A Tribute to Jon Rappoport

Too Late

I was just beginning a family vacation on July 3, 2026 when I noticed a new Substack article from investigative reporter Jon Rappoport in my inbox. Usually, I would be very excited to read what Jon had to say. However, this one was different. The title of the post was To Jon Rappoport’s Readers, and when it began with “Dear Readers,” I knew something was not quite right. Instead of a new insightful and entertaining article from Jon, the message came from his Executive Producer, Tom Kudla. It was, in fact, an update informing readers that Jon was no longer able to write the masterful pieces he had shared for decades.

It was a heart-wrenching post because, while Jon was still alive, it was clear that he was unwell and no longer able to continue the work he loved. There was no indication of the state of Jon’s health or how much time he had left, but the message read as though he was approaching the end of his journey here on Earth.

As Jon had such a profound impact on my own journey for nearly a decade, I felt compelled to pay tribute to him while he was still with us. Although I was not certain he would see my post, I tagged Jon on Twitter/X and left a message thanking him for his work and for his contribution to my awakening.

Due to the character limit, I was unable to share the full message there, so I posted the complete tribute on my other social media accounts.

I am not certain what it is about human nature, but somehow we often forget to pay tribute to those who have had a profound impact on our lives while they are still alive. Instead, we tend to wait until they are gravely ill or have already passed away before expressing our appreciation for their contributions. I have been guilty of this far too often, having paid tribute to Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Kary Mullis, and Patrick Timpone only after they had already left us. I still intend to pay my respects to the late David Crowe for his invaluable contribution to my own journey.

In recent memory, the only person I have thanked while alive has been Dr. Stefan Lanka for his monumental impact on my knowledge of the fraud of virology. Therefore, I was determined to write a tribute to Jon while he was still with us. Unfortunately, I knew that while on vacation I would be without internet access for a period of time, and the time I did have was far too limited to write anything meaningful. Not knowing how long Jon had left, I hoped to return home and write a piece that he might still have the opportunity to read.

When my internet access was restored on July 10, 2026, during my return trip home, I learned from the post Jon’s Prerecorded Farewell Message that I was too late. Jon Rappoport passed away peacefully on the evening of Wednesday, July 8, 2026.

No More Fake News

I do not remember the exact moment I discovered Jon’s work, but it was during a period of disillusionment and questioning of the official narrative. I was beginning to challenge mainstream stories while attempting to uncover the uncomfortable truths about those who were writing them. Jon stood out to me because here was an investigative reporter who was willing to publicly challenge what we had been sold. At a time when it seemed those who spoke out were censored, defamed, or silenced, Jon was a beacon of courage.

I quickly came to appreciate his uncanny ability to present difficult questions by highlighting absurdity, irony, and exaggerated characters. He encouraged readers to question their assumptions in a way that was both intellectually stimulating and highly entertaining. Whether he was writing about medicine, politics, media, or culture, Jon had a unique gift for exposing contradictions through satire and storytelling. That ability to cut through complexity and expose flawed assumptions was ultimately what made his work so influential to me. His articles rarely felt like lectures. Instead, they invited readers to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The earliest recognition of Jon’s work that I can find dates back nearly ten years. It was a simple sharing of his article, US Election Shocker: Is This How the Vote Will Be Rigged?, on Facebook without any commentary of my own. In the piece, Jon examined concerns surrounding the transparency of electronic voting systems and argued that the greatest risk to election integrity lay in computerized vote tabulation that operates beyond public scrutiny. More than the subject matter itself, the article exemplified what drew me to Jon’s work. While I had already become skeptical of the electoral process, I appreciated how Jon challenged readers to look beyond official narratives, examine the underlying evidence, and question institutions that demanded unquestioning trust.

A few months after that August 2, 2016, post, my family found itself embroiled in a health nightmare. It was a dark and difficult period that left me scrambling for answers about what I believed—and what ultimately turned out to be—a fraudulent HIV diagnosis of a family member. Desperate for answers, I sought out every source I could find on the legitimacy of HIV testing. At a time when I felt consumed by fear and despair, it was both a pleasant and comforting surprise to discover that this investigative reporter, in whom I had begun to place my trust, was also one of the key figures challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

I began putting the pieces of the “virus” fraud together—with slightly confusing wording—in a post on June 28, 2017, where I shared Jon’s article, Zika, HIV: The Abstract vs. the Concrete in the Pursuit of Logic. In the article, Jon argued that people often mistake abstract concepts for concrete proof, accepting claims such as “HIV causes AIDS” or “Zika causes microcephaly” as established facts without first demanding direct evidence of causation. Jon maintained that genuine proof requires demonstrating a direct, observable causal link through evidence rather than relying on consensus, statistical associations, or repeated assertions. He argued that scientific reasoning should begin with concrete observations and rigorous logic, not with accepted assumptions that are treated as facts simply because they are widely repeated. He presented this distinction between the abstract and the concrete as essential not only for evaluating claims about HIV and Zika but for thinking critically about science in general. It was another example of Jon’s unwavering commitment to logic and his ability to challenge deeply entrenched assumptions through careful reasoning. His emphasis on logic and the need to demonstrate a direct causal link had a profound influence on my own approach to evaluating scientific claims.

