Originally published on www.sayerji.substack.com
On October 9th, I received a disturbing email from The Associated Press's Michelle R. Smith.
On October 9th, I received a disturbing email from The Associated Press's Michelle R. Smith.
The message began politely enough, framed as an "opportunity to respond." But the substance of her inquiry revealed something far more troubling: a prewritten narrative designed to cast lawful civic advocacy as "anti-science extremism," and to expose personal, irrelevant details under the guise of journalism.
The questions were not investigative; they were accusatory:
"Have you received any compensation for the work you have done with MAHA Action this year?"
"You have listed your address in corporate records as ### XXXX Ave… Are you living in that condo currently?"
"Why did you support a bill that bans chemtrails?"
In an era when reputational targeting and "disinformation" labeling have become political weapons, such inquiries are not benign. They are part of a coordinated playbook of narrative warfare, where insinuation replaces evidence and personal data becomes ammunition.
Phase One: The Setup
The AP's first contact mirrored the now-familiar pattern of what intelligence analysts call a "pretext request" -- an outreach that disguises a preloaded story as an open inquiry.
The tone is professional, but the content reveals that the article has already been written -- the target's input is sought only to legitimize the narrative.
Ms. Smith's email referenced multiple topics -- vaccines, raw milk, fluoride, and "geoengineering" -- none of which relate directly to my private life or address. Yet, she injected a line about a private property, naming another individual close to me, and implying personal impropriety.
This wasn't reporting. It was a test balloon for a doxxing event, couched in journalistic courtesy.
Phase Two: The Response
My reply was measured, transparent, and rooted in principle:
"I must express clearly and respectfully that any publication of this nature would constitute an erosion of personal safety boundaries and may be perceived as an act of doxxing, with potential legal and ethical implications."
When the follow-up came days later -- "I wanted to follow up with you to give you the chance to answer the questions I sent last week" -- I reiterated my respect for the role of journalism, but drew firm boundaries.
I clarified my positions, and my defense of science as an open process -- not one controlled by industry or consensus politics.
Phase Three: The Articles Drop
On October 21, The Associated Press published two pieces by Michelle Smith and Laura Ungar -- both thematically aligned with the ongoing "anti-science" narrative used to marginalize dissenters.
This article implied that figures within the Make America Healthy Again movement "profit" from opposing public health orthodoxy, lumping together unrelated issues such as raw milk and vaccine exemptions under the umbrella of "anti-science."
It cited unnamed "experts" and presented lawful advocacy as grift.
Released the same day, this second piece functioned as a meta-justification -- a kind of preemptive defense briefexplaining AP's "methodology." It described how reporters "examined more than 1,000 bills" and classified 420 of them as "anti-science," focusing on vaccines, fluoride, and raw milk.
But there was no peer review, no external oversight, and no acknowledgment that their analysis was funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- two institutions deeply entwined with pharmaceutical and policy interests.
In short:
The AP defined "anti-science," applied the label to anyone questioning centralized health policy, then cited its own self-referential analysis as proof that the targets were "anti-science."
It was a closed information loop -- propaganda disguised as data.
Phase Four: The Narrative and Its Absurdity
The AP's final product was not journalism -- it was a political framing operation.
It relied on the term "anti-science" 14 times across two articles, but failed to define what that means. It cited the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as funders -- two institutions with clear interests in maintaining pharmaceutical orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, the reporters framed efforts to promote raw milk, question fluoride policy, or demand transparency in atmospheric spraying as dangerous -- ignoring the mountain of peer-reviewed science and bipartisan support behind each initiative.
They could have examined how grassroots health freedom became one of the most diverse and nonpartisan movements in modern America, and now is going global. Instead, they chose to flatten it into caricature.
Phase Five: The Defense
Before the AP went to print, I sent a Formal Legal and Editorial Notice to their executive editor Julie Pace, legal counsel, and the Standards Department.
The notice invoked journalistic ethics and Florida's anti-doxxing law (§836.115), warning that publication of any private address or irrelevant personal data would constitute foreseeable harm.
