The scandalous absence of child vaccine damage information
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022
We have repeatedly referred at TCW to the studied silence of the mainstream media regarding the damage and fatalities associated with the Covid vaccines despite reported reactions (which may be only 10 per cent of the total), now standing at 1,480,307, and nearing the one and half million mark. Fatalities, too, continue their inexorable rise, a further sixteen deaths reported since the end of March, their total now 2,087. For full reports of vaccine adverse effects and events including 352 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.
What is worse, perhaps, than the MSM’s general state of denial is their unconcern about the shocking paucity of the child adverse reaction data published by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Yet under-18s have been actively encouraged to have the vaccine since the end of July 2021 in the absence of any long-term safety data and despite clear indications that younger ‘fertile’ age cohorts were proving more vulnerable in multiple respects to the vaccine. However no special monitoring system for children has been set up, or none that has been reported. Unlike its Yellow Card reporting involving adults, the MHRA does not break down the child numbers into specific adverse events, as though children were of less importance. As a result we have no way of knowing whether the reports relate to any major, life-changing side-effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (muscle weakness caused by the immune system attacking the body’s nerves) or Bell’s palsy (a type of facial paralysis) or to other serious side-effects reported by adults including seizures, nervous system disorders, deep vein thrombosis, menstrual disorders, and eye and ear disorders including blindness and deafness.
With the extension of the vaccine rollout to young children aged between five and 11 since the beginning of April, we have decided it is high time to highlight what is known and not known, what is reported and not reported, about the risk to children of this experimental gene therapy.
Nearly 3.5 million children (3,413,500) have already been injected, with a total dosage (1st, 2nd & boosters) of 5,626,100 jabs, and a total number of 3,735 adverse reaction Yellow Card reports. Data published by the MHRA on Thursday April 14 details:
· Pfizer – 3,400,000 children (1st doses) plus 2,000,000 second doses & 200,000 boosters resulting in 3,424 Yellow Cards
· AZ – 11,600 children (1st doses) plus 8,700 second doses & ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 263 Yellow Cards – Reporting rate 1-in-44
Note: 1,500 doses (1,000 children – 1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting
· Moderna – 1,900 children (1st doses) and 1,400 second doses and 2,500 boosters resulting in 24 Yellow Cards
Note: 200 children (1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting
· Brand unspecified – 24 Yellow Cards
Unaccountably it appears that the number of 1st doses (1,000 for AZ and 200 for Moderna) and 2nd doses (500 for AZ) recorded has decreased since two weeks ago. Hence 1,200 children recorded as vaccinated two weeks ago are now missing. No explanation has been given for this. I understand that the MHRA is now on holiday for two weeks so we are unlikely to get any clarity on this until May.
Note too that AstraZeneca which is not recommended for under 18s appears to have been continued. MHRA reports to April 6 2022 show that 11,600 children (up from 11,496 last October) have received one or more doses of AstraZeneca, resulting in an increased Yellow Card adverse event reporting rate of 1 in 44 children (up from 1 in 49 last October). This, shockingly, is counter to the government’s own official guidance and evidence which has been available for patients and healthcare professionals, most recently updated on January 26 2022:
‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is not recommended for children aged below 18 years. No data are currently available on the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents younger than 18 years of age.’ Yet the most recent MHRA publication says:
‘The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents (aged <18 years old) have not yet been established. No data are available.’
So why and to which children were these doses given? To vulnerable children prior to the main rollout? And why second or booster doses? Furthermore, whoever they are, are the 263 adversely impacted children receiving adequate care and support? Are the other children who received the AZ vaccine being checked?
Myo/pericardial effects in children
The only specific adverse effects data that has been published for children is 73 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart) in under-18s. This is worrying not least because of the rising and unexplained death toll in young men reported elsewhere in these pages, but also because it is now well-established that the likelihood of this reaction in young men is higher than their risk of myocarditis from Covid infection; a risk which the NHS has warned as being especially the case ‘in young men under the age of 40‘.
