Anna Demidchik

🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE — PRIVATE MESSAGES EXPOSE TROUBLING COORDINATION AROUND WHITEHEAD’S DEI SURVEY IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL 🔱 NEW REVELATION — Following our exposé of the Whitehead Institute Board’s continued defense of its leadership and its deeply compromised 2021 investigative process—whose integrity is now seriously challenged by extensive court evidence and the jury’s $6 million verdict against Kristin Knouse for defamation and tortious interference—additional court evidence exposes deeply troubling private communications between Knouse and Tina Lopez, including explicit references to Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann. On October 20–21, 2020, Knouse and Lopez discussed Whitehead Institute’s anticipated anonymous DEI survey, encouraging additional allegations and addressing concerns about anonymity. In these exchanges, Knouse explicitly referenced Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann, while Lopez expressed extraordinary personal loyalty to Knouse. These communications raise serious questions about how Whitehead’s DEI survey was used to advance Knouse’s efforts against Professor @DMSabatini, what its leadership knew, and whether the subsequent investigation was genuinely independent. 1. Coordinating submissions to Whitehead’s DEI survey After discussing an anticipated anonymous survey concerning harassment, racism, and bullying, Knouse encouraged Lopez (@KristinaELopez) to submit information and wrote: 🔴 “carpe diem my friend ....” 🔴 “this is your chance to report what anna told you ....” When Lopez expressed concern about being identified, Knouse emphasized the survey’s purported anonymity. 2. Knouse explicitly discussed obtaining additional sources Knouse wrote: 🔴 “ruth basically knows already” 🔴 “just need more sources to say the same shit now” 🔴 “so i dont seem like a psycho” She subsequently encouraged another potential participant to contribute, writing: 🔴 “help my case plz” 3. Tina Lopez’s extraordinary declarations of loyalty Lopez told Knouse: 🔴 “Hey with your blessing I'll do just about anything” Later, she declared: 🔴 “Anyway I'm #teamKristin ride or die” These exchanges raise serious questions about personal loyalty, influence, and the independence of allegations submitted through institutional reporting channels. 4. Direct references to Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann Knouse stated: 🔴 “nah i think ruth knows to hold the horses” 🔴 “i told ruth this” And later: 🔴 “here's hoping we got AA and ruth in our side cars” These statements warrant examination of what Whitehead leadership knew, when it knew it, and whether appropriate safeguards protected the independence of the investigative process. ⚠️ THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION The scientific community has already seen the jury’s $6 million verdict against Kristin Knouse for defamation and tortious interference. Now these private messages expose how Knouse and Lopez discussed using Whitehead’s anticipated DEI survey to advance allegations, recruit additional voices, and address concerns about anonymity. Whitehead Institute (@WhiteheadInst), Director Ruth Lehmann (@REMLehmann), Board Chair Sarah K. Williamson (@SWilliamsonFCLT), and the Board of Directors must publicly address these documentary revelations. We call for an independent, evidence-based review of the DEI survey, the subsequent investigation, relevant leadership communications, and the institutional decisions that followed. 🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️ @SciGuardians 🔱

France is preparing to introduce a nationwide 0.8% levy on home, car and business insurance contracts to finance a compensation fund for damage caused by riots. The measure could take effect on January 1, 2027, and generate approximately €400 million annually. Although insurance companies would formally pay the levy, they could pass the additional costs directly on to policyholders through higher premiums. That means millions of ordinary French residents, including those who have never participated in riots or lived anywhere near affected areas, could end up paying more to cover the financial consequences of rioting elsewhere in the country.

The Text Messages Will Get You Every Time In the Cornell case, the text messages paint a very different picture from the narrative presented in the civil complaint and much of the media coverage. And here we are again. Different case, same lesson. When the full text exchanges start coming out, the narrative can change dramatically. David Sabatini's $6 million defamation victory against Kristin Knouse is a vindication, but it doesn't erase what happened to him. On October 16, a Massachusetts jury found that Knouse had defamed Sabatini and improperly interfered with his professional relationships. The jury also rejected her sexual harassment and retaliation counterclaims. Sabatini lost his prestigious positions, his laboratory, his reputation, and years of his career. He spent five years fighting to clear his name. Most people wouldn't have the financial resources, connections, or determination to take a case this far. So what happens to the people who can't? And what about accountability beyond a monetary judgment? When someone knowingly makes false allegations that destroy another person's livelihood, shouldn't there be consequences beyond writing a check? But there's another aspect of this case that deserves scrutiny: the people and institutions surrounding the allegations. Check out @SciGuardians and their ongoing coverage of the court evidence. Their posts examine contemporaneous communications involving Nora Kory, a former postdoctoral researcher in Sabatini's laboratory, discussions involving Kristin Knouse and MIT professor Sangeeta Bhatia, and references to Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann. What the court evidence revealed raises some serious questions about coordination, institutional influence, the use of DEI processes, and whether the people responsible for evaluating these allegations were as independent as they should have been. Some of this looks less like an impartial investigation and more like a coordinated campaign. Whether the full record supports that conclusion deserves closer examination. And while Sabatini won his case against Knouse, the verdict doesn't establish wrongdoing by every other person involved. Still, between the text revelations, the institutional politics, the reputational destruction, champagne celebrations, and the courtroom vindication, this has all the makings of a Netflix documentary.

🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES EXPLOSIVE PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEALING COORDINATION BETWEEN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND MIT PROFESSOR SANGEETA BHATIA IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL. 🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes how Knouse and Bhatia privately celebrated Sabatini’s removal, discussed the potential destruction of his professional career, and anticipated the revocation of his @MIT tenure. An 80-message exchange between Kristin Knouse and MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia, dated August 20–21, 2021, reveals their private reactions immediately following Whitehead Institute and HHMI's severance of ties with Professor @DMSabatini. The communications contain statements that deserve serious public examination. 🔴 1. “YOU DID IT” — “AND HE’S OUT.” On August 20, 2021, Bhatia congratulated Knouse: 🔴 “YOU DID IT. You crossed the finish line. It's out in the open. And you're not out in the open. And you're on the faculty. And he's out.” Knouse responded: 🔴 “You connecting me to Nancy [Hopkins]was the turning point. I will never forget that walk in Lexington.” 🔴 2. “THIS WAS THE OUTCOME I DREAMED OF.” The following morning, as news coverage spread, Knouse discussed the possibility of Sabatini losing his MIT tenure: 🔴 “Hard to imagine MIT will be left with any choice other than to revoke tenure.” Bhatia responded: 🔴 “You're right about tenure” She subsequently wrote: 🔴 “This was the outcome I dreamed of but NEVER certain I would get it.” Knouse also described her assessment of Whitehead's handling of the matter: 🔴 “And as skeptical as I was of Whitehead's end game, in the end I think the overall process was perfectly executed.” Bhatia expressed her approval of Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann: 🔴 “I'm proud of Ruth [Lehmann]” These exchanges occurred months before MIT's April 2022 tenure-revocation recommendation. 🔴 3. THE PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES — BEYOND WHITEHEAD. The participants also discussed Sabatini's corporate affiliations and prospects for future employment. Knouse wrote: 🔴 “I know of one company already speaking with lawyers to remove him on grounds of morality clause.” She subsequently stated: 🔴 “Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after the past 24 hours ...” These were not merely discussions about an institutional investigation. They extended to the potential consequences for Sabatini's career, tenure, corporate affiliations, and future livelihood. 🔴 4. THE DIVERSITY SURVEY AND PROTECTION FROM PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION. In another particularly consequential exchange, Bhatia wrote: 🔴 “Also the dei survey and subsequent investigation really protects you, which I love. There is not even a scent of whistleblower in all the press.” This statement takes on particular significance alongside the previously disclosed communications in which Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration (📑 see the original court evidence in the first comment below). 🔴 5. “WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE” — CELEBRATING AS THE NEWS SPREAD. Perhaps the most striking exchange appears on KK011419. On August 21, 2021, Knouse declared: 🔴 “I KNOW! Young people took down a relatively young king. Progress, progress, progress.” Knouse also wrote: 🔴 “Two other women who came forward and I drank champagne while watching the Tweets and articles roll in last night. It felt like campaign headquarters after an election victory. Really special.” Bhatia responded: 🔴 “That's awesome.” These exchanges reinforce the serious concerns about coordination and conflicts of interest raised by our previous disclosures. Their significance must be assessed alongside the full documentary record and the subsequent jury verdict. The scientific community deserves full accountability for any misconduct established by the evidence, including the roles of individuals who participated in or improperly influenced the institutional processes that subjected Professor Sabatini to a devastating ordeal and profoundly damaged his career. 📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW. 🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️ @SciGuardians 🔱

Bodycam footage shows Florida deputies arresting a mother at an airport after authorities say she left her four children, ages 9, 11, 12 and 14, home alone while traveling to Las Vegas for work. Irene Miller, 50, was taken into custody Friday as she stepped off a plane. Two days earlier, one of her children had called 911 after a dumbbell fell on her 9-year-old brother's head. When deputies arrived at the family's Kissimmee home, they found the children without adult supervision and had the injured boy taken to a hospital, where he was treated and released. Miller now faces four counts of child neglect.

It just dawned on me. This USA v. California case could mean the end of "all mail" ballots for California. If the 9th Circuit puts a halt to the process as it is now, they will not want to have to validate their voter rolls in the future. They know there are probably hundreds of thousands maybe millions of illegal aliens registered to vote because that is how they set up the program. All on-line registration, and NO citizenship verification (by their own statements). California is a Red State and I think this could be the route to show it. Get out and vote !

The New York Post has obtained and published an official copy of Ilhan Omar's sister's marriage certificate. It describes their father as "Nur Said Elmi," and his profession as a "military officer. More evidence that she is not who she says she is.

What amazes me is the attitude of so many of the centibillionaires. A 5% tax will not make any difference to the way they live. Their spending may be extravagant, but it is still much less than their (correctly measured) income. They know that, as gifted as some of them indeed are, they have benefited from extreme luck (and the help of the state, and, to speak like an economist, monopoly rents). They know that their effective tax rate is low, relative to what many others pay. They know that extreme inequality is extremely unpopular, and can lead to political unrest, backlash, or worse. They must admit that, morally, it is hard to argue for a society in which some become obscenely wealthy, while so many are poor and see their income stagnate. They typically have not indicated that they are building their wealth to eventually make the world a better place. But they are still willing to fight the tax, spending hundreds of millions in California to avoid paying the tax. Why? They simply think what is theirs is theirs, end of story. They believe in the slippery slope, and if they do not take a stand on this levy, the government will come back for more. They hate the state and the notion that their money will be misused? Or?

Woman cries for three hours after passenger refuses to swap seats so she can sit beside her husband on 10-hour flight from Turkey to the US

Men will literally build a flying car instead of going to therapy

French rioters loot Louis Vuitton store located just 2 KM away from the Élysée.

Biggest "the kids are fucked" moment I've had recently was at urgent care. Walked in for a strep test, asked upfront what it would cost without insurance. Receptionist said she couldn't tell me. "It depends on what the doctor finds." Got the test, got a quick look at my throat, was out in 15 minutes. The bill came three weeks later: $385. For a swab and a five-minute conversation. Called to ask for an itemized breakdown. Turns out "facility fee" alone was $220, just for walking through the door, regardless of what they actually did inside. I assumed a price was something you could ask for before you agreed to pay it. Apparently in healthcare, you find out what something costs only after you've already agreed to it.

Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred. The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead. By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable. Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini. The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place. Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers. On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse. When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting. On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT. On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment." The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients: An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations. As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board. When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family. At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims. I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis. The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide. [In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.] On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David. Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice. Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest. The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment. While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view. To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation. Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here. And the reputational damage was not just to David. David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?" For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts. How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time. For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute. I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world. To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here. At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report. Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.