It was not a threat. It was a boundary.
They received the notice. They published anyway -- omitting my voice and reinforcing the very smear they had scripted from the start.
But this time, it was documented. Publicly.
Below is my message to them.
Dear Managing Editor and Members of the Associated Press Legal Department,
This correspondence serves as formal notice of objection to the inclusion or dissemination of any private residential address or property information concerning me, Sayer Ji, in connection with the Associated Press's pending story regarding the "Make America Healthy Again" initiative or related civic activities.
The Associated Press and its staff are hereby placed on notice that such disclosure, if published, would represent a foreseeable act of harmful exposure in the context of ongoing coordinated defamation, digital harassment, and transnational lawfare that has already been documented in public record and active federal proceedings, and which has been formally submitted to governmental agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as to international bodies including the United Nations Special Rapporteur.
On October 9, 2025, I was contacted by Michelle R. Smith, a reporter for the Associated Press, regarding an upcoming story on the "Make America Healthy Again" initiative and related advocacy activities.
Ms. Smith's correspondence included a series of pointed questions concerning my professional roles, affiliations, compensation, and reference to a private address appearing in corporate records. Given the inclusion of such personal material -- unrelated to the stated subject of the article -- I believe it is necessary to elevate this matter for formal legal and editorial review.
For transparency and recordkeeping, a copy of Ms. Smith's original email inquiry is attached to this notice.
Documented Pattern of Harm
Over the past four years, I have been the subject of systematic reputational and digital targeting linked to foreign-affiliated entities such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and their domestic partners. These activities have included defamatory publications, unlawful data use, and cross-border weaponization of constitutionally protected U.S. speech.
This record is a matter of ongoing federal and congressional review, as reflected in Finn v. Global Engagement Center, No. 3:25-cv-00543 (M.D. Fla.), and in other filings submitted under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which recognize that media defendants may be liable when private data publication creates predictable danger. The targeting has involved elements of narrative coordination between foreign and U.S.-based organizations, including academics, digital platforms, and certain media contributors. These matters are part of publicly filed cases and congressional records; supporting documents are available on request.
Within that context, the publication of my private address--particularly one linked to prior disinformation campaigns--would not be a neutral act of journalism, but an extension of a known vector of harassment.
Legal Duty of Care and Foreseeability
Given the well-documented history of digital targeting, threats, and reputational attacks against me and my family, any further disclosure of private residence information would create a foreseeable risk of harm under established tort principles of negligence and reckless disregard (see Cape Publications, Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1989)).
As such, I request that the AP and its affiliates:
- Refrain entirely from publishing, referencing, or describing any personal residential address or property valuation connected to me or my associates; and
- Confirm that this information has been redacted from all drafts and internal databases before publication.
Failure to do so after this notice may establish a record of reckless disregard and potential negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, given the known risk profile and the extensive prior documentation of harm and surveillance that have been submitted to both federal and diplomatic bodies.
Ethical and Institutional Responsibilities
Beyond the legal considerations, the Associated Press's own editorial standards and international best practices--including the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics §III--require balancing the public's right to know against the potential for unjustified harm.
This request is not intended to obstruct legitimate reporting. It is a good-faith invocation of journalistic ethics and safety standards, in the same spirit that guides the AP's own "Protection of Sources and Subjects" policy, which expressly prohibits exposure that could endanger or unduly target private citizens.
Please provide written acknowledgment of this notice and confirmation that this matter has been escalated to AP's Standards and Legal Affairs division prior to any publication decision.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for your commitment to responsible, fact-based reporting.
Sincerely,
Sayer Ji
Phase Six: The Real Story
The real story here is not about raw milk, vaccine exemptions, or Florida's environmental policy.
It is about narrative laundering -- how public institutions and media outlets, funded by corporate-aligned foundations, now act as information enforcers rather than journalists.
It's about how lawful advocacy becomes "anti-science," how dissent becomes "dangerous," and how private citizens are exposed in ways that violate both ethics and safety -- all to maintain a crumbling illusion of consensus.