Other adverse effects
This still leaves the bulk of 3,735 Yellow Card Reports up to this week for under-18s uncategorised. Yet MHRA themselves state that ‘the experience reported in under-18s is similar to that identified in the general population’. If we take them at their word, extrapolating from the data published on suspected adverse effects in the adult population, children and young people, are experiencing a selection of the following:
· Lymph node pain and swelling
· Heart palpitations and fluttering
· Fever, chills, fatigue and malaise
· Ear pain, tinnitus and vertigo
· Nausea, vomiting and allergies
· Eye pain, swelling and photophobia
· Blurred vision and visual impairment
· Diarrhoea, abdominal pain and distension
· Lip, mouth and facial swelling
· Pain in arm, chest, bones and jaw
· Anaphylaxis
· Respiratory infection, influenza and herpes
· Joint and muscle pain, swelling and stiffness
· Muscle spasms and twitching
· Balance disorders and arthralgia
· Fainting and dizziness
· Facial palsy, headaches and migraines
· Skin sensations, burning and numbness
· Seizures and tremors
· Anxiety, depression and insomnia
· Confusion and disorientation
· Kidney pain and hair loss
· Breast pain and menstrual disorders
· Breathlessness, wheezing and coughing
· Sweating, blisters, rashes and itching
· Haemorrhages (all types) and nosebleeds
· Embolisms and thrombosis
Given the lack of information published as to the adverse effects experienced by the 3.4 million children injected thus far, we have to ask whether their consent was truly informed? The answer has to be no, it was not.
Worryingly there are a number of potential barriers to reporting adverse effects in children. These include:
· Child or parental failure to recognise symptoms as vaccine-related
· Fear of parents of not being believed or thought to be anti-vax or of ‘making a fuss’
· Lack of understanding of potential longer-term issues
· Healthcare professionals’ lack of awareness of vaccine adverse effects
· Young people not seeking help and support especially if they took the vaccine decision themselves
· Yellow Card system awareness and accessibility
Furthermore, if the 3,735 Yellow Card Reports for under 18s is less than 10 per cent of actual figures as the MHRA indicates may be the case, in the absence of long-term safety data, how can the child vaccine rollout possibly be justified, deemed safe or ethical? Why was post vaccine monitoring not insisted on?
This weekend the Sunday Times reported a scandal that Jeremy Hunt, the former Health Secretary, claimed to be worse than thalidomide. He was not however addressing the reckless child Covid vaccine rollout but a deeply shocking investigation into child deformities caused by an epilepsy drug still being given to pregnant women that should have been stopped years ago. Hunt said that while it was ‘never comfortable’ for governments to acknowledge such injustices, the state had a moral duty to the families. ‘It’s time the British state faced up to its responsibilities,’ he said. ‘Just as we eventually did to victims of the thalidomide scandal.’
These are words we need to hear him speak about the Covid vaccines.
I pray that he and this newspaper, which tenaciously and courageously fought for the victims of thalidomide, will not stay blind to the scandal that is happening on their watch; or let years go by before they retrospectively struggle to examine the multiplicity of harms, some of which we may not know till they reach maturity, that children have been needlessly subjected to by the experimental Covid vaccines.
Few Doctors Telling Truth About COVID Vaccines
By Joel S. Hirschhorn | April 19, 2022
Nearly all physicians work for corporations that require them to take COVID vaccine shots. Most will be reluctant to tell their patients about their vaccine doubts. Also, most do not have the time to study the medical literature about the many negative aspects of the vaccines. Now comes a survey with some interesting findings.
Levels of vaccine hesitancy among physicians seem higher than expected, with 1 in 10 primary care doctors not believing that vaccines are safe, according to a new survey.
Among 625 physicians, 10.1% did not agree that vaccines were safe; 9.3% did not agree that vaccines were effective; and 8.3% did not agree that they were important, Timothy Callaghan, PhD, of Texas A&M School of Public Health in College Station, and colleagues reported online in Vaccine.
The high proportion of hesitancy among primary care doctors “was certainly a surprise for us,” Callaghan said. “We thought it might be a very small proportion of physicians who hold hesitancy about vaccines given that we have lots of evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. [Talk about bias!] However, once we dug into the data, we found that concerns about vaccines in general were far more widespread in the physician population than we might have expected.”
Confidence in vaccines among physicians was still higher than in the general public, as were rates of COVID-19 vaccination, with only 5.2% still unvaccinated at the end of the survey in May 2021. But high levels of vaccine uptake among doctors could have more to do with employer regulations or perceived risks of their workplace environment, Callaghan said.
The research project was inspired by Callaghan’s own experience with one of his doctors who was not vaccinated and tried to dissuade Callaghan from COVID vaccination. Few of us have had that experience!
“It wasn’t my primary care physician, but another one of my doctors realized that I studied issues related to vaccine hesitancy, and over the course of multiple visits, tried to convince me that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t safe and weren’t worth it,” Callaghan said. “It made me question whether this was a one-off, or if we have an actual issue on our hands.”
Callaghan and colleagues conducted their survey from May 14 to May 25, 2021 among 625 physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, or general practice. They were asked how strongly they agreed with questions about safety, effectiveness, and importance of vaccines, among other factors.
Only 67.4% strongly agreed that vaccines are safe, just 75% strongly agreed they are effective, and only 76% strongly agreed they’re important, the researchers found. Good, but not good enough.
“As surprised as we were about the 1-in-10 piece, we were equally if not more surprised by the proportion of physicians strongly agreeing that vaccines in general are safe,” Callaghan said, anticipating that it would have been far higher. Guess there are doctors who see the truth.
In further analyses, Callaghan and colleagues found that higher levels of political conservatism were negatively and significantly associated with agreeing that vaccines are safe. In other words, the more conservative docs saw the truth. They also found those who had COVID-19 were significantly less likely to believe that vaccines are safe.
The team saw similar results for belief in vaccine effectiveness: physicians who were more liberal were more likely to strongly agree that vaccines are effective compared with those who were more conservative.
“Conservatives (in the public) with vaccine hesitancy, served by physicians who share their political views, may therefore miss out on opportunities to be presented with information about the benefits of vaccination; especially in rural areas where both hesitancy and self-identification with right-leaning political views are particularly high,” the researchers wrote. More pro-vaccine bias.
While political affiliation did appear to play some role in beliefs, Callaghan noted a wider problem that might be at play. “There’s not that much training on vaccines and vaccinology … in medical school,” he said. “Most medical students aren’t exposed to in-depth discussions of virology to have those strong opinions.”
“And given the clouded information environment that surrounded COVID-19 in particular, and increasingly, vaccines in general, it remains possible that [physicians] are just relying on what they’re hearing in the news and the misinformation that’s out there, as opposed to best scientific evidence,” he said. The bigger truth is that most docs do not spend time examining medical research data.
The survey also asked specifically about confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and found physician confidence split by vaccine type. While 68.7% were very confident in the safety of the Moderna vaccine and 72.7% were very confident in the safety of the Pfizer vaccine, only 32.1% were very confident in the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades, and his Pandemic Blunder Newsletter is on Substack. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
COVID Vaccine Mandate for Pilots Violates Federal Law, Puts Passengers at Risk, Citizen Group Warns
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 18, 2022
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pilots violates federal regulations and places pilots and passengers at risk, according to a letter from the California-based Advocates for Citizens’ Rights.
The letter, only recently made public, was hand-delivered in December 2021 to then-director of the FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and CEOs and legal counsel of major U.S. air carriers (American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines).
It includes data showing pilots across the aviation industry — including commercial, military and general aviation pilots — face increased health risks from the vaccines due to the unique nature of their profession.
The letter also states that a significant number of vaccine injuries and adverse effects involving pilots have been recorded, and in some instances have forced pilots to stop flying.
The letter claims:
- Federal regulations that prohibit pilots who have received non-FDA-approved medical products, such as COVID vaccines, from flying are being violated.
- Vaccinated pilots potentially are flying with abnormal health conditions that may be exacerbated by flying at high altitudes. These include heart damage and blood clotting, which could lead to stroke or cardiac arrest.
- Some pilots have suffered death and serious injury following COVID vaccination.
- The federal government is aware of the issues associated with the vaccines, based on complaints filed with government agencies.
- The health risks to pilots from the vaccines may lead to a catastrophic event such as a plane crash, with multiple fatalities and significant legal and monetary liabilities for the government, insurers and airlines.
The letter was co-signed by a series of prominent figures, including:
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense (CHD)
- Mary Holland, CHD general counsel
- Reiner Fuellmich, attorney and co-founder of the People’s Court of Public Opinion, which launched an international grand jury investigating COVID-related restrictions and mandates
- Several other doctors, medical practitioners and lawyers.
In an interview with The Defender, Advocates for Citizens’ Rights attorney Leigh Taylor Dundas, lead signatory of the letter, said products authorized under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are not fully approved by the FDA, and under EUA rules cannot be mandated.
“Our government has a long history, even with approvals and releases of products … of getting it wrong,” Dundas said. “Witness thalidomide, DDT, all sorts of things like that.”
“As a former environmental attorney and now staunch defender of basic human rights and civil liberties … I get contacted a fair amount by concerned individuals from all walks of life,” Dundas said.
“I was aware from things I had been hearing at conferences … that the inoculation was presenting severe and sometimes fatal issues to those who took it.”
Dundas said:
“I became aware that certain military personnel who were high-ranking surgeons within the U.S. armed forces were not just anecdotally becoming aware that pilots were having severe incidents of injury, but also that statistically that was being borne out by way of the database.
“At the same time, I was becoming aware of similar incidents in the civilian pilot population. So the combination of the two made me sort of pull the string and try to determine if not only was the vaccination causing an increase generally of disease and fatalities among those who took it, but if perhaps [these adverse reactions were] due to the unique combination of pilots being at altitude for long periods of time.”
Dundas said it appeared from the anecdotal, subjective data she was hearing and raw statistical data coming out of the DOD databases that these military doctors had access to — that the pilots were uniquely likely to be suffering ill effects from the vaccines.
Significant health risks for pilots
The letter, along with the accompanying documentation, references numerous instances of adverse reactions sustained by pilots and other health risks they face as a result of the COVID vaccines.
The letter quotes flight surgeon and aerospace medicine specialist Dr. Theresa Long and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiology consultant for the FAA.
Long and McCullough, who signed the letter, said:
- “The risk of ‘post-vaccination myocarditis [is] not trivial.’
- “The ‘aviation population is comprised of individuals with demographics that the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] and FDA established (on June 25, 2021) was at greatest risk for developing post-vaccination induced myocarditis.’”
Cody Flint, also a signatory of the letter, described his experience. Flint, based in Cleveland, Mississippi, is an agricultural pilot with 10,000 hours of flight time. He testified at a Nov. 2, 2021 U.S. Senate hearing on COVID vaccine injuries about the adverse effects he sustained.
Portions of Flint’s testimony were quoted in the letter, including:
“I have been very healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions.
“I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine on Feb. 1 [2021]. Within 30 minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck.
“Two days after vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours. Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse.
“Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident – although I do not remember doing this.
“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and severe panic attacks – although I’ve never had a history of either of these – was later replaced with left and right peri-lymphatic fistulas, Eustachian tube dysfunction and elevated intracranial pressure due to brain swelling.
“My condition continued to decline, and my doctors told me that only an adverse reaction to the vaccine or a major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.
“I’ve had six spinal taps over eight months to monitor my intracranial pressure, and two surgeries, eight weeks apart, to repair the fistulas. I have missed nearly an entire year of my life … I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to fly again.
“… the FDA, CDC, and NIH [National Institutes of Health] refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine.”
The letter also refers to the case of American Airlines pilot Wilburn Wolfe, who suffered a major seizure following his COVID vaccination. Wolfe died, though not while he was on duty.
It also cites the case of a Canadian flight in December 2021 that was forced to divert back to the airport shortly after takeoff because the pilot, who was recently vaccinated, passed out.
In other testimony from the November 2021 Senate proceedings, Long said the U.S. military was aware of the risks to its pilots, but chose to proceed with its vaccine mandate for service members.
Long said:
“Last May [2021], I attended the Senior Preventative Leadership Program for the Army. When we were given an opportunity to ask the senior leaders questions, I simply asked: ‘So we skipped two years of Phase 2 trials, and three years of Phase 3 trials? We only lost 12 active-duty soldiers to COVID — yet we’re going to risk the health of the entire fighting force, on a vaccine we only had two months of safety data on?’
“The response was: ‘You’re damn right, Colonel. And you’re going to get every soldier you can to take the vaccine so I can get enough data points to determine if the vaccine is safe.’”
Long said numerous soldiers told her about “threats and intimidation” they faced to get the vaccines that were still under the EUA. She said the Army Public Health Command was “not tracking, tracing or monitoring adverse events.”
Additional testimony from Long, cited in the letter, concerned military pilots she treated for vaccine injuries:
“I saw five patients in clinic, two of which presented with chest pain, days to weeks after vaccination, and were subsequently diagnosed with pericarditis …
“The third pilot had been vaccinated and felt like he was drunk, chronically fatigued within 24 hours after vaccination, [stating] he drank a lot of coffee to ‘try and wake himself up’, and continued to fly, until he realized the problem wasn’t going away.
“After I reported to my command my concerns that — in one morning — I’d had to ground 3 out of 3 pilots due to vaccine injuries, the next day my patients were canceled, my charts were pulled for review and I was told that I would not be seeing acute patients anymore, just healthy pilots there for their flight physical.”
The letter referenced 10 reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) involving pilots who sustained severe injuries and side effects following the COVID vaccine. According to the letter, these 10 examples are a mere sample of the total number of injuries reported by pilots.
These injuries and symptoms included:
- Heart attacks
- Atrial fibrillation
- Pericarditis
- Brain swelling
- Elevated intracranial pressure affecting the spinal cord and brain stem
- Sub-arachnoid hemorrhages (brain bleeding)
- Blindness
Statements from the VAERS reports include descriptions of vaccine injuries reported by pilots.
One report (VAERS ID: 1026783-1) stated:
“The physician determined … I had an allergic reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine [that] severely increased the pressure in my spinal cord and brain stem. That pressure causes my vision problems and ultimately ruptured my left inner ear, breaking off several crystals in the process. I cannot fly with this condition.”
Another pilot stated (VAERS ID: 1743012-1):
“Symptoms began almost immediately [post-vaccination] as constant dizziness, body aches, overall weakness. Two months later I woke up with chest pain and difficulty breathing … I was diagnosed with inflammation of the heart cavity and pulmonary arteries … I was later diagnosed with vasculitis, specifically aortitis.
“I was completely healthy prior to the vaccination and there is not a single member of my family with any of the listed conditions … [I am] awaiting a medical evaluation … to determine if I’m allowed to remain on flying status and in the military.”
Another report (VAERS ID: 1768479-1) submitted by a pilot described the following:
“[The] morning following injection, I experienced extreme dizziness and brain discomfort. Dizziness was bad enough to make walking difficult and even created motion sickness … heights of about 10 feet give bad vertigo.
“I am a pilot and aircraft mechanic and this creates an issue working on jets … brain fog is also long-lasting still [sic] and makes mental clarity difficult, which was never an issue until the day after the shot.
“My heart has created irregular heart rhythms, I have physical stress and tire easily and my muscles will shake and twitch after minimal effort … my cognitive skills seem to have diminished from the lasting brain fog.”
Another pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1358033-1): “2 days after second shot, blood clot in left arm. Hit while walking in my home. Could not lift my arm. 5 days later heart attack. Pilot with EKG yearly. Last EKG less than one month from [sic] my heart attack on April 29, 2021.”
And one pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1376453-1): “Severe vertigo experienced for four days and counting … as a professional helicopter pilot, I cannot perform my job with these symptoms.”
In one report (VAERS ID: 1702509-1), submitted by a doctor, a pilot who was also a triathlete experienced pericarditis, chest pressure and irregular heartbeat after vaccination, with pain that “radiated to [the] jaw and neck,” “pressure in the chest” and difficulty walking, despite no prior heart problems.
Another report (VAERS ID: 1245452-1) submitted by a doctor described how a 37-year-old pilot who received the Moderna vaccine, and who had no prior medical history of heart conditions, sustained atrial fibrillation and a decrease in thyroid hormones, leading to him being kept off duty.
In one case (VAERS ID: 1388581-1), a doctor who is also a commercial airline pilot reported “subarachnoid hemorrhage” and “associated nausea, vomiting and photophobia.” According to the VAERS report, the doctor “remains off work pending FAA evaluation.”
This sampling of reports from VAERS is likely only the tip of the iceberg, according to Dundas, who said:
“It’s known that there’s a 1% reporting rate to VAERS, that there’s 99% underreporting. So if you looked at what was already in there, within a few months of this [vaccine] being rolled out and mandated to the pilots, you rapidly did the math … and realized that we are absolutely destroying the health of our pilots.”
The military’s own database, Defense Medical Epidemiological Database, found similar instances of injuries, Dundas said:
“When you looked at the data that these high-ranking U.S. military doctors were seeing, what you rapidly realized is that in all of the years prior to 2021, for the five years preceding that point in time, the total cumulative number of incidents of disease and injury in this database were 1.7 million every single year.
“Then, in January 2021, the U.S. military decided to essentially mandate that their service members take the vaccine, and it was fortuitous that they did it in January; [this] made for a very clean cut in terms of analyzing the data set.
“Within the first nine months [of 2021], the total number of incidents of disease and injury in the U.S. armed forces jumped from a very stable baseline of 1.7 million per year … to almost 22 million … and the year wasn’t even over. That was just the first three quarters of 2021.
“[These were] injuries where military pilots were walking off of flight vehicles, clutching their chests, complaining of chest pain. The military refused to take that seriously and ordered the doctors who would normally be sending these soldiers for cardiac MRIs and EKGs to basically write it off as anxiety or some such [condition].”
Josh Yoder, a pilot with a major commercial airline, Army combat veteran and former flight medic, co-founded the U.S. Freedom Flyers (USFF), an organization opposing vaccine mandates for pilots.
In an interview with The Defender, Yoder said vaccine injuries among airline crews are “extremely common” and are being “actively covered up” by airline companies and the FAA.
Yoder told The Defender :
“U.S. Freedom Flyers receives almost daily communication from airline pilots who are flying with symptoms such as chest pain and neurological conditions post-vaccination. Most of them are afraid to come forward and seek medical attention for fear of losing their flight medicals.
“USFF has documented cases of blood clots, strokes, cardiac arrest, unconsciousness and sudden death among airline professionals which have been medically linked to the COVID-19 vaccinations.”
FAA ‘betting the farm’ a major catastrophe won’t occur
Dundas told The Defender the FAA is aware of these risks associated with the vaccines but is sweeping the problem under the rug.
She said the agency may be hoping “redundancy” in the cockpits of commercial airliners — meaning that two pilots are jointly in charge of flying the aircraft — will be enough to stave off a potential disaster.
“Where that analysis breaks down is during takeoff or landing,” Dundas said, “because during takeoff and landing, you’re not on autopilot. You’ve got both pilots fully engaged, but one of the pilots actively has his hands on the joystick and the controls.”
She added:
“If you’re 300 feet or 1,000 feet above, coming in for a landing … you’ve now got a massive gross muscle unit seizure as [the pilot’s] hand is on the yoke, that’s going to dip a wing and you’re going to have an entire plane full of people cartwheeling down the runway … probably with a mass fatality event at the end of the line.
“Even if you’re betting the farm, as I believe the FAA right now is, because they don’t have a choice, the water is already under the bridge on pilot redundancy. All it takes is bad timing for one of these events to occur on takeoff or landing. And you’ve got an unrecoverable airplane, [a] fatal crash, which the Department of Justice frowns upon.”
Yoder, also addressing this risk, said:
“Pilot redundancy is a critical component to aviation safety. The topic of adverse vaccine reaction and pilot redundancy is a complex one that requires in-depth analysis which the FAA has never studied.
“Critical phases of flight such as take-off or landing pose the greatest risk to passengers, should that be the moment a pilot experiences known side effects of these inoculations, such as blood clots, stroke, cardiac arrest or sudden death, which could lead to an unrecoverable event.”
FAA, airline industry violating federal regulations
In addition to numerous documented instances of pilots sustaining significant injuries and side effects — or even dying — as a result of the COVID vaccines, the letter also indicates the vaccination itself, let alone the vaccine mandates, may be in violation of federal regulations.
Specifically, the letter accuses the FAA, and the aviation industry, of:
“ … putting both pilots and the general public at risk of death and/or serious injury by operating in contravention of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, §61.53, and related guidance which together operate to disallow medical clearance of pilots who have injected or ingested non-FDA approved products — like the COVID-19 inoculation.”
The letter goes on to clarify this clause in the federal regulations prohibits aviation medical examiners from issuing medical clearances to pilots who use non-approved medical treatments, such as those that are being administered under an EUA instead of full FDA approval, and new medications fully approved by the FDA less than 12 months prior, stating that the FDA:
“ … generally requires at least one year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes.
“This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves…”
The letter further quotes the federal regulations as stipulating:
“[N]o person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person … [is] receiving treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.”
As stated in the letter:
“[P]ut simply, any pilot flying right now who has been vaccinated in the United States has almost certainly NOT [emphasis original] received an FDA-approved vaccine …
“And even were such pilots to have received an FDA-approved vaccine, under relevant federal regulations, the pilots should still not be flying for 12 more months …
“The reason for this cannot be overstated: history and common sense evince that significant time must elapse post-FDA approval to ensure that new medical products do not end up causing adverse effects (as did Thalidomide and glyphosate).
“This is particularly true when the individuals who are receiving such new, experimental medical products are spending significant amounts of time at high altitude, and are in control of large vehicles carrying hundreds of other passengers, who could all die or be severely injured should the operator suffer an adverse health event.”
As previously reported by The Defender, and as outlined in the letter, none of the COVID vaccines currently available and being administered in the U.S. have received full FDA approval.
“We’ve got the FAA, a federal regulatory body, that is charged with protecting the safety of the flying public, as well as pilot safety, ignoring their own rule and the guidance on it,” Dundas said.
“Here, we’ve got an inoculation that is wholly unapproved, at least in the U.S., and yet we’ve got major carriers … who are not just ignoring this rule, but mandating their pilots to take this. And we’re seeing hellacious, horrifying results,” she added.
Dundas said the letter clearly warns the government and airlines of the legal and financial liabilities they would face should an airline disaster occur that is traced back to an adverse vaccine-related event suffered by a pilot — especially as it would be on the record that these entities have been made aware of such a risk.
As legal precedent, she cited a $2.5 billion fine levied by the DOJ in January 2021 against Boeing for “fraud conspiracy” involving safety issues with the 737 Max airplane, stemming from Boeing’s concealment from regulators of potential safety issues involving that model of aircraft.
The settlement included payments to the families of passengers who were killed in crashes involving the 737 Max.
Dundas likened the vaccine injury data involving pilots to the internal 1977 Ford Motor Company “smoking gun” memo that revealed the company was aware of safety issues with the Pinto model of automobiles but considered it more cost-effective to pay off future victims than to issue a recall and rectify the problem.
“Essentially what I was doing with the way I crafted the letter was … I was putting all the players in the industry, the regulator, the airline companies and the insurers for the companies, on notice that you probably have a problem here based on the numbers [of adverse vaccine events affecting pilots] that we are seeing,” Dundas said.
The letter provides an estimate of the likely amount of compensation that would result from a hypothetical accident if it could be traced back to an issue the airlines and regulators were aware of: $2 million to $3 million per person.
This amount, according to Dundas, would be “separate from punitive [actions], from fines assessed by the DOJ.”
Did letter cause FAA director to resign?
In February, then-FAA director Steve Dickson suddenly announced his resignation, effective March 2022, claiming it was “time to go home” to his family.
Dickson, however, had previously faced controversy. For instance, during his confirmation as FAA director, allegations arose that during his previous tenure overseeing the pilots of Delta Air Lines, a Delta pilot was grounded in 2016 after she raised concerns regarding the airline’s approach to managing safety risk.
According to Yoder, the real reasons for his resignation may have had less to do with a desire to spend more time with his family and more to do with the hand-delivered letter he received in December 2021.
“Dickson’s resignation came on the heels of the tremendous pressure being applied to the agency via Leigh Dundas’ FAA letter, along with back-channel communication and media attention from [the] U.S. Freedom Flyers,” Yoder said.
Dickson’s promotion of unapproved experimental vaccines for pilots, which violates the FAA’s own guidance, caused a dangerous situation for not only pilots but also the flying public, Yoder said.
“Documented cases of pilots experiencing severe adverse reactions in flight accrue daily, thanks to an inept response from the FAA,” he said. “Internal reports from FAA employees reveal a scandal-ridden agency which needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.”
“The FAA’s primary charter is safety and they have failed miserably by approving experimental vaccines for pilots with zero long-term safety studies.”
According to Yoder, the FAA, even following Dickson’s resignation, does not appear to have taken concrete actions in response to the letter.
“Rather than being proactive, the FAA and the airlines have chosen to ignore a prominent passenger safety issue,” Yoder said.
“Historically, it’s taken a fatal crash or series of near misses to execute change within the agency. Fundamental change to safety policy within the FAA is typically written in blood,” he said.
According to Dundas, a recent spate of widespread flight cancellations and protracted delays in late 2021 and up to the present — frequently blamed by airlines on such factors as poor weather — are in fact connected to pilot action in relation to the vaccine mandates, for two reasons: opposition to the mandates, and an abundance of caution by pilots who call in sick at the first sign of any symptoms of illness:
“I think it’s twofold, and I think you’re seeing two things and they’re very logical,” Dundas said, noting that pilots, along with certain other transportation employees, are technically not allowed to go on strike without first exhausting their collective bargaining remedies. That’s the federal law that’s been in existence for decades.
“But this is a cat of a different color,” Dundas said. “You are mandating, against other federal law … an inoculation that you’re not allowed to mandate, and it’s likely unconstitutional.”
“So you have a lot of sectors in transportation that are really not happy saying get the jab, get the jab or your job is going goodbye,” she said.
Dundas added:
“What you saw … were segments of these transportation sectors saying, ‘you know what, we operate heavy machinery and we are required as well by rule and law in many cases to not operate these large pieces of equipment if we are remotely under the weather.’
“So, I think you saw a convergence of two variables. I think you saw pilots who were unhappy at being made to work in unsafe working conditions … in conjunction with a pilot population that was getting now not just the first shot, but the second shot and/or the third shot and a cumulative consequence and concatenation of adverse health events.
“[T]hey [the pilots] are, in many cases, highly educated, caring human beings, [who] wake up in the morning and go, ‘You know what, I’m not 100%, I’m not fit to fly, I’m going to call out sick because I don’t want to take other people down with me if I’m about to have a stroke.’”
Dundas said a recent flight of hers from Salt Lake City was delayed for almost a full day following an adverse event affecting one of the flight attendants scheduled to work on that flight.
Dundas also cited conversations with pilots who told her “they wanted no part of the mandate.”
According to Dundas, the reasons for their opposition were described in the following terms:
“[W]e see our colleagues dying and or stroking out or having cardiovascular events that they are not recovering from.
“And so, we quit rather than sacrifice our health or possibly our lives. And now we’re flying charters [private aviation] where [COVID vaccination] is not a mandate, it’s not required.”
Letter calls on FAA, airlines to take immediate action
The letter from Advocates for Citizens’ Rights calls for immediate action by federal authorities and air carriers, including:
- Medically flagging all vaccinated pilots.
- Adaptation, on the part of the FAA, of a screening program requiring all vaccinated pilots to undergo medical recertification, including D-Dimer, Troponin, and EKG tests, as well as cardiac MRIs, with medical clearance issued