Probing the University of Illinois’ testing program and saliva-testing company, Shield T3, was one of my first in-depth inquiries of the COVID-19 era. I used Twitter to document concerns and findings beginning in mid-2020 and later turned some of those threads into articles.
I wasn’t the only Illinois resident publicly raising questions about what the state’s flagship university was doing. James Holderman III and Mark Konkol (Patch) also interrogated the program and did excellent investigative work. Scores of parents contacted me privately about their concerns and provided tips about what their children were experiencing.
My stamina for the inquiry ended after Illinois State Rep. Deanne Mazzochi lost her re-election bid. At the time, I was still suspended from Twitter and knee-deep in interrogating the New York City mass-casualty event and the “disappearance” of flu, in addition to doing unrelated paid work for a nonprofit organization.
As far as I’m aware, after J.B. Pritzker won re-election in November 2022, the apparent interest of Sen. Chapin Rose and Rep. Adam Niemerg dissipated, and no other legislators or professional journalists took up the cause.
I believe anyone who does will find that, at minimum, University of Illinois built and marketed a mass saliva-testing regime characterized by inadequate transparency, false authorization claims, unclear consent regarding samples and data, possible violations of isolation and quarantine law, and political or financial entanglements involving state officials.
Consider:
1. False or misleading EUA claims
U of I falsely implied that its saliva test was operating under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization granted to Yale’s SalivaDirect. Yale’s Nathan Grubaugh told me that Illinois had not formally requested authorization under Yale’s EUA, had not “bridged” onto Yale’s EUA, and had not requested a right of reference. FDA staff later told U of I that there was confusion about whether the test was authorized, and that it was not authorized through Yale or any other mechanism.
2. Regulatory and validation questions
U of I’s “bridging” explanation did not fit FDA guidance. SalivaDirect was a protocol rather than a test kit, and U of I’s test was not simply a component modification of an existing authorized test. Why didn’t U of I apply for its own EUA using its own validation data? Who was the CLIA laboratory director? Why wasn’t the complete validation data disclosed? are some of the questions I raised but wasn’t able to answer satisfactorily.
3. Use on asymptomatic students and staff
U of I used the test on asymptomatic students and employees as a condition of being on campus, a ridiculous and fraudulent practice in any case, but did so before the EUA language clearly covered asymptomatic testing. CovidSHIELD was eventually granted an EUA on 24 February 2021; language authorizing asymptomatic use came later.
4. Data, samples, consent, and ownership
Several of my articles concerned what SHIELD did with saliva samples and associated data, who owned the data, whether participants gave informed consent, and whether the boundaries between research and clinical testing were blurred.
Three legislators requested (and apparently received) some documents following a September 2022 meeting with U of I officials. These included consent forms, data directories, information about sequencing data sent to the Illinois Department of Public Health, and related disclosures.
5. Political and financial relationships
Governor J.B. Pritzker’s relationship to the testing company was never adequately disclosed. He sat, and still sits, on the U of I Board of Trustees ex officio, as all Illinois governors do. He also publicly promoted the test, said the state of Illinois would be U of I’s “biggest customer,” and later used Shield T3 testing services for his political campaign.
I documented that, as of 5 August 2022, JB for Governor had received $30,450 worth of tests or services from Shield T3. How much did the campaign ultimately spend on testing? Given the Pritzker Group’s investments in other testing ventures, and the myriad ways in which testing results were weaponized against Illinoisans, any interests in or connections between the governor and Shield T3 — however brief, indirect, or minimal — should be disclosed. The interests of any other elected or appointed officials or policy influencers should likewise be determined and made public.
6. Legality of isolation and quarantine practices
U of I understood that only public health authorities could order isolation or quarantine, yet the university’s practices may have bypassed Illinois’ legal due-process requirements.
