Originally published on www.sayerji.substack.com

As six former health chiefs accuse RFK Jr. of "endangering lives," documents reveal their lead signer once helped erase the very truths he now claims to defend.

Share the X post dedicated to this report: https://sayerji.substack.com/publish/post/175546988

On October 7, six former U.S. Surgeons General issued what the Washington Post called an "unprecedented warning" that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poses a "profound and immediate threat to the nation's health."

Within hours, the statement was echoed by CNN, The Daily Beast, and other outlets -- framing the op-ed as a bipartisan alarm from medicine's highest moral authorities.

But internal government and tech-industry communications reviewed by this publication tell a more complicated story -- one that raises ethical questions about the lead signer, Vivek Murthy, and the information ecosystem now mobilized against a sitting health secretary.

The official story

The Washington Post op-ed-- co-signed by Murthy and five former Surgeons General -- accused Kennedy of "rejecting science" and "amplifying misinformation."

It described collapsing morale inside HHS, and portrayed Kennedy's reforms to vaccine oversight and psychiatric policy as existential dangers to public health.

Within minutes of publication, The Daily Beast and wire partners repackaged the same phrases:

"Six agree Kennedy is a 'profound, immediate' danger to the health of Americans."

No outlet mentioned that Murthy, unlike his co-signers, still holds office -- or that he's a named defendant in a Fifth Circuit federal lawsuit alleging unconstitutional censorship of lawful speech.

The unreported record

Documents obtained through congressional discovery and later reported by journalists show that Murthy's office directly pressured social-media platforms to delete factual vaccine-injury content.

An internal Meta email captured the directive succinctly:

"The Surgeon General wants us to remove true information about side effects."

That instruction formed part of what internal correspondence called a "whole-of-government" approach to controlling vaccine narratives -- an effort now under judicial review in Murthy v. Missouri.

[Source: BREAKING: White House/US Surgeon General Pressured FB to Censor True Vaccine Harms + Jim Jordan's original 2023 thread on X]

During the same period, Murthy publicly accused critics such as Kennedy, Dr. Mercola, myself, and the so-called 'disinformation dozen'' of harming the public, with hyperbolic amplifications by president Biden and CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed who alleged we were 'killing people."

The contradiction is stark: the official who suppressed verified safety data is now leading a campaign claiming others have endangered lives by questioning official data.

Truth, Reconciliation, and the Surgeon General's Cover-Up of Vaccine Injuries

Sayer Ji · Feb 10

Who Was Really Spreading Misinformation?

Read full story

Bombshell correspondence and congressional testimony from 2023 identify the Surgeon General's office as an active node in what investigators have called a "Censorship-Industrial Complex"--a taxpayer-funded network of government agencies, NGOs, and media partners that coordinated with Big Tech to remove not only false posts but "true vaccine-injury stories" deemed politically inconvenient. Murthy publicly endorsed these efforts, even as his office routed moderation requests through the Stanford-Virality Project and other entities later found to have targeted lawful speech.

A Pattern of Coordinated Messaging

The October Washington Post op-ed did not emerge in isolation. It was the latest movement in a carefully sequenced campaign--one documented across leaked lobbying memos, NGO correspondence, and synchronized media placements.

• April 3, 2025: The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) held a private meeting allocating $2 million to lobby Congress that "it is time for RFK Jr. to go."
• Summer 2025: Industry-aligned "public health" coalitions such as Defend Public Health began issuing statements that echoed one another almost word-for-word: "endangering lives," "rejecting science," "eroding trust."
• September 2025: Senator Bernie Sanders published a Guardian op-ed in The Guardian--the very outlet identified in a UK-based NGO strategy memo as a preferred platform for anti-Kennedy narratives.
• October 2025: The "Six Surgeons General" letter--fronted by Vivek Murthy--appeared in the Washington Postand was rapidly amplified by CNN, The Daily Beast, and wire services, completing the media arc.

Each step reused the same vocabulary, pacing, and emotional framing. From Sanders' "rejects science" refrain to the Surgeons General's "endangering lives" mantra, the language was uniform--suggesting message discipline rather than independent alarm.

What the Coverage Omitted

Neither The Daily Beast nor CNN--nor most major outlets that echoed the "unprecedented warning"--mentioned key facts that bear directly on the story's integrity:

• Vivek Murthy's record: documented participation in government–Big Tech moderation programs now under Fifth Circuit scrutiny for violating the First Amendment.
• Conflict of interest: Murthy, though now a former official, remains a named defendant in a federal censorship lawsuit--an unresolved case that makes his participation in a coordinated campaign against a sitting Cabinet member ethically fraught.
• Policy context: Kennedy's reforms--greater transparency in vaccine safety data, independent oversight of health agencies, and non-pharmaceutical addiction recovery models--were never explained to readers.

By omitting these details, mainstream coverage converted a political communication campaign into an apparent scientific consensus. It became a case study in narrative laundering: turning orchestrated messaging into the appearance of public health unanimity.

The Ethical Questions

For journalists and policymakers, the central issue is not whether vaccine oversight or health-system reform should be debated.

It is whether the very officials who suppressed accurate information about vaccine risks should now define the limits of acceptable debate.

If Surgeon General Vivek Murthy used his office to remove verified injury data from public view, then co-authored an op-ed accusing a reformist colleague of "misinformation," the public deserves transparency about that dual role.

And when major outlets recycle those government talking points without disclosure, they cross the line from reporting to participation.

Why This Matters

Democratic trust in medicine depends on open evidence and fair process. When dissenting views are met with coordinated "warnings" from former officials--magnified by media that omit conflicts of interest--the boundary between health communication and propaganda disappears.

As hearings and political maneuvering continue around Secretary Kennedy's reforms, the question now extends beyond one administration:

Can Americans rely on public health authorities to tell the truth when those same authorities have been caught deciding what truths the public is allowed to hear?

The oath of a Surgeon General is to inform, not to enforce.

Before the nation accepts another "unprecedented warning," it deserves full transparency about who authored it, who benefits from it, and what evidence was suppressed to make it possible.

What the coverage omitted

Neither The Daily Beast nor CNN mentioned:

• Murthy's documented participation in content-moderation programs later ruled unconstitutional.
• The conflict of interest implicit in a sitting federal official orchestrating media attacks on another Cabinet member.
• Kennedy's central initiatives--holding vaccine safety claims to gold standard science and full transparency, reforming agency accountability, and promoting data integrity within HHS--were never mentioned in coverage of the op-ed.

By omitting these facts, the outlets transformed a political communications campaign into a story of unanimous scientific alarm -- a case study in narrative laundering.

The ethical questions

For journalists and policymakers, the issue is not whether vaccine oversight or psychiatric reform should be debated.

It's whether the same officials who suppressed true information now control the public frame of that debate.

If Vivek Murthy used his office to erase verified injury data, then helped author an op-ed accusing a reformist colleague of "misinformation," the public deserves transparency about that dual role.
And if major outlets repeat government talking points without disclosing that history, they become participants, not observers, in the story.

Why this matters

In a democracy, trust in public health depends on open evidence and fair process.

When dissenting views are met with orchestrated "warnings" from former officials -- amplified by media that fails to disclose conflicts -- the boundary between health communication and political propaganda blurs.

As new hearings and impeachment resolutions swirl around Kennedy's reforms, the question is larger than one administration:
Can citizens still rely on public health authorities to tell the truth when those same authorities have been caught shaping what truths the public is allowed to hear?

The oath of a Surgeon General is to inform, not to enforce.
Before the nation accepts another "unprecedented warning," it deserves a transparent accounting of who wrote it, who benefits from it, and what truths were silenced to make room for it.

Immediate Actions You Can Take:

Contact Your Representatives: Demand they investigate the BIO memo, CCDH's foreign influence operations, and potential FARA violations. Use our sample letter templates and talking points to make your voice heard on Capitol Hill.

Use Children's Health Defense's action here.

Use Stand for Health Freedom's action here.

Share This Investigation: The mainstream media has largely ignored or downplayed these documented influence operations. Social media and alternative platforms remain crucial for getting this information to the American people. Share this article widely.

Support Legal Accountability: Back organizations filing federal civil rights lawsuits against CCDH, tech giants, and government officials who participated in censorship campaigns. These legal challenges are essential for establishing precedent and deterring future operations. Support our federal lawsuit here.

Sources

• "Six surgeons general: It's our duty to warn the nation about RFK Jr." -- The Washington Post, Oct. 7 2025.
• "Surgeons General Unite to Torch RFK Jr. in Unprecedented Warning." -- The Daily Beast, Oct. 7 2025.
• BIO Vaccine Policy Steering Committee Meeting Minutes -- Apr. 3 2025 (leaked document).
• The Coup: How Big Pharma's $2 Million War Chest Bought This Wednesday's Senate Hearing. -- Sayer Ji, Sept. 14 2025.
• Breaking: Impeachment Gambit Launched Against RFK Jr. -- Sayer Ji, Sept. 25 2025.
• Truth, Reconciliation, and the Surgeon General's Cover-Up of Vaccine Injuries. -- Sayer Ji, Feb. 10 2025.
• Murthy v. Missouri -- U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (2023-2025).