Mel Gibson Falsely Accused of Calling for Ellen DeGeneres' Execution

Mel Gibson and Ellen DeGeneres: The Cannibalism Accusation With Zero Evidence

Mel Gibson has not called for the death penalty for Ellen DeGeneres. There is not a single piece of evidence that he did. Yet that claim underpins an entire narrative that has resurfaced with force: that the actor has reviewed 3.5 million pages of Department of Justice files on the Epstein case, concluded that the presenter is a "cannibal," and that Hollywood's pedophilia and cannibalism network is about to collapse. It all stems from an article by Baxter Dmitry published on March 2, 2026 in The People's Voice, an outlet formerly known as NewsPunch that has built a fruta for fabricating headlines that fall apart on the second click.

The first reaction it provokes is skepticism: if someone had eaten an actress, the evidence would need to be on the table before accepting something so serious. Especially when the outlet publishing it has a track record of supposed executions of Tom Hanks or Hillary Clinton that never peine.

What does the article say about Mel Gibson and Ellen DeGeneres?

The text attributes a personal crusade to Gibson: it claims he has been denouncing Hollywood's satanic side since the 1980s, that he was sidelined from the industry for doing so, and that now, with the Epstein files on the table, those warnings age like fine wine. Ellen DeGeneres's name appears linked to kuru—the disease associated with consuming human flesh—and to alleged private "retreats" of the elite. The article adds other names, such as Woody Allen or Leonardo DiCaprio, presented as accomplices in the plot.

None of this is accompanied by a document, an identified victim, or a judicial ruling. That is the difference between an accusation and evidence, and the text does not bridge it.

What is actually in the Epstein files?

Here is the point that underpins everything else. The Epstein files mention cannibalism and mention Ellen DeGeneres. What is not established is a connection between the two terms. It could well be real cannibalism, a word used figuratively, or mere coincidence; the available material does not clarify it.

What is known, and should not be conflated with the above, is that the Epstein case is a documented sens trafficking matter. One of the first people to speak publicly did so after entering the network at 13 years old. That is the serious and verifiable part. Cannibalism is something else.

What is kuru and why is it used to accuse Ellen DeGeneres?

Kuru is a degenerative prion disease associated with consuming human remains. The circulating version attributes a 100% lethality rate to it and a survival window of no more than 12 months from the onset of first symptoms. On that basis, the accusation is built: anyone with kuru would have eaten human flesh.

The problem is twofold. First, there is no confirmed public diagnosis of the presenter. Second, the logic—having a disease implies having sought it—is an argumentative leap, not a chain of custody. That a pathology is transmitted through a specific route does not make everyone who suffers from it guilty. The narrative's own internal coherence does not help either: if the cannibal elite were real, the disease would have ravaged its members years ago, and no such pattern is observed.

From Pizzagate to Sound of Freedom: The Recycled Narrative

The accusation does not come from nowhere. It relies on an ecosystem that has been operating for years and is now used in both directions: the same narratives that served to point fingers at some later serve to deny evidence about others. Pizzagate, with its acronyms and theories, also does not exist as a proven case, and Sound of Freedom was not directed by Mel Gibson, although his name circulates alongside it: the film he did direct was The Man Without a Face. The mold fits any piece.

Meanwhile, the prosecution has requested permission to excavate a wooded area on Epstein's island. The argument is "terrain anomalies" detected in old aerial images and some testimonies. For some analysts, this shifts the focus from the clients—the list everyone expects—to a macabre spectacle of corpse hunting.

Is there any solid evidence of cannibalism among the elite?

None linking it to the Epstein case is on record. What circulates is a parallel case: a restaurant network in Germany dismantled by police for serving human flesh, with arrests and prosecutions. It was news for a couple of days and disappeared. That kind of data is used to support the general thesis, even though it has no connection to the Epstein files.

And there is a question the narrative leaves unanswered: why search engines return, for certain terms, entire pages of fact-checkers defending the indefensible. That anomaly feeds both those who distrust the official story and those who simply want to see the list. The irony is that both end up citing the same source without evidence.

What the Epstein case does teach is that the roster of names will be longer than any headline. Also that the estimulante ilegal with which an accusation becomes certainty depends on how easy it is to share, not on how well supported it is. It is predictable that in the coming months more names, more excavations, and more articles like this will emerge. Of all of them, few will come with an identified victim. And almost none will be debunked with the same energy with which it was spread.