Written orders from the local health department, access to counsel, and hearing rights are part of the process under Illinois communicable-disease law. Those protections were apparently circumvented. The use of individuals who were not employed by the local health department to conduct contact tracing also appears to have violated state law and warrants further investigation.
7. FOIA Coordination with the Governor’s Office
Before responding to a parent’s request for communications between SHIELD Illinois Managing Director Ron Watkins and then-Deputy Governor Jesse Ruiz, a senior U of I FOIA officer sent the proposed response and records to the university’s government relations office for sharing with the Governor’s Office.
The records don’t show that state officials altered the response, but they raise questions about whether politically sensitive FOIA requests received special handling.
Articles by Publication Date
Some of the U of I articles I published on the Substack version of Wood House 76 are retrospective: They post-date the events I describe or respond to but preserve work and exchanges that occurred in real time.
They begin with a 6 April 2022 reposting of my October 2020 response to U of I’s explanation for its false EUA claim. I established the regulatory problem with U of I’s “bridging” explanation. The explanation made no sense under FDA guidance, particularly given that the university had not actually been authorized under Yale’s SalivaDirect EUA.
On 20 June 2022, I reported that U of I had shared a parent’s SHIELD-related FOIA response with university governmental-relations personnel and contacts in the Governor’s Office shortly before releasing the records to her. The episode raised questions about how the university handled politically sensitive requests and whether coordination of this kind was routine:
The July 2022 posts shifted to ongoing policy. “The Madness Continues…” criticized U of I for continuing to require weekly testing of unvaccinated employees even after Illinois higher education had been released from the state’s vaccine-or-test executive order. I characterized the university’s practices as scientifically pointless, coercive, and possibly financially motivated.
“How the FDA Found Out About U of I’s False Claims to EUA” reconstructs my role in contacting Yale and the FDA in September 2020. I presented the episode as evidence that U of I’s representations were not a harmless misunderstanding and connected the EUA piece to later questions about Shield T3 contracts, the flow of money, and whether public officials benefited politically or financially.
In August 2022, I documented a legislative inquiry through transcripts and letters: Rep. Deanne Mazzochi questioning U of I President Tim Killeen as a member of the Illinois House Appropriations–Higher Education Committee; Mazzochi and five other lawmakers writing to Killeen to request information and documents; and Killeen responding.
The central issues were SHIELD’s research and development process, research ethics and informed consent, ownership and profits, and the use of collected saliva samples and data associated with those samples.
“Above the Law” (6 August 2022) added a legal due-process dimension. Based on public statements and the Illinois communicable-disease code, I argued that U of I and the local health department may have imposed or facilitated isolation and quarantine without following the procedures required under state law.
“The Heat Is On” reported increased legislative scrutiny of the university and SHIELD program:
“Overdue Payment” reported that Pritzker’s campaign had used Shield T3 testing and fallen behind on its bills. It raised questions about campaign testing, consent, pricing, and the relationship between U of I, Shield T3, and the governor’s political operation:
“A Concern of All Legislators” documented Mazzochi’s continued pressure over data collected through the mass-testing program:
Mazzochi, Sen. Chapin Rose, and Rep. Adam Niemerg met with Killeen and other U of I officials on 14 September 2022. The legislators subsequently received some of the requested documents but were still waiting for information from Shield T3:
On 16 July 2026, I reached out to the Illinois legislators with documented interest in the U of I program with reminders and questions:
In addition to information in my archived Twitter account, I retain a substantial file of documents related to this investigation and am happy to share it with any student, parent, journalist, lawyer, researcher, or public official who wishes to examine, continue, or revisit the inquiry.
In July 2023, I spoke to biologist Jonathan Couey of GigaOhm Biological about what I had found. Dr. Couey said U of I was the third university he’d heard of that was engaged in unethical practices with testing and quarantining/isolating. We agreed that lawsuits against the schools were needed, and that the brainwashing/conditioning of college-aged young adults was deeply problematic.
Last updated 20 July 2026. Page subject to further updates/revisions.