Connecticut Passes Law Mandating Water Fluoridation at Existing Levels in Move to Preempt Federal Changes
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025
Connecticut Gov. Ted Lamont on Tuesday signed legislation requiring public water systems to continue fluoridating drinking water at the levels currently recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In the press release, Lamont said current recommended levels of water fluoridation have been proven to be “safe and effective for many decades.”
The new law will ensure that “this public health standard continues in Connecticut regardless of whatever political decisions are made at the federal level,” Lamont said.
Previous state law mandated that water be fluoridated at levels recommended by HHS. Currently, the agency recommends 0.7 milligrams per liter, but it may reexamine that recommendation.
The law mandates that the amount of fluoride that must be added to the state’s water supply remains at the HHS-recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Pro-fluoridation lobbyists, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and state dental associations, celebrated the news. The ADA said it was pleased that Connecticut “has taken a proactive approach to protecting community water fluoridation.”
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which educates the public about the dangers of fluoridation, criticized the move. “Change is hard,” it posted on X. “Connecticut has stubbornly fossilized current fluoridation levels into law.”
In a press release, Lamont’s office cited outdated statistics claiming water fluoridation reduces cavities by 25%. It also quoted Connecticut senators, the state’s public health commissioner, and several dental organizations who affirmed the importance and safety of fluoridation. It didn’t cite any evidence to back those claims.
A growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, gained national attention when a federal judge in September 2024 ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a landmark lawsuit brought by the FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and must be regulated.
Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.
The decision to fluoridate water is usually made by local governments. However, fluoridation infrastructure typically has state funding, and a handful of states require fluoridation, usually for communities of a certain size.
Trump administration gives mixed signals on water fluoridation
Since the September federal court ruling, more than 60 communities, towns and states — including Florida, the third most populous state — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water systems.
Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since the 1940s. At the time of the lawsuit ruling, 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride.
Water fluoridation hasn’t always been a partisan issue. In the early 2010s, Democratic cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to end water fluoridation over concerns about the chemical’s toxic effects.
However, the issue became more politicized in November 2024, after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime fluoride critic, said the incoming Trump administration would advise local water systems to stop fluoridating water. Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary in February.
Since then, Democratic politicians and the mainstream press have vocally supported water fluoridation and attacked critics — including even CNN and Washington Post health commentator Dr. Leana Wen.
However, the Trump administration has given mixed signals on its approach to water fluoridation.
In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation. Also that month, Kennedy said he planned to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.
However, that recommendation has not happened.
Instead, last week, Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark fluoride lawsuit, announced on X that the EPA plans to appeal Chen’s decision ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation.
The agency is expected to file its appeal later this week.
In 2015, President Barack Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.
The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues, with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic. Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.
Related articles in The Defender
- Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling
- Breaking: New Cochrane Review Finds Water Fluoridation Has Minimal Effect on Dental Health
- Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2025
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to appeal a decision last year by a federal court ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation, according to Michael Connett, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
“Rather than use the court’s decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already done), the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court’s order,” Connett wrote in a post on X.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade organization representing the chemical industry, and the American Fluoridation Society, a fluoridation advocacy organization that touts its work undermining local efforts to oppose water fluoridation, filed motions seeking to submit amicus briefs supporting the EPA appeal, he said.
Connett told The Defender that the American Dental Association also plans to file a brief.
The EPA said it will file the appeal on July 18, after which the case will go to a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeals court will receive briefs from both sides, along with any amicus briefs, and hear oral arguments before issuing its decision.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, said on X that the appeal was “a very disappointing move by EPA.” “A few months ago, @epaleezeldin went on a public speaking tour with @SecKennedy to address why fluoride needs to come OUT of the water. Now the EPA will appeal to keep fluoride IN drinking water.”
Connett noted that the decision to appeal came from the solicitor general at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House, not by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has vocally opposed water fluoridation, but lacks the authority to end it.
“Only the EPA has this power, and it has decided, for now, to forego its historic opportunity (as provided by the court’s decision) to exercise it,” Connett said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes recommendations from the U.S. Public Health Service on whether communities should add fluoride to their drinking water and at what levels. However, the EPA sets the maximum levels allowed in water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The current maximum allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water are 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude higher than the currently recommended dosage of 0.7 mg/L.
Even the lower recommended dosage has demonstrated a risk to children’s health in numerous studies, and according to the federal ruling that the EPA plans to challenge.
EPA continues to treat fluoride as a ‘protected pollutant’
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued the historic decision in the lawsuit against the EPA, ruling that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the EPA must take regulatory action to address that risk.
At the time of the ruling, more than 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 mg/L.
Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence showed this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.
Environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children, filed the lawsuit against the EPA in 2017 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the EPA denied their citizens’ petition to reexamine water fluoridation.