On December 27, 2017, I shared Jon’s article The Great Virus Hoax in Modern Medicine with the simple caption, “The great deception…” In the article, Jon challenged one of the most fundamental assumptions in medicine: that identifying a “virus” automatically establishes it as the cause of disease. To illustrate his point, he examined the 2009 swine flu and the 2003 SARS outbreaks, citing reports that many patients diagnosed with those illnesses did not test positive for the respective “viruses.” Jon argued that attributing an outbreak to a “virus” without first demonstrating that the purported “virus” is consistently present in those who are ill—and that it is the direct cause of their symptoms—is not scientifically justified. Once again, he emphasized the importance of logic, direct evidence, and causation over assumptions, consensus, and repetition. His reasoning also aligned with Koch’s Postulates, the criteria historically considered essential for scientifically demonstrating that a specific microbe causes a specific disease. This framework would later become central to my own arguments challenging virology.

On March 24, 2020, I shared an article that Jon published that stood out to me for personal reasons, titled What About the Des Moines Virus? Having lived in Des Moines, the title immediately caught my attention, but the significance of the piece extended far beyond the location itself. Through satire and irony, Jon used the fictional concept of a “Des Moines virus” to explore how narratives are created, how fear shapes perception, and how easily assumptions can become accepted realities.

This was another example of what made Jon’s writing so unique. Rather than simply presenting an argument, he often used exaggerated scenarios and unconventional storytelling to reveal contradictions and encourage readers to examine assumptions they might otherwise overlook. His ability to make people think while entertaining them was one of the qualities that made his work so memorable.

Paths Intertwined

On April 24, 2020, during the heart of what was called the “pandemic,” Jon Rappoport released the article A Vital Paper: David Crowe Challenges the Discovery of the COVID-19 Virus. This was especially significant to me because two individuals who had become highly influential in my journey were now intersecting at a moment when critical voices were needed more than ever. As I recounted in Uncovering the Corona Fraud Part 11:

Jon Rappoport and David Crowe were two extremely influential voices early on during this pandemic. Seeing Jon acknowledge David’s amazing work was exciting for me. It felt like two giants teaming up and fighting together for us, something we desperately needed in these early months of the “pandemic.” While David passed away a few months later, others have fortunately stepped up to help fill the massive void left in his absence.

In the article, Jon highlighted David Crowe’s work challenging the scientific foundation behind the claim that a new disease-causing “virus” had been discovered. He discussed David’s paper Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory, an examination of whether researchers had truly demonstrated the existence of an isolated “virus,” emphasizing that the detection of RNA sequences was not the same as proving the existence of a complete “infectious” agent responsible for disease. David questioned whether the necessary steps to establish causation had been fulfilled and emphasized the importance of direct evidence and the principles behind Koch’s Postulates.

Once again, Jon directed attention toward the foundational questions that are often overlooked: What has actually been demonstrated? What evidence directly connects an alleged cause to an observed effect? These questions would become increasingly central to my own examination of virology and would shape the path that eventually led to ViroLIEgy.

On December 18, 2020, Jon Rappoport crossed paths with another influential figure in my journey, Dr. Tom Cowan, in an interview that I was eager to share. In Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends Episode 12: Jon Rappoport, the two men spoke at length about what would need to be demonstrated in order to claim that a specific “virus” was the cause of a specific disease. As Dr. Cowan wrote:

In this interview, and hopefully for the final time, Jon Rappaport and I describe in common language and precise detail the steps that are needed to properly isolate and characterize a virus. We did this so we could empower our readers and listeners to know for themselves how to read and identify fraudulent science. Among the many challenges we face, one is the rampant scientific illiteracy. In some ages this may not have been relevant, but if we are going to live in an era in which “science” is the new religion and its tenets control our lives, we had better understand what its unquestioned “priests” are saying.

This conversation represented the convergence of many of the ideas that had shaped my own journey. From HIV and Zika to SARS, swine flu, and “COVID-19,” Jon consistently returned to the same fundamental question: What evidence actually demonstrates causation? Rather than simply debating the details of individual diseases, he focused on the foundation upon which those claims were built.

For me, this interview was another example of why Jon’s work had such a profound impact. He did not simply challenge conclusions; he challenged the process by which those conclusions were reached. He encouraged people to look beyond labels, assumptions, and appeals to authority, and instead examine the evidence for themselves.

What stood out to me most about this conversation was that Dr. Cowan embodied the same spirit that had drawn me to Jon’s work years earlier. Both men were willing to challenge deeply held assumptions, ask foundational questions, and encourage others to examine evidence rather than simply accept established narratives. Their approach was not to accept a claim because it was widely repeated or supported by authority, but to return to the fundamental question that had guided Jon’s work for decades: What has actually been demonstrated?

