When Congress summoned Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify about the federal COVID response, the hearings produced the usual flurry of headlines and the usual partisan stalemate. But writing in American Thinker, Robert L. Kinney, Pharm.D., M.A., argues that the mainstream coverage skipped past two things that deserve far more attention: an old suggestion from a Democratic congressman about staging a pandemic to drive vaccinations, and the broader question of whether the U.S. government has quietly turned its own machinery on its citizens.
Kinney’s central point is not that either allegation has been proven. It’s that the structure of government secrecy makes proving or disproving them nearly impossible for ordinary Americans β and that this, rather than any single hearing, is the problem worth solving.
The Vaccine Question Nobody Is Asking
Kinney points to a claim that predates the pandemic itself. Before COVID-19 arrived, he writes, a sitting Democratic congressman apparently raised the idea of falsifying a pandemic as a way to drive mass vaccination β framed as an exercise to see how many people could be vaccinated in the shortest possible time. He stresses the word “apparently,” and the sourcing here is a single article rather than a documented transcript; readers should treat the claim as contested rather than settled.
Still, Kinney argues the implications are worth sitting with. If the U.S. government did carry out such a scheme, he reasons, it is unlikely that only a handful of people would know. That makes public hearings a weak instrument for getting at the truth. Fauci’s testimony, in his telling, may mark either the beginning of a real congressional effort to pry open government secrets or yet another round of political theater β and there is no way to tell which from the outside.
His proposed remedy is unusually concrete: Congress should pass a law granting lifetime financial support and protection to government whistleblowers. The logic runs in both directions. If nothing was exaggerated, no one comes forward and nothing changes. If something was, the people with direct knowledge β including intelligence officials who may have seen relevant material β would finally have a reason to talk.
Kinney is also careful to redirect the debate. Arguing about whether the virus escaped from a Chinese lab, in his framing, misses a bigger question: whether a relatively mild circulating coronavirus was deliberately overstated as a deadly threat in order to justify vaccine mandates imposed by governments, schools, and employers.
Blanche’s Pledge and the Secrecy Problem
The second thread Kinney pulls is the weaponization question. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche β since confirmed to the role β said publicly that the machinery of government should never be turned against any American, and that the Department would work to right past wrongs while preventing future ones.
Kinney’s objection is practical rather than philosophical. It is nearly impossible, he writes, for an average person to determine whether government technologies and methods have been used against them β precisely because the government guards those methods so aggressively. That secrecy is normally justified on national security grounds, with officials arguing that disclosure would let Americans develop countermeasures.
To Kinney, that rationale does not hold up. Americans already know about firearms, GPS trackers, hidden microphones, covert cameras, tasers, and nightsticks β and most citizens still cannot build countermeasures against them. So why the fierce protection of methods the public has never seen? He offers two possibilities: either those technologies have invisible or remote capabilities the public knows nothing about, or releasing information about them would expose unlawful conduct by officials.
He ties this to FBI Director Kash Patel, who argued in his book Government Gangsters β written before his appointment β that a “Deep State” inside the federal government uses secret power to harm Americans. Patel has continued to stand behind the book’s central claims since taking the job, according to Kinney.
The harm Kinney describes does not have to be exotic. Financial damage, for instance, can be inflicted simply by law enforcement approaching a current or prospective employer, triggering a termination; rumors then spread through professional networks and cities, and long-term unemployment follows.
What the Science Says β and What Congress Could Do
More speculative is Kinney’s suggestion that sudden medical events could stem from secret, remotely operated technology. He grounds this not in rumor but in work by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which he says concluded that remotely operated, invisible directed-energy weapons β radio frequency or microwave devices β are technically plausible. That report examined whether directed RF energy, including pulsed or modulated forms, could produce serious biological effects invisibly and from a distance. This is a real document, not an invention, and Kinney leans on it deliberately.
His proposed fix is blunt: require law enforcement, intelligence, and other covert methods and technologies to be declassified and publicized. He acknowledges risk in that idea without dwelling on it, framing transparency as the only way citizens can know what is being done in their name.
He also notes that other countries have reportedly developed a form of “no-touch torture,” in which a target experiences continuous, fabricated events nearly everywhere they go β coordinated by government entities, informants, and confidential sources to produce extreme distress, akin to gaslighting. Similar accounts surface in America under the label “gang stalking,” and those who report them are routinely dismissed as delusional. Kinney concedes that some reports likely have ordinary explanations. His point is narrower: dismissing all of them out of hand may itself be a mistake.
Whether any of this amounts to a coherent program or a patchwork of unrelated suspicions is exactly what cannot currently be determined. Kinney’s argument is that this uncertainty is the product of deliberate design β and that the burden of proof should not rest on citizens who have no access to the file.
Source: www.americanthinker.com β https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/10/what-can-be-done-about-u-s-government-weaponization-and-covid-secrets/