ve noticed it or not.

Change Your Perception and You Change Your Reality

I know how this can sound if you let it sit the wrong way — like the world is simply broken and there is nothing left to do but grieve it. That is not what I am telling you, and it is not what I believe. I am telling you the opposite: once you can see clearly how the machine runs, you also see exactly where your hand is on it, and that is the beginning of taking real power back, not the end of hope. In the next part, I want to talk about exactly what that looks like in practice, what it costs the machine when enough of us quietly stop feeding it, and what history has to teach us — sometimes at a terrible price — about what happens to a people who forget how to ask questions. And then I want to talk about something more hopeful still: the different ways human beings respond when the old structure finally gives way, and why some of us don’t just adapt to the collapse of what wasn’t working, but transform because of it.

*

 Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow

They are regular contributors to Global Research.