“Sure, go for it.”

As I began writing my own detailed posts questioning and challenging the narrative during the “pandemic,” I found myself at times unconsciously emulating Jon’s style. I used satire and irony to highlight the absurdities I saw within the mainstream stories. I focused on logic and evidence in an attempt to help people recognize the inconsistencies and unanswered questions for themselves. To say that Jon had an impact on me would be an understatement.

In fact, it was partly because of Jon’s long history of bravely challenging mainstream narratives that I felt comfortable taking the step of putting myself and my research out there with ViroLIEgy.com. I rationalized that there was strength in numbers, and we were increasingly seeing those voices begin to connect into a coalition of sorts.

Six months after creating the site, I decided to gather many of these voices into an easily accessible article for those searching for others who were challenging the prevailing narrative. This eventually became Who You Gonna Call? While I did not set out to list people in any particular order of influence or importance, it was no coincidence that Jon Rappoport was the first person I included.

Before writing the article, I was uncertain about the etiquette involved in linking to the work of others, so I reached out to Jon via email, explaining the concept and asking for his permission to include his site. I was not expecting a response, but I wanted to make the effort all the same. To my surprise, Jon quickly responded. While those emails are now lost due to my old Hotmail account deleting content to free up space, I will never forget his simple and supportive response:

“Sure, go for it.”

For someone whose work had already influenced my own thinking so profoundly, that brief response carried far more weight than Jon likely realized. I was ecstatic that someone I admired so greatly had taken the time to reply. Those three words may have seemed insignificant, but to me they represented something much greater. They were an acknowledgment from someone I deeply respected that encouraged me to continue building, questioning, and sharing what I was discovering. In many ways, those words helped reinforce the confidence I needed to continue on the path that eventually became ViroLIEgy.

Jon’s influence was so profound that when I later announced I was working on a book, I included Jon alongside Dr. Stefan Lanka and David Crowe as the primary voices whose work had shaped my thinking when I first began speaking out.

As I wrote at the time, the emergence of Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey helped inspire me to put myself out there even further. Each of these voices brought a unique perspective, but they shared a common willingness to question assumptions, challenge accepted narratives, and return to the foundational principles of scientific inquiry. Seeing respected individuals from different backgrounds independently arrive at similar questions reinforced the idea that this was not simply one person’s concern or one isolated perspective. It was a growing movement of people seeking answers, demanding evidence, and encouraging critical thought.

Jon, however, remained one of the foundational influences that gave me the courage to join that conversation. For decades, he had demonstrated what it looked like to question powerful institutions, challenge popular beliefs, and follow the evidence wherever it led. His example showed me that speaking out came with risks, but remaining silent in the face of questions that deserved to be asked was not the answer.

Carrying the Torch

For those who have followed my work, much of what you have seen is connected back to the profound influence Jon Rappoport had on my journey. Without Jon, there may never have been ViroLIEgy.com. It was his example of independently operating his own platform, outside of traditional gatekeepers, that gave me the confidence to do the same. He was one of the earliest voices who opened my eyes to the questions surrounding virology, and for that I will always be eternally grateful.

What separated Jon from many others was not simply the subjects he wrote about or the conclusions he reached, but the way he approached them. He had a rare ability to expose contradictions through logic, satire, storytelling, and relentless questioning. He encouraged people not to simply accept what they were told, but to examine the assumptions behind those claims and ask whether the evidence truly supported them. His decades of perseverance in challenging powerful institutions and encouraging independent thought continue to fuel my own resolve to do the same.

The best way to honor those who came before us is to carry on their legacy. While I may not have been able to thank Jon while he was still with us, I hope that I can show my appreciation by continuing the spirit of inquiry, courage, and independent thought that defined his work. Jon may no longer be physically with us, but he will continue to live on through the work he left behind and through the countless people he influenced along the way.

The greatest tribute to a thinker is not simply remembering what they said, but continuing to ask the questions they encouraged others to ask. Thank you, Jon, for the profound role you played in my own journey. Your work inspired me to question, to investigate, and to return to the foundational question that guided so much of your own work: What has actually been demonstrated? Your impact will not be forgotten.

His Work Lives On

Fortunately, according to Jon’s Executive Producer, Tom Kudla, plans are in place to preserve Jon’s work and continue publishing previously unreleased writings. The best way to stay up to date is by subscribing to Jon’s Substack.

https://jonrappoport.substack.com/

You can also find out more about Jon by visiting his old site:

https://nomorefakenews.com/index.html

For readers interested in Jon’s groundbreaking investigation into the HIV/AIDS narrative, his book AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century is available here:

https://archive.org/details/aidsincscandalof00rapp/mode/1up

Finally, for one of the best conversations Jon ever had on virology, I highly recommend Dr. Sam Bailey’s interview, “The Virus Cover Story” with Jon Rappoport. It captures the clarity, humor, and relentless questioning that made Jon’s work so impactful.

https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/the-virus-cover-story-with-jon-rappoport-b5f?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web