Jane Ruby Comments On Her Latest Unauthorized Biography
Well, not really… Instead, she is offering us a most hilarious exercise in DARVO and is commenting on a two-year-old paper.
It’s been an interesting few days since the release of our coverage - produced with a few selfless anons - of Jane Ruby’s life and how her frauds directly endangered children with opioids, for career advancement… before she mysteriously evaded accountability and emerged unscathed from the lawsuit that led to her company’s $2-billion fine.
From Opioids & Fraud to MAGA & COVID-19 — The Disastrous Jane Ruby
While reviewing Sasha Latypova’s long trail of lies with some close colleagues, we realized her character cannot be covered properly without first detouring to her close friend - and main COVID-debate amplifier - Dr Jane Ruby.
As I write this, 360 comments have piled up, and I’ve watched Jane’s old friends, the ex‑Pfizer bros Yeadon & Latypova, fumble through the crisis as if they were following a step‑by‑step guide on what not to do - making this the perfect moment for a live case study of chaos agents in action. And although the previous article had nothing to do with
, Jane and her friends insist on making him the centerpiece of their counter‑attack - so we’ve also taken a look at the material facts of the “Malone v. Ruby” case, which we’ll lay out so readers can judge for themselves.First, let’s begin with an overview of the most recent developments.
As expected,
appeared first in the comments - given that she was mentioned in the preamble of this article (as a close associate and the real reason of “why we cared about Jane Ruby”). That’s the good thing about Sasha - her spontaneity.She launched into a complex undertaking to defend Jane without ever addressing the substance of what was written - or whether it reflected on the character of someone who willingly exposed children to opioid harms.
Sasha, while casually inquiring about children I might have, also affirmed that Jane Ruby had addressed the facts we had established about her past1 - but somehow was unable to provide me with a link.
In fact - as it would become clear later - Sasha was simply seeing in the future & referring to Jane’s video which soon followed - because - we’ll come to it - Jane finally reacted to Dr Malone’s 2023 paper!
If you’re wondering why Sasha brings up gambling debts or claims I attacked her internet‑star daughter, it’s because she invented those slurs on the fly. She can’t supply a source if pressed, but she knows that sort of smear lands with some people.
See the link below for Sasha’s refusal to supply an affidavit or any proof of her alleged “victory” in the “Louis Bayliss” case (Lois Bayliss was fined £32.5 k, and after verifying, Sasha, who couldn’t even spell her name, contributed nothing2).
You can also watch her attempt to gaslight author Ignasz Semmelweisz simply for finding our work valuable. Another good thing about Sasha - she’s acutely aware of her limits - so watching her there was catnip for true “connoisseurs of debate”.
Naturally, the whole exchange ended as it began: with “insults, slander and deflection.” Sasha’s way.
Unexpectedly - though he hadn’t been mentioned -
materialised out of nowhere.He made some live experiments on the Streisand effect, “volunteering for a hit-piece against himself”3, and with a plea against these pesky anonymous authors, who tend to present receipts to their claims, instead of looking like a nice, sad puppy (and to be harder to threaten with retaliatory lawsuits or vexatious retractions).
This one had no objection against the substance either, and once he had fired off his two miserable attacks, found nothing to reply to the excellent objections he received - aside for briefly showing concerning symptoms of Tourette Syndrome.
Mike probably realised that, working as we do - with skill and a methodical eye - we wouldn’t overlook his role in promoting Sasha and Jane at that glowies‑festival6.
You’re right, Mike - we didn’t miss it. Although everyone on that poster deserves a proper introduction, you were nowhere near the top of our priority list. We’ll try to make a little room for you once we’re finished with Sasha, so you don’t feel left out - though, to be fair, you’re doing wonderfully at exposing yourself already.
Of course, Jane Ruby acknowledged our work - first replying, with her trademark elegance, to
, who had shared the article. Jane went straight at Robert Malone, who, up to that point, had only been mentioned in the introduction…
As Jane Ruby herself admits, “his word commands a lot of attention” - and that likely torpedoed the ex‑Pfizer bros’ brilliant containment effort: every one of those self‑proclaimed (and thoroughly useless) “medical‑freedom leaders” has vanished from the thread since.
Jane Ruby - after conferring with her lawyers and weighing her options - responded with a fairly hilarious sequence. She began by posting an open letter9 to HHS Secretary
. High‑visibility accounts - Ann Vandersteel10 among them - immediately amplified the post, perhaps to signal us that they belong to the same network, or abused by Jane’s gaslighting…
… She then followed up with a “live” video on her X and Rumble accounts. The bravest (or most masochistic) readers are welcome to endure the full 30‑minute train‑wreck11, but the less masochistic can settle for this six‑minute‑forty‑two‑second highlight reel, preserved solely for its comic value; it captures the gist of her argument without vaporising too many neurons in the process of enduring her long, nonsensical rants and worn‑out manipulation tricks.
In short, her “arguments” run as follows:
She is being smeared by association - she merely passed through companies that were later investigated.
The piece is really about a fake diploma, a decorative stethoscope, and her over‑use of make‑up and AI filters.
She never lied about her degrees - and people just have to check her affidavit online - the same she defended under oath - to verify that. Only one of her PhDs is “somewhat” fake, and that’s because the university never secured accreditation.
She left pharma in 2020 the moment she realised “what this was about.”
It’s all, entirely, about Robert Malone’s “many, many attacks against her”. Robert Malone “just won’t quit”, and “several high level psychiatrists” have “written to her about his unhealthy obsession for her” - she suspects him to be secretly in love with her.
Robert Malone filed a SLAPP12 suit to silence her; at the hearing, she notes, “the links [meant to prove her guilt] didn't go anywhere”.
According to her, Robert Malone - “encouraged by his wife Jill” - has interstate‑stalked her.
Any incriminating documents are government‑ or AI‑fabricated “embellishments”.
She could counter-sue Robert Malone for his harassment and is strongly considering to do so.
She has received numerous emailed death threats and now fears for her life.
She “could show the receipts”.
And, finally: when Jane spends 25 minutes away from her research, babies actually die.
…This is so pathetic that not only Jane but also her handlers should be fired, and anyone advising her should be blacklisted from the nudge industry forever. Briefly, then:
Jane looks exhausted and doesn’t realise that if you’re doing a “live,” you can’t drop commercial breaks - certainly not in the middle of a sentence you then pick up as if nothing happened (see13 00:12:32 to 00:13:59).
→ In fact, she pre‑records these abominations—which makes it even more tragic that she chose to publish that.
Jane is a paper behind: she fixates on defending her diplomas yet seems oblivious to the Indivior material in Robert Malone’s 2023 paper - or in ours.
→ If anything, Robert Malone deserves credit for sharing our article - spot‑on about her qualifications and the rest of her “remarkable” career.
She has already tweaked her online affidavit - editing the credential section at least once - so she’s lying when she claims the posted version is the one filed in court (An astute reader caught this; we had missed it).
She didn’t leave the industry in 2020, as she claims, but in 2021 - her own LinkedIn confirms it, and we flagged that in the earlier article. So which date is the lie?
Jane’s claims of harassment and looming lawsuits are hilarious (accusing someone of a SLAPP suit while threatening him with one is audacious - don’t try this at home without professional help). Since catching on to the Streisand effect last weekend, she has carefully avoided mentioning the latest article - Robert Malone’s repost clearly rattled her - and has ignored every serious allegation arising from the Indivior affair. Her “summary” of the stalking she claims to endure omits the tweet that shared the paper. Click the thumbnail to enlarge it and check the dates of the “continuous harassment” she denounces.
Having worked on real stalkers - people who pursue their victims with thousands of messages - I find her harassment claim insulting to actual victims. And why did Jane fail to mention the post from a few days ago14, the very one that triggered her ridiculous counter‑attack?
Has she so little respect for the intelligence of her audience she would think none would ask why she is suddenly triggered by posts which are all from 2023?
Some of the documents Robert Malone presented - in his overall, perfectly factual article - were, as Jane notes, “redacted,” yet her role was still plain. The new documents we have released, made public after his piece appeared, are not redacted. They list her by name as author of every key element of the fraud and place her squarely at the center of it. Needless to say, we can’t hack into regulations.gov, and anyone can verify the official sources and established archives we marked15.
Jane has never received a single written threat from a “raging‑Malone fan,” despite her claims. People who say “I can show you the receipts” are usually gaslighting you; people who have receipts show them. Because one of the accusations is that Jane is a pathological liar, her word is insufficient. She should supply the unaltered e‑mail - preferably in .eml or .msg form, zipped and retrieved in the presence of a court officer or other unimpeachable witness - so I can retract and apologise.
Likewise, she never received an e‑mail from any psychiatrist about “Dr Malone’s obsession.” No psychiatrist would attach his name to Jane, nor describe Robert Malone’s handful of posts that way. Same comment as above: Jane should show the receipts, and I will apologise for calling her an obvious liar.
Jane Ruby insists her troubles with Dr Malone began when - out of the blue - he sued her for $25 million. Conveniently forgotten: Robert Malone filed in October 2022, after she had been attacking him since at least October 202116. True to form, she has scrubbed her X timeline so “Malone” barely appears before 202317, while her Telegram chat18 (archived19) is still riddled with attacks. She even alludes to the purge in her video’s first segment (00:06:38 to 00:06:43: “the links didn’t go anywhere”). The screenshots below - X on the right, Telegram on the left - speak for themselves.
I can hear the skeptics in the back saying, “OK, but this isn’t definitive evidence that Jane Ruby cleared her timeline - perhaps she only attacked Robert Malone on Telegram and never on Twitter, although she seems to systematically replicate her other contents from one platform to another…”.
Well, fortunately for those skeptics, we have a wonderful tool called archive.org. What happens when we search Jane’s tweets20 from that period…? For example, we find.. This post21, relaying “Amazing Polly” (another figure we came across because she was attacking medical freedom activists - and who would be worthy of a full portrait22).
And what happens when we enter that post’s URL in the browser bar to view it on Twitter…? Jane never disappoints.
Thus, we can add another implement to the Jane Ruby dirty‑tricks toolbox: deleting evidence before the hearings.
A similar check of Robert Malone’s archive.org timeline shows no deletions. But because Jane has deleted an unknown number of past attacks - and because Archive.org is far from exhaustive - we need to ground the discussion in hard numbers comparing them on a period which Jane won’t have cleaned. Despite Jane’s deletions, there are still 217 posts in which Jane Ruby mentions “Malone”23 and 19 posts in which Robert Malone mentions “Ruby” since 2021,24 all collected with their URLs and dates in a .CSV file25.
We can plot these mutual posts for the period from January 1st 2024 to today, to visualize the intensity of the harassment poor Jane endures.
Once more, the disparity speaks for itself26.
A quick visual inspection of the links lets readers see which of the nineteen posts Jane omitted in her little collage - those that mention Indivior…
…or this striking attempt at dialogue - striking because I tried the same rational approach with these people and failed, and because the trio Robert Malone addresses - coincidentally - is exactly the one that concerns us here.
… Readers can then weigh these against the “balanced” tone of Jane’s own messages27 and the caliber of her supposed “receipts”. Just a few samples among many28 - and we just took those where she was mentioning her target by name.
Strangely, in this latest plea she forgot to accuse
of “being a fraud”, something she normally does29 with clock‑like regularity.This concludes the review. We haven’t learned much new - only confirmed that Jane Ruby is a pathological liar, willing to deploy any dirty tactic to advance her agenda, and showing utter contempt for her audience’s intelligence. At best, she belongs in a psychiatric ward ; at worst, she is a high‑level chaos agent - so effective that, despite overwhelming evidence against her from every angle we examine, her sponsors still try to save her.
We’ll probably revisit the subject in two years, when she finally addresses the current paper… or if she sues Robert Malone for sharing my articles, at which point I would gladly offer my considerable forensic expertise pro bono. That way it won’t matter if Ruby deletes her posts or locks her account.
There is, however, one simple reason she will never sue: discovery. Jane should ask Ronnie Bitman30 - her 74‑follower lawyer tagged in her intimidation post - to explain to her how it works, assuming her vast legal experience hasn’t already enlightened her.
In the meantime, we’ll be watching and archiving - with great amusement - the spectacle of Jane and her cohort’s incompetence, and collecting the nuggets they drop as they try to lie their way out of long‑overdue public scrutiny.
I always welcome thoughtful comments from readers. But for those who will inevitably pop in to accuse me of being a die‑hard Robert Malone fan - simply because I ask for sources when he’s attacked and use both eyes to see that Jane Ruby is toxic to any freedom movement - please note the following:
You’re only encouraging me to dig deeper.
My patience for source‑free claims is running thin, and the standard reward for testing it is a month‑long timeout.
“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1781423056298058123 https://archive.ph/1cxQo
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1716844999210307884 https://archive.ph/yY9Bt
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1936186867201806454 https://archive.ph/vZEm1
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1923942347332534307 https://archive.ph/3FxNz
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1923231325076459916 https://archive.ph/36KFy
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1905824492141596929 https://archive.ph/fz1Nb
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1904034008624677090 https://archive.ph/NyEh5
https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1890235752128369057 https://archive.ph/x9VfQ
Onward to a scathing expose' on dear Sasha !!
Please dig deeper. Jane Ruby has attacked many in the health freedom movement. Who is paying her to cause chaos?