My Remarks on the Associated Press "Anti-Science" Narrative and MAHA Legislation
The Associated Press's characterization of emerging state-level health freedom legislation as "anti-science" is not only misleading--it's the exact inversion of reality. These bills are fundamentally pro-science and pro-transparency. They invite open debate, informed consent, and public access to the evidence behind policies that have, for too long, been enforced without adequate scrutiny. Calling that "anti-science" reveals more about the AP's editorial bias than about the content of the legislation itself.
True science is a process of continuous questioning, testing, and re-evaluation--not an instrument of censorship or control. When laws seek to protect parental rights, bodily sovereignty, or informed consent, they are not rejecting science--they are demanding it. If an intervention is genuinely evidence-based and beneficial, the public should be free to choose it, not be coerced into it. Coercion is the mark of ideology, not science.
It's also revealing that the AP uses emotionally charged labels like "anti-vaccine" or "anti-science" to frame anyone questioning corporate or governmental narratives. This is an old rhetorical strategy--turn complex debates into caricatures to discourage independent thought. But Americans are smarter than that. We can recognize that asking questions about mRNA products, fluoride exposure, or geoengineering is not "anti-science"--it's common sense and civic responsibility.
The contradiction in the AP's framing--calling the movement both "small" and "powerful"--is telling. If it were truly fringe, there would be no need for such aggressive coverage. The reality is that millions of Americans are now awake to the overreach of public health bureaucracies and the dangers of captured institutions. That's why state-level reform is gaining traction, across party lines.
The AP's decision to target organizations like MAHA instead of the lawmakers themselves reflects a broader strategy: delegitimize the grassroots. It's easier to smear citizen-led movements than to admit that public opinion is shifting. Lawmakers are responding to legitimate constituent concerns. MAHA and its allies simply provide research, coordination, and vision. The public--not the press--is driving this change.
The notion that these organizations are "profiting off the movement" is another projection. The real profiteers are found in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, which pour billions into lobbying, PR, and media sponsorship to maintain their dominance. What's missing from AP's reporting is any honest accounting of that influence, or of the devastating consequences of the policies it defends--from chronic disease epidemics to mental health crises.
At the legislative level, we've seen important advances in bills addressing medical mandates, vaccine transparency, and the right to informed consent. States like Tennessee, Florida, and others have made tangible progress toward reclaiming medical freedom and protecting citizens from overreach. This momentum is growing, and it's being fueled by everyday Americans who want honest science and accountable governance.
Far from being harmed by these attacks, movements like MAHA are being strengthened by them. When legacy outlets attempt to ridicule or suppress authentic civic engagement, they only highlight their own irrelevance. Every time AP or its partners misrepresent what we stand for, more people begin asking the right questions--and that's how real change begins.
Ultimately, this isn't a battle between science and "anti-science." It's a struggle between propaganda and truth, between coercion and consent. The MAHA movement stands for health sovereignty, transparency, and the right to make fully informed choices. If that's controversial, it's only because we're living in a time when freedom itself has become radical.
Postscript: I Will No Longer Comply
The era of quietly accepting reputational targeting is over.
I will no longer tolerate the use of personal or private data to intimidate, discredit, or silence legitimate advocacy, or to target to intimidate my colleagues, family, or loved ones.
To the Associated Press and every outlet following this model: you have crossed a line.
Your methods are no longer invisible.
Every email, every inquiry, every omission is now part of the record -- a case study in how institutional journalism lost its moral compass.
The story you tried to write was not about me.
It was about control.
And like every attempt to control truth, it will not hold.
Learn about how you can join me in defending against this treatment and fighting back, and what it means for me and my loved ones, by reading my article below:
For My Daughters, For My Work, For the Right to Speak
Sayer Ji · May 23
.jpg)
Legal Disclaimer: Though I am not a party to any legal case in the UK, recent events there have deeply impacted my personal life, family, and the work I've built over decades. This message is not a legal statement, nor an attempt to influence any ongoing proceedings. It is a personal account--shared with respect for the process and in the hope that trans…
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario