Sasha Latypova, “Open to Debate”... Until It’s Time to Debate
How to try to shift the story, from “doxxing of my children and coworkers” to “5 or 6 lies,” then to no debate.
On January 14, 2026, I published an article covering the life of Pfizer-sponsored nepotism - and a few of the lies- of Sasha Latypova. It’s always sensitive to write about someone’s life without their permission, but I explained at length why, after countless attempts to confront Sasha about her lies, to debate her, and to have her correct the record on numerous points, I considered it an ethical duty to scrutinize her.
Prior to publication, I had, among my numerous re-readers, the article reviewed by two lawyers. One of them advised caution regarding two footnotes - pointing, among other things, to one of Sasha’s residential addresses - which I decided to include nonetheless, as the information was in the public domain, accessible directly via a Google search of Sasha’s name, and the sole available primary source for relevant details.
Sasha reacted on January 15 with her usual tactic of “distort, lie, amplify,” targeting - along with Jane Ruby - people who were relaying this “disgusting hit piece on her, which doxxed her home address, her family, her children and some of her co-workers”. Nothing unexpected from Sasha, who had actively doxxed anonymous activists a couple of weeks earlier (as she routinely does).
I used an alt account to ask her directly where I would have published “address, vacation home address, her children’s addresses and a lot of private information about her family”. After some efforts, she finally realized she was talking to me,1 and the article evolved to “a mostly flattering piece, with only 5 or 6 lies in it”.2
As I pressed her to clarify if we were, indeed, talking about a footnote accessible via Google, and which information was erroneous so that I could publish an erratum, I managed to get her to admit that she owned the Harvest Inn (rather than “could have invested,” as I had written),3 and that she used Telegram only to communicate with a few people.4 I stand corrected.
After a long (and rather unhinged) conversation - during which Sasha mostly devoted herself to her usual abusive behavior toward Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone (with whom I have never communicated) - Sasha challenged me to debate her via a Zoom call she would organize on Saturday, January 17, and of course I agreed.
On January 16, my comments section - which until then had received only laudatory feedback, along with a few no-virus comments - was visited simultaneously by Mary Talley-Bowden and Shannon Joy,5 who expressed their indignation at an article they claimed was empty of substance, while actively doxxing Sasha and her children.
I explained why the footnote was included, why “a daughter with a million followers instrumental in the ramping-up of censorship on Youtube just prior COVID” was relevant to the case, and I agreed to delay the debate with Sasha so that it would take place on her platform - with Dr. Bowden as moderator.
A moderator, even as visibly biased in Sasha’s favor as Dr. Bowden, seemed like a great addition to a conversation with Sasha.
Sasha thanked Mary Bowden - who had made the same offer than on Substack on X, and agreed to a debate she said I would likely avoid.6
Late that same day (in France), while I was happily arguing with Dr. Bowden - or, to be charitable, perhaps the social media manager operating her account - who was doing their best to appear like a neutral moderator,7 the article was “forcibly unpublished” by Substack’s moderation team, following Sasha’s efforts with their complaints process.
Sasha immediately exulted in my DMs, while maintaining her apparent desire to debate me.
The next day, still having heard nothing from Substack about which information had triggered the removal, I decided to re-host the article independently and asked Sasha to clarify which information she objected to on privacy grounds. Unfortunately, that didn’t fit her posture, so she respectfully declined.
On January 20, I republished the article on Substack in a stripped-down form so that the comments would remain accessible, along with a note announcing the forthcoming republication. Sasha also informed me that debating me - whether with or without Dr. Bowden’s “moderation” - was no longer on the agenda.
Substack finally specified that it was indeed those two footnotes that had led to the removal, earlier today, on January 21, 2026.
Without dwelling on the paradox of treating as “removal-worthy” information that is directly accessible via a Google search, the fact remains that Substack is free to determine what content it does or does not allow. I’m grateful for the dedication they showed to freedom of speech during the COVID period, so I understand if a dispute between two writers - one of whom has blocked pledges and the other is a best-selling multi-millionaire - is uncomfortable.
The fact also remains that I don’t like my articles to go offline without prior notice or discussion. All Substack articles will therefore, from now on, be mirrored on:
You can read the article on Sasha (republished identically, minus the two disputed footnotes) by clicking the picture below.
Future articles that are exclusively about data analytics will be published simultaneously on Substack and on the mirror website. Articles concerning OSINT investigations will be published exclusively on the website, and announced on Substack via a page that will simply redirect to the website and allows users to comment.
If you have suggestions for improvements to the mirror website, don’t hesitate to leave them in the comments - I’ll keep improving it when I have time.
This concludes this brief update. I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether Sasha’s posture of being “open to debate” her detractors really holds up - or if she was attempting to neutralize an annoying article with her usual clumsy amateurism.
Mmm, Mmm, Gritty. lol
This is retarded.