During the trial that followed, Chen reviewed existing regulations, regulatory frameworks and current science on fluoride’s risks to children and pregnant women presented through peer-reviewed papers and experts on both sides.
The case dragged on for seven years, after numerous delays by the EPA, and attempts by HHS officials to block the release of the key piece of evidence in the case, a government report on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued seven months after closing arguments in February 2024, offered a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for hazardous chemicals and summarized the extensive scientific data on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen concluded that the risk to health at current levels of exposure demanded a regulatory response by the agency.
Evidence against fluoride keeps piling up
Since the end of the trial, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health has grown. Scientists at the National Toxicology Program in January published a meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in children.
The program also published a monograph in August 2024 that found a link between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.
In May 2024, a study in JAMA Open Network found children born to Los Angeles mothers exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.
FAN’s executive director, Stuart Cooper, said the group has long sought to end the “unnecessary life-long and life-altering brain impairment in children specifically due to artificial fluoridation schemes” and the many other side effects to people’s liver, kidneys, thyroid and bones.
For nine years, he said, the EPA has been working against them. “From day one of our interactions with them, they’ve treated fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant, likely due to the government’s role in promoting their use and guaranteeing their ‘safety’ for over 80 years.”
Cooper added:
“While the science is clear and the lower court’s ruling was very strong and comprehensive, it’s not necessarily a surprise that the appeal has occurred. Our case is precedent-setting. We were the first to sue the EPA under TSCA. I suspect that corporate polluters who have learned how to manage and influence the EPA to their benefit don’t want citizens groups to use TSCA to force the EPA to regulate harmful chemicals.”
Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender it was“deeply disappointed” that the EPA plans to appeal the ruling.
“The science is clear, and our lawsuit’s findings are undeniable: fluoridation is a toxic legacy that must end, like asbestos, DDT, and lead,” it said. “The agency’s plan to appeal only underscores their prioritization of industry interests over the well-being of our children and vulnerable populations. Moms Against Fluoridation will not back down — we will continue to fight tirelessly for the health and safety of all Americans.”
60+ towns and counties and two states vote to end fluoridation
Since the federal ruling last year, more than 60 U.S. towns, counties and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to stop fluoridating their water, according to FAN.
During that time, there has been an ongoing campaign by the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and mainstream media to discredit the court’s ruling.
Typically, they assert that water fluoridation is an important, safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay — and that without it, rates of cavities will soar, costing billions. They cite a study published by researchers funded by pro-fluoridation groups.
Yet, overwhelming scientific research shows that fluoride’s benefits to teeth are topical, not the result of ingesting fluoride, and a 2024 Cochrane Review found adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Most media reports also highlight the fact that fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral.” However, they don’t mention that the fluoride added to water supplies is not.
The fluoride most commonly added to U.S. drinking water supplies is hydrofluorosilicic acid, the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. Chemical companies sell the byproduct to local water departments across the country.
Communities that have recently ended fluoridation have found themselves saddled with a chemical that they must dispose of as hazardous waste, per EPA regulations — an expensive and time-consuming process.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Net Zero: The Mystery of the Falling Fertility
By Tomas Furst | Brownstone Institute | July 8, 2025
In January 2022, the number of children born in the Czech Republic suddenly decreased by about 10%. By the end of 2022, it had become clear that this was a signal: All the monthly numbers of newborns were mysteriously low.
In April 2023, I wrote a piece for a Czech investigative platform InFakta and suggested that this unexpected phenomenon might be connected to the aggressive vaccination campaign that had started approximately 9 months before the drop in natality. Denik N – a Czech equivalent of the New York Times – immediately came forward with a “devastating takedown” of my article, labeled me a liar and claimed that the pattern can be explained by demographics: There were fewer women in the population and they were getting older.
To compare fertility across countries (and time), the so-called Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is used. Roughly speaking, it is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime. TFR is independent of the number of women and of their age structure. Figure 1 below shows the evolution of TFR in several European countries between 2001 and 2023. I selected countries that experienced a similar drop in TFR in 2022 as the Czech Republic.
So, by the end of 2023, the following two points were clear:
- The drop in natality in the Czech Republic in 2022 could not be explained by demographic factors. Total fertility rate – which is independent of the number of women and their age structure – dropped sharply in 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. The data for 2024 show that the Czech TFR has decreased further to 1.37.
- Many other European countries experienced the same dramatic and unexpected decrease in fertility that started at the beginning of 2022. I have selected some of them for Figure 1 but there are more: The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. On the other hand, there are some countries that do not show a sudden drop in TFR, but rather a steady decline over a longer period (e.g. Belgium, France, UK, Greece, or Italy). Notable exceptions are Bulgaria, Spain, and Portugal where fertility has increased (albeit from very low numbers). The Human Fertility Project database has all the numbers.
This data pattern is so amazing and unexpected that even the mainstream media in Europe cannot avoid the problem completely. From time to time, talking heads with many academic titles appear and push one of the politically correct narratives: It’s Putin! (Spoiler alert: The war started in February 2022; however, children not born in 2022 were not conceived in 2021). It’s the inflation caused by Putin! (Sorry, that was even later). It’s the demographics! (Nope, see above, TFR is independent of the demographics).
Thus, the “v” word keeps creeping back into people’s minds and the Web’s Wild West is ripe with speculation. We decided not to speculate but to wrestle some more data from the Czech government. For many months, we were trying to acquire the number of newborns in each month, broken down by age and vaccination status of the mother. The post-socialist health-care system of our country is a double-edged sword: On one hand, the state collects much more data about citizens than an American would believe. On the other hand, we have an equivalent of the FOIA, and we are not afraid to use it. After many months of fruitless correspondence with the authorities, we turned to Jitka Chalankova – a Czech Ron Johnson in skirts – who finally managed to obtain an invaluable data sheet.
To my knowledge, the datasheet (now publicly available with an English translation here) is the only officially released dataset containing a breakdown of newborns by the Covid-19 vaccination status of the mother. We requested much more detailed data, but this is all we got. The data contains the number of births per month between January 2021 and December 2023 given by women (aged 18-39) who were vaccinated, i.e., had received at least one Covid vaccine dose by the date of delivery, and by women who were unvaccinated, i.e., had not received any dose of any Covid vaccine by the date of delivery.
Furthermore, the numbers of births per month by women vaccinated by one or more doses during pregnancy were provided. This enabled us to estimate the number of women who were vaccinated before conception. Then, we used open data on the Czech population structure by age, and open data on Covid vaccination by day, sex, and age.
Combining these three datasets, we were able to estimate the rates of successful conceptions (i.e., conceptions that led to births nine months later) by preconception vaccination status of the mother. Those interested in the technical details of the procedure may read Methods in the newly released paper. It is worth mentioning that the paper had been rejected without review in six high-ranking scientific journals. In Figure 2, we reprint the main finding of our analysis.
Figure 2 reveals several interesting patterns that I list here in order of importance:
- Vaccinated women conceived about a third fewer children than would be expected from their share of the population. Unvaccinated women conceived at about the same rate as all women before the pandemic. Thus, a strong association between Covid vaccination status and successful conceptions has been established.
- In the second half of 2021, there was a peak in the rate of conceptions of the unvaccinated (and a corresponding trough in the vaccinated). This points to rather intelligent behavior of Czech women, who – contrary to the official advice – probably avoided vaccination if they wanted to get pregnant. This concentrated the pregnancies in the unvaccinated group and produced the peak.
- In the first half of 2021, there was significant uncertainty in the estimates of the conception rates. The lower estimate of the conception rate in the vaccinated was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy were unvaccinated before conception. This was almost certainly true in the first half of 2021 because the vaccines were not available prior to 2021. The upper estimate was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy also received at least one dose before conception. This was probably closer to the truth in the second part of 2021. Thus, we think that the true conception rates for the vaccinated start close to the lower bound in early 2021 and end close to the upper bound in early 2022. Once again, we would like to be much more precise, but we have to work with what we have got.
Now that the association between Covid-19 vaccination and lower rates of conception has been established, the one important question looms: Is this association causal? In other words, did the Covid-19 vaccines really prevent women from getting pregnant?
The guardians of the official narrative brush off our findings and say that the difference is easily explained by confounding: The vaccinated tend to be older, more educated, city-dwelling, more climate change aware…you name it. That all may well be true, but in early 2022, the TFR of the whole population dropped sharply and has been decreasing ever since.
So, something must have happened in the spring of 2021. Had the population of women just spontaneously separated into two groups – rednecks who wanted kids and didn’t want the jab, and city slickers who didn’t want kids and wanted the jab – the fertility rate of the unvaccinated would indeed be much higher than that of the vaccinated. In that respect, such a selection bias could explain the observed pattern. However, had this been true, the total TFR of the whole population would have remained constant.
But this is not what happened. For some reason, the TFR of the whole population jumped down in January 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. And we have just shown that, for some reason, this decrease in fertility affected only the vaccinated. So, if you want to argue that a mysterious factor X is responsible for the drop in fertility, you will have to explain (1) why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination. That is a tall order. Mr. Occam and I both think that X = the vaccine is the simplest explanation.
What really puzzles me is the continuation of the trend. If the vaccines really prevented conception, shouldn’t the effect have been transient? It’s been more than three years since the mass vaccination event, but fertility rates still keep falling. If this trend continues for another five years, we may as well stop arguing about pensions, defense spending, healthcare reform, and education – because we are done.
We are in the middle of what may be the biggest fertility crisis in the history of mankind. The reason for the collapse in fertility is not known. The governments of many European countries have the data that would unlock the mystery. Yet, it seems that no one wants to know.
UN Launches Task Force to Combat Global “Disinformation” Threat
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 8, 2025
The United Nations has unveiled its first Global Risk Report, placing what it terms “mis- and disinformation” among the most serious threats facing the world.
Tucked into the report is the announcement of a new task force, formed to address how unauthorized narratives might disrupt the UN’s ability to carry out its programs, particularly its centerpiece initiative, the 2030 Agenda.
Rather than encouraging open discourse or transparency, the organization has taken a route that centers on managing what information gets seen and heard.
While the language used suggests a concern for public welfare, the actual emphasis lies on shielding the UN’s agenda from interference.
According to the report, survey respondents that included member states, NGOs, private companies, and other groups overwhelmingly called for joint government action and multistakeholder coalitions to deal with the highlighted risks.
Yet there is no clear endorsement of more open communication or free expression. The dominant solution appears to be top-down control over public narratives.
This newly established task force has a single focus. Its job is to assess how so-called mis- and disinformation affect the UN’s ability to deliver on its goals.
The report does not describe how this benefits the public or strengthens democratic values. Instead, the team’s mission is about insulating UN operations from disruption, particularly as they pertain to the Sustainable Development Goals.
The SDGs, which make up the foundation of the 2030 Agenda, touch nearly every aspect of governance and development, from climate to education to healthcare.
This is not the UN’s first attempt to regulate the global conversation. In 2023, it issued the Voluntary Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.
While promoted as a guide to promote factual accuracy, the document outlines an expansive system of content filtering and narrative enforcement. It encourages a wide range of actors, including governments, tech firms, news organizations, and advertisers, to work together in silencing content.
Among its recommendations are stricter algorithmic control, refusal to advertise next to flagged content, and large-scale fact-checking programs. Training and capacity-building are suggested not to foster critical thinking but to reinforce a shared understanding of what constitutes unacceptable speech.
60% of Parents Support Review of CDC Childhood Vaccine Schedule, New Poll Shows
The Defender | July 1, 2025
Only 30% of U.S. voters oppose revisiting the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, according to an independent poll conducted June 24-25 — the same week a new panel of CDC vaccine advisers announced plans to study the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule.
Nearly half — 49% — of voters said they support reexamining the vaccine schedule, and 21% said they were undecided.
Parents with young children showed even stronger support for reviewing the schedule (60%).
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) commissioned the poll of 1,006 national voters. John Zogby Strategies, an independent polling and market research company, conducted the poll, which had an overall margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2 percentage points, with subgroups having higher margins.
On June 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) new advisory committee announced the formation of a new work group to study the Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, which recommends a minimum of 70 doses of 15 different vaccines from birth to age 18.
The committee’s new chair, Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., said in his opening remarks:
“The number of vaccines that our children and adolescents receive today exceeds what children in most other developed nations receive — and what most of us in this room received when we were children.
“In addition to studying and evaluating individual vaccines, it is important to evaluate the cumulative effect of the recommended vaccine schedule. This includes interaction effects between different vaccines, the total number of vaccines, cumulative amounts of vaccine ingredients, and relative timing of different vaccines.”
Kulldorff cited a 2013 National Academy of Medicine report that called for more research on this topic. “It is now time to evaluate that new research,” he said during the June 25 committee meeting.
The committee’s announcement triggered a cascade of criticism from mainstream news organizations and groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
But according to CHD CEO Mary Holland, the latest poll numbers show mainstream media are out of touch with the public’s concerns about the schedule. She said:
“This data clearly shows that the mainstream media, medical establishment and many politicians fail to hear the serious concerns of half of Americans on these vital issues.
“The constant fearmongering and shaming tactics aimed at anyone questioning vaccine safety are not only ineffective but backfiring. Our message and support for the right to make informed medical choices are beginning to shift more perceptions and empower individuals across the nation.”
According to the poll, the public is nearly evenly divided on requiring vaccination for public school students. Forty-three percent of Americans support public schools mandating the CDC vaccine schedule for attendance.
Meanwhile, 39% believe that students should have access to free public education regardless of their vaccine status.
The survey also asked about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which grants legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. Forty-eight percent of survey respondents supported pursuing legal action in case of vaccine injury, compared to 34% who preferred maintaining the current law.
Liberals are nearly evenly divided, with 42% supporting legal action and 37% favoring continued protection of vaccine manufacturers.
For the poll, secure invitations were sent to a random sample of our nationwide panel, totaling approximately 15 million U.S. adults utilizing email, text-to-web, and API to distribute the invitations to the panelists.
Survey participants were screened for age, likelihood of voting in the next national election, and party identification. Slight weights were applied to ensure the sample represented the population’s age, education, gender, race, region, and party identification. Subgroups had a higher margin of error.
For more information about the poll, please visit this link.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
HHS to ‘Revolutionize’ Vaccine Injury Compensation, RFK Jr. Tells Tucker Carlson
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 1, 2025
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down yesterday with Tucker Carlson to share an update on his mission to end the skyrocketing rate of autism in U.S. kids.
By the end of their nearly 90-minute conversation, the two had covered a slew of topics, including pharmaceutical ads on TV, increasing compensation for the vaccine-injured, and the need for a “truth commission” to uncover who and what caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Carlson, who last year left FOX News after being the network’s “most popular host,” now runs “The Tucker Carlson Show.” He broke his interview with Kennedy into five “chapters”:
- Uncovering the Reason for Skyrocketing Rates of Autism
- Is It Possible to End the Corrupt Relationship Between Big Pharma and Corporate Media?
- Will There Be Compensation for the Vaccine-Injured?
- RFK’s Firing of So-Called “Experts”
- The Real Reason Fauci Got a Pardon
Below are highlights from each.
HHS will do honest, open research on autism and vaccines
In the past, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to honestly and adequately research the possible link between vaccines and autism, Kennedy said.
The CDC ignored recommendations from the Institute of Medicine to do a “litany” of studies to get at the issue, Kennedy said, including animal models, observational studies, bench studies and epidemiological studies.
“But what we’re going to do now,” he said, “is we’re going to do all the kinds of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended.”
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in April announced a new research program to study what causes autism and why autism diagnoses are on the rise.
NIH will make data from Medicare and Medicaid available to independent scientists for analysis. Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink — a huge repository for health records — will also be used, Kennedy said.
Raw data will be made available to the public whenever possible, Kennedy said.
“Something new that we’re bringing in is that every study will be replicated,” he added.
Big Pharma ads fail to benefit patients and doctors
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) last month introduced federal legislation to end direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.
Kennedy didn’t reference the bill or say he supported a ban on such ads. However, he outlined several reasons why pharmaceutical marketing on mainstream media is bad for public health.
Many ads are misleading, he told Carlson. “Even the music and the video, the photos that they show … it’s sending a message that if you take this drug, you’re going to be riding jet skis and playing volleyball and water skiing and have a great-looking spouse.”
Meanwhile, the ads feature the most expensive version of the drug rather than the generic version.
“They’re not going to advertise the generics because they’re not making any money,” Kennedy said. “So they’re advertising the ones that are the highest profit margins for them.”
Plus, the U.S. taxpayer bears the brunt of the cost while the drug company profits. Kennedy explained:
“Normally, if you see an advertisement on TV like for Coca-Cola, you then have a choice to go get that and you’re paying out of your pocket for it.
“When somebody buys a pharmaceutical drug, it’s Medicaid and Medicare that are paying for it … it’s the taxpayer. … And we’re paying for the ads because they’re tax-deductible.”
When a patient sees the ad and asks a doctor for the drug, the doctor — who is told by a “corporate bean counter” to limit time with a patient to only 11 minutes — has to choose whether to use the time trying to talk the patient out of the drug, Kennedy said. But if the doctor does that, the patient likely goes away unsatisfied.
Or the doctor could just say, “All right, you want this prescription? I’ll write it for you.” Then the patient will be satisfied and come back, Kennedy said. “The doctors hate it. … And nobody thinks that this is good for public health. It is hurting us.”
Kennedy said the censorship of vaccine-related information on social media is also a problem.
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) petition to hear its censorship case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook.
CHD sued Meta in August 2020 and filed an amended complaint in November 2020, alleging that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor CHD’s speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment. The company deplatformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.
Censorship of scientific results that are critical of vaccines is also a problem, Kennedy added.
Kennedy’s plans to expand vaccine injury compensation program
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted legal immunity to vaccine makers and created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also made it difficult for anyone injured by a vaccine to obtain compensation.
“We just brought a guy in this week who is going to be revolutionizing the [National] Vaccine Injury Compensation program,” Kennedy said.
“We’re looking at ways to enlarge the program so that COVID vaccine-injured people can be compensated … we’re looking at ways to enlarge the statute of limitations,” Kennedy told Carlson.
It’s currently limited to three years. “A lot of people don’t discover their injuries till after that,” Kennedy said.
The program has other flaws, including that it has no discovery process, no rules of evidence and historically had corrupt leadership.
“We’re going to change all that,” Kennedy said. “I’ve brought in a team this week that is starting to work on that.”
Kennedy also said HHS will use AI (artificial intelligence) to track vaccine injuries more effectively. The agency plans to use AI in other ways, too, such as speeding up drug approval processes and detecting fraud.
Why CDC vaccine advisory committee needed a clean sweep
Kennedy defended his recent move to fire all members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, saying the board had become “a sock puppet for the industry that it was supposed to regulate.”
On June 11, Kennedy named eight researchers and physicians to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), two days after removing all 17 of the previous ACIP members.
“This was a long time coming, Tucker,” Kennedy said. He gave an example to illustrate the kind of financial conflict of interest that had plagued the board for years.
Years ago, the committee approved adding a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, he said.
Four of the five committee members had “direct financial interest in the rotavirus vaccine,” Kennedy said. “They were working for the companies that made the vaccine, or they were receiving grants to do clinical trials on that vaccine.”
Within a year, that specific rotavirus vaccine was linked to “disastrous” disease in kids and pulled from the market. It was replaced by a different rotavirus vaccine that then-committee member Dr. Paul Offit had helped develop.
“Then [Offit] and his business partners, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and a couple of other people, sold that vaccine to Merck for $186 million,” Kennedy recalled.
According to Kennedy, Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery. “It’s been said of him that he voted himself rich, so that kind of conflict was typical on that committee.”
Could a ‘truth commission’ hold Fauci accountable?
Carlson and Kennedy discussed the origins of COVID-19 and the possible reasons for Dr. Anthony Fauci’s presidential pardon.
Just before leaving office, former President Joe Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci. The pardon, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014, addresses “any offenses” Fauci committed during this period, including in his former capacities as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, member of the White House COVID-19 Response Team and chief medical adviser to Biden.
When Carlson pressed Kennedy to comment on Fauci’s motivations for funding coronavirus research in China, Kennedy said he tried to avoid speculation.
That’s why in his book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” he reports only what Fauci did, not Fauci’s possible motivations, he said.
Carlson said, “It sounds like Fauci is beyond the reach of the law at this point.”
Kennedy responded, “Yeah, I think generally, unless there was a truth commission, you know, which they did in South Africa. They did it in Central America after the 1980s wars there, and they were very, very helpful to those societies. I think we should probably do something like that now.”
Kennedy explained how a truth commission works:
“You have a commission that hears testimony on what exactly happened. Anybody who comes and volunteers to testify truthfully is then given immunity from prosecution. But so that at least the public knows who did what. …
“People who are called and don’t take that deal and perjure themselves, they then can be prosecuted criminally.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
“Why Can’t We Talk About This?”
Rainey Media TV | June 4, 2025
Please Support Our Film via: E-Transfer: dean_rainey@yahoo.ca
PAYPAL: deanrainey@raineymedia.com
Buy My A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/raineymedia
SNAIL MAIL: Rainey Media, PO Box 5, Delhi PO Main, ON, N4B 2W8 Canada
To book your own screening: deanrainey@raineymedia.com
“Why Can’t We Talk About This?” delves into the life of a man grappling with the aftermath of a COVID-19 vaccine injury, weaving his personal struggle into a broader examination of why such experiences are rarely discussed.
To help Michael via support: https://www.gofundme.com/f/benefit-fo…
We’ve made this film easily accessible for everyone because the information it contains and the discussion it starts is just too important. This film had no funding and was made without sponsorship. All costs were paid out of my own pocket. My team and I spent over a year and a half making this film. Any support you give will go towards expenses incurred making and marketing the movie. (Even sending the price of a movie ticket would help.) Once we cover those costs, we will be providing Michael with a share of the proceeds.
To order DVDs of this film, visit: https://raineymedia.com/video-store/
Also available on Rumble.
‘Every American Wearing a Wearable’ Is Not a Vision We Share
By Children’s Health Defense EMR & Wireless Team | The Defender | June 26, 2025
During recent congressional testimony, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated:
“We’re about to launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables … my vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”
Kennedy was responding to a question about whether consumers should continue to have access to wearables. He explained that wearables allow users to constantly track in real-time how food and lifestyle choices affect their health metrics. He also claimed that wearables are key to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda.
We agree that people should be able to monitor their health in innovative ways using the technology they choose. But we do not think the federal government should try to push wearables on every American.
A wearable is an electronic device — such as a smartwatch, fitness tracker or smart ring — worn on the body. It’s made up of dozens of sensors and wireless technologies that continuously collect, monitor and transmit biometric and other sensitive data.
“We do not share this vision,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program. “Quite the contrary, we oppose governmental pressure to incentivize the widespread use of wearables. They pose serious health risks, especially to children, and they threaten privacy.”
Wireless technologies, including wearables, have clear and well-documented harms. These devices continuously emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation in direct contact with the body for long periods of time.
They also have multiple transmitters/receivers (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular), operating on several different radio bands. Cumulative and long-term exposures have known significant risks.
RF radiation exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including “increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.”
A systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) last month concluded that there is “high certainty” evidence that cellphone radiation exposure causes two types of cancer in animals.
Higher-frequency millimeter wave (MMW) transmissions used in 5G cellular networks are also known to produce eye damage and skin burns. An industry study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) concluded that overexposure to MMW is expected to produce burns “like those produced when a person touches hot objects or flames.”
Children, pregnant women at even greater risk
Children have smaller bodies, developing nervous systems, more conductive tissue and longer lifetimes of exposure compared to adults, putting them at even greater risk of harm from radiation exposure. Their cells are dividing and growing at a higher rate, so DNA damage is magnified.
Other vulnerable populations include pregnant women, and people with implanted devices, chronic health conditions and Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMR-S).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued official guidance cautioning that individuals with pacemakers and other implanted medical devices should keep wearables like smartwatches at a distance due to potential interference and malfunction. Manufacturers like Apple also include guidelines and warnings for wearables.
This highlights a broader point: wearables are not safe or suitable for “every American.”
In 2021, CHD won a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the FCC had failed to consider extensive evidence of harm from wireless radiation.
The court found that the FCC did not consider peer-reviewed scientific research on the harmful effects of wireless radiation exposure on children, the brain and nervous system, male fertility and people with EMR-S.
The ruling specifically cited the agency’s failure to address studies showing oxidative stress, DNA damage, and the health risks from modulation and cumulative exposure.
The court also ordered the agency to explain how its limits are protective. Yet almost four years later, the FCC has still not complied.
This ruling validated years of scientific evidence about the harms of wireless technology and confirmed that the public, including wearable users, continues to be actively misguided by industry and government agencies alike.
Biometric data collection raises privacy concerns
Wireless technologies also have extensive and well-documented privacy impacts. They continuously collect biometric data, including heart rate, quality of sleep, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, oxygen levels, calorie burn, sweat gland emissions, hormone levels, body temperature, emotional responses, movement and precise geolocation.
This biometric data is transmitted over the internet and can be used to create an intimate profile of the user’s physical and psychological states. This intimate profile can be made available to employers, medical providers, private corporations, artificial intelligence systems, insurance companies and government entities.
This surveillance infrastructure may lay the groundwork for psychological targeting, predictive modeling, social control and unprecedented intrusions into personal freedom.
These risks cannot be left out of any discussion of so-called “digital health.”
“We are eager to learn more about Secretary Kennedy’s full intent regarding wearables,” said Eckenfels. “The growing push for widespread adoption of wearables, which exposes users to constant RF radiation in direct contact with the body, is concerning and fundamentally at odds with the values of informed consent, privacy and bodily autonomy that CHD defends.”
Eckenfels added:
“The public deserves radical transparency about wearables’ health and privacy risks. Their use must remain a personal choice and not a public health objective. We do not share — indeed, we oppose — a vision where everyone is subject to constant wireless exposure in direct contact with the body and biometric tracking.
“What amounts to technocratic surveillance should not be normalized, encouraged and promoted at the federal level.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Vaccine Makers Signal Fear Over Removal of Neurotoxic Injected Aluminum Ingredient
By Jefferey Jaxen | June 27, 2025
Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb made his ceremonial appearance on CNBC to titrate the public well with Big Pharma talking points in the wake of this week’s ACIP meeting.
After speaking for less than one minute and forty seconds, Gottlieb used the tired, inaccurate slur ‘anti-vaxxer’ four times in a failed attempt to frame an us verse them narrative like it was 2015 again.
With the newly appointed ACIP committee vote to remove the mercury-based preservative thimerosal from the few remaining flu shots, Gottlieb wasted no time circling the wagons to protect the widespread, problematic aluminum adjuvant in several vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule.
His concern was that would be ACIP’s next target. And he’s probably right.
“This is a very safe ingredient” stated Gottlieb regarding the regular injection of aluminum nanoparticles into infants, children and adolescents at scale.
Zero pushback or questions from the interviewer to challenge him per usual.
How settled is the safety science of injecting aluminum in children?
The Informed Consent Action Network sent a legal letter to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2019 demanding any human or animal studies relied upon by these agencies to establish the safety of injected aluminum.
The agencies produced no documents nor could they located a single study showing the safety of aluminum in childhood vaccines.
Meanwhile, a 2021 study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology found that six childhood vaccines contain a statistically significant greater quantity of aluminum adjuvant than is provided for on these products’ labeling. This study promped ICAN to demand the FDA assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information regarding the amount of aluminum adjuvant in their childhood vaccines. The agency has since stonewalled the request.
Here’s the embarrassing, anti-scientific part Gottlieb forgets to mention.
The rationale for injecting aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles into newborns was allowed and justified by a single 2011 study, by a single FDA scientist named Dr. Robert Mitkus.
Author J.B. Handley in his book How to End the Autism Epidemic writes the following about Mitkus’ study:
What would be lost on the average layperson is that the only biological science Dr. Mitkus considered in making his safety assessment was a single study that infused (rather than injected) aluminum citrate (rather than aluminum hydroxide) into adults (rather than babies). It’s hard to put this seemingly minor detail in proper context. In no other drug on the planet (except for vaccines) would safety standards ever be determined without using the actual product (aluminum hydroxide) administered in the proper way (intramuscular injection), into the proper patient population (infants).
World-renowned researchers called out this fact in their 2018 study by stating:
“To date, aluminum adjuvants per se have, perhaps surprisingly, not been the subject of any official experimental investigation, and this being in spite of the well-established neurotoxicity of aluminum.”
Will aluminum adjuvants be ACIP’s next target? Are studies being commissioned by Jay Bhattacharya’s NIH to look at these ingredients and their well-established role in creating chronic disease in American Children? All open questions at the time of this writing.
As for Scott and his industry pals, shots across the bow appear to be signaling that it’s no longer business as usual.
Gottlieb left his position as FDA commissioner only to accept a position on the board of Pfizer in less than three months.
Gottlieb is Big Pharma’s jack-in-the-box who seems to pop up and make noise at key moments when public pressure is applied which threatens bottom line profit margins of their liability-free injectable product lines.
His corporate media residency at CNBC allows for rapid response industry talkings points to roll from his mouth at a moment’s notice whenever his handlers decide to make him dance.
Prior to the pandemic, as questions swirled about a connection between vaccines and autism, Gottleib was there. When asked by the CNBC reporter why parents claim that their children developed autism or “something on the spectrum” right around the time they received their shots, Gottlieb blamed coincidence by saying:
“Children who are gonna display symptoms of autism and other developmental disorders, those start to manifest and become self-evident right around the time kids are getting vaccinated.”
Magic. Like Fauci, Gottleib is his own version of The Science™. What he says is ordained, never questioned during interviews. A continuous appeal to authority. Why? Because Pfizer man said so.
With a little luck, revolving door riders like Gottlieb will be artifacts of a shameful past era. Where U.S. regulatory agencies continually launched their leaders into the waiting arms of the industries they regulated.
Featured Video
Daniel Davis: China & Russia Will Defend Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Sugar: Killing us Sweetly
Staggering Health Consequences of Sugar on Health of Americans
By Dr. Gary Null | Global Research | February 3, 2014
In September 2013, a bombshell report from Credit Suisse’s Research Institute brought into sharp focus the staggering health consequences of sugar on the health of Americans. The group revealed that approximately “30%–40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.”[1]The figures suggest that our national addiction to sugar runs us an incredible $1 trillion in healthcare costs each year. The Credit Suisse report highlighted several health conditions including coronary heart diseases, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which numerous studies have linked to excessive sugar intake.[2]
Just a year earlier in 2012, a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta appearing on 60 Minutes featured the work of Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist from California who gained national attention after a lecture he gave titled “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” went viral in 2009. Lustig’s research has investigated the connection between sugar consumption and the poor health of the American people. He has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals identifying sugar as a major factor in the epidemic of degenerative disease that now afflicts our country. The data compiled by Lustig clearly show how excessive sugar consumption plays a key role in the development of many types of cancer, obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. His research has led him to conclude that 75% of all diseases in America today are brought on by the American lifestyle and are entirely preventable.[3]
Until the airing of this program, no one in the “official” world acknowledged anything wrong with sugar, here is a sampling of some the latest research available to them if they chose to look… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Lebanon: Between sovereignty and the mirage of normalization
- Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates
- The military is babying F-35s to hide their true cost to taxpayers
- Ukrainian military analyst praises use of drones against ‘Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship’
- Von der Leyen warns Hungary: We have ways of making you talk
- EU manipulating polls in bid to oust Orban – German opposition leader
- Daniel Davis: China & Russia Will Defend Iran
- The US’ self-directed ‘China nuclear threat’ will only be a waste of effort: Global Times editorial
- Female Iranian academic sentenced to 4 years in prison in France over protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza
- US university cancels Palestine conference citing sanctions concerns
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli leaders want to buy global legitimacy – Not a ceasefire Day 140
- Israel warns of a Ramadan escalation — while doing everything to provoke one
- Democrats Should Release Their 2024 Election Autopsy – and Stop the Gaza Denial
- Israel responsible for 2/3 of press killings worldwide – Not a ceasefire Day 139
- Are the Jews indigenous to Palestine?
- AIPAC Wants to Kill a Bill that would Ensure Israel Complies with Ceasefire
- Former Israeli PM, in Epstein Files, Dreamed of Israeli Eugenics and Pretty Converts
- Israeli settlers join ‘safari’ tour of Palestinian prisoners
- Flooding in Gaza amid rumors of war; fire in West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 138
- Fourteen Countries Condemn Huckabee’s Support for Israel Taking Over Most of the Middle East
- No Tricks Zone
- Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions Of Trees Where Once Thought To Be Barren
- New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
Aletho News 