Post

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1828911941672112332

More from @VigilantFox

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 13

We took Erin Brockovich's map of every data center in America. Then we laid the nation's aquifers on top of it.

We noticed they're not building data centers where the land is cheap. They're building them where the water is.

Farmers near these facilities say their livestock have stopped falling pregnant. Residents say the humming never stops.

And the projects arrive under NDAs, so most towns don't know until the ground is already broken.

The question isn’t where they’re building anymore. It’s why they’re building where they’re building. Tonight, we think we can answer that question.

We’ve been covering the data center issue in great detail on this broadcast, and for good reason. It’s a serious problem in America and worldwide, and it’s one that is uniting people from all sides of the political aisle because, guess what, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you have human rights that enable you to have access to basic survival needs like water, which was given to us by God, not by the state or Big Tech, by the way.

Erin Brockovich joined the data center fight recently. She launched a site including a map that shows data centers either completed, under construction, planned, or community reported, likely due to all those pesky NDAs in place stopping us from knowing they’re coming to our area. But the public isn’t stupid.

So Maria thought she’d do something a little bit different. She created a series of maps using Erin Brockovich’s data center data, then superimposed aquifer maps onto those maps, then superimposed smart city locations onto those maps. What Maria found was pretty mind-blowing and, she says, lends credence to her theory that those in charge are purposely making rural areas unlivable for the purpose of pushing people into smart cities, where they will be under constant surveillance and on a short leash.

The main reason for this continued investigation is because data centers are destroying rural communities by siphoning natural resources, contaminating and consuming water for surrounding communities, driving up power costs, creating noise and light pollution, destroying habitats, wildlife, animal health, human health, and impacting fertility, as discussed in one of the show’s recent reports.

The list goes on. For many, it’s making it impossible to continue living in the rural communities they fled to during COVID because they could see the playbook coming down the pipeline. But if you live in the city, these developments are going to impact you too, possibly in ways you can’t even begin to imagine yet.

Maria’s theory, what she calls a common-sense one, is that there is a direct correlation between data centers and the AI control grid. Furthermore, she believes there is a direct correlation between data centers and smart cities.

Before presenting the evidence, we want to walk you through key information on Erin Brockovich’s website, BrockovichDataCenter.com.

The key concerns include energy consumption, water usage, e-waste, location risks, scalability and efficiency, and noise. Anecdotal evidence suggests the noise itself may be impacting fertility, with farmers near data centers reporting that their livestock are no longer falling pregnant or giving birth.

The website also highlights:

• 15+ moratoria and pauses passed at the local, county, or state level.

• 66% voter approval for Port Washington’s nation-first referendum.

• 4 council members ousted in Festus, Missouri, after a data center vote.

• 19% of community submissions mentioning NDAs, secret deals, meetings, or no public voice.

• 25+ projects canceled due to local opposition in 2025 alone.

• 69 active moratoriums across U.S. jurisdictions as of April 2026.

•$156 billion in investment stalled by community opposition since 2025.

This is where things start to look overwhelming.

According to the data center map, there are currently 33 operational data centers, 67 under construction, and 39 proposed.

Read 12 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 12

A Fox News guest just said out loud what the “conspiracy theorists” have been screaming into the shadowbanned void for years:

The AI Big Tech and Big Government have is distinctly separate from the AI the public gets access to, because the AI they have is a weapons system that will be used against us.

Take a listen. (See clip below)

The only question that remains now is, if it’s being admitted on Fox News at this point, is it already too late to protect ourselves against it? For many people, it is. But not for those listening to this broadcast.

You see, we consider that we have a fairly sound understanding of where this is all heading, we’ve been reporting on it for years. You are talking about not just a social credit system, but something far more sinister, far more pervasive, the type of system that will deny you access to basic needs like food, power, even water, based on your behavior.

And you need not take our word for it; there are countless speeches at the World Economic Forum telling you they will do just that.

So what can we do about it? One of the key things is to cut off the machines food source at its knees. Your data is what the beast needs to grow.

Every single person can take action to end the incessant spying on every inch of their lives today, and they can learn how for free.

Glenn and Eric Meder join us today to discuss. 🧵

You've driven past one this week and probably never noticed it. 100,000 Flock cameras now line America's roads — and thousands more go up every month.

They don’t just film traffic. They read faces. They carry microphones. Once the system knows who you are, everything it captures gets attached to your profile — where you went, when, how often.

“It’s like the Truman show, but if it was 1984,” Eric said.

Want proof? Go to deflock.me and pull up your own city. The map is stunning.

What makes this even more concerning is that people have hacked these cameras on video. So it’s not just the government watching you. It’s potentially anyone.

You’re being spied on constantly. And the home tech is the biggest spy of them all.

Your Alexa, your smart TV, your phone — every one is a microphone you paid for. The WEF was publishing articles back in 2017 about how a single camera lets a computer understand you “on a very deep level.”

Smart city plans in Australia include “street furniture” that monitors public sentiment — AI reading your mood, 24/7. Feel the wrong way in the wrong place, and you get flagged.

Flagged by whom, for what? That’s where it gets dark.

Read 8 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 4

Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.

Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.

But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.

This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-isnt-the…

Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.

It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.

That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.

The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.

Read 27 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 28

Tucker Carlson admitted he used to make fun of people who believe vaccines cause autism.

He now describes his behavior as “unthinking, stupid, and reactionary.”

Tucker says people are noticing what Robert De Niro noticed about vaccines before he suddenly abandoned the issue: “There’s something there that people aren’t addressing” with vaccines and autism.

De Niro declared this on “The Today Show” back in 2016. Let the clip roll, and you’ll see it.

Fast forward to today, and it’s hard to believe De Niro actually said what he did on mainstream television.

What’s even harder to believe is just how most of the vaccines used today got approved in the first place.

“Placebo” doesn’t mean what most people think it means when it comes to vaccines.

Once you understand what a vaccine “placebo” is, the way evidence gets buried starts making a lot more sense. 🧵

Something strange happens when people first start looking seriously at vaccine safety data.

They do the research. They find the studies. They bring the evidence carefully into a conversation that feels safe and possible.

But nothing moves.

The other person doesn’t adjust. Doesn’t even get curious. They just double down harder.

Nothing about it feels like a normal disagreement. It feels like something else entirely.

Because it is.

And there’s actually a specific reason for that. A reason that goes much deeper than tribalism.

The reason vaccine orthodoxy functions differently from almost every other medical debate isn’t random.

It’s structural. It was designed and built this way.

To understand why the evidence lands differently here—why the same standards of proof that apply literally everywhere else somehow don’t apply to vaccines—you have to understand what vaccines actually represent in Western medicine.

And it’s probably not what you think.

Read 33 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 26

At the height of COVID, a “crazy” doctor was treating patients with a 99.96% survival rate.

Dr. Zelenko’s protocol was so effective, it sparked a war against HCQ.

They mocked his claims, but they kept coming true. Here’s what he said:

#1 - “Not everyone got the same thing.”

In an interview with Mel K, Dr. Zelenko said, “Some of the lots were 5,000% more lethal than others — or think of it as 50x. So, let’s say one vial killed one person. Another vial killed 50 people.”

“If everyone would have gotten the same thing, it would be a clear correlation that you’re being poisoned, and no one would take it,” Dr. Zelenko concluded. Thus, the answer to why some people took the shot and turned out okay is because “not everyone got the same thing.”

Dr. Zelenko’s bold claim was confirmed in March 2023, when a study performed by Schmeling and colleagues found that 4.2% of the batches accounted for a staggering 71% of adverse events.

Read 15 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 25

In 2015, Scott Adams made a “crazy” prediction that most people thought was impossible.

He said Trump had a 98% chance of becoming president, and he made that call on a single observation.

The winning attribute that made Scott confident in Trump’s victory was his one-of-a-kind persuasion skills.

While political betting markets dismissed Trump’s chances, Adams argued—using his background in persuasion and hypnosis—that Trump was the most psychologically effective candidate in the race and therefore favored to win. He built a massive following by showing how persuasion, not policy, drives political outcomes.

That insight proved correct. But it also revealed something darker. 🧵

After Trump’s victory, Adams pivoted to punditry—and during COVID, even he struggled to see the truth.

Scott strongly endorsed the vaccines, vaccinated himself, and publicly belittled followers who refused. Many later derisively called him “Clot Adams.”

In January 2023, Adams admitted—on video—that he’d been wrong and that the anti-vaxxers were correct. But he framed it as luck: the right people just happened to distrust the government, while “all the data” supposedly pointed intelligent analysts toward vaccination.

That framing matters. It reveals how even skilled observers of persuasion can mistake marketing consensus for truth—and how the same system that manufactures medical certainty also hides the limits of medicine, until reality forces a reckoning.

Last May, Scott told the world something most people never say out loud until it’s unavoidable: he had terminal, metastatic prostate cancer.

He openly stated he planned to use California’s medically assisted dying to reduce suffering.

He also shut down speculation—saying he had already tried fenbendazole and ivermectin and had no interest in continuing them.

The reaction was explosive.

People weren’t just debating treatment choices—they were watching, in real time, what a protracted, modern death actually looks like.

For many, it shattered comforting abstractions about both cancer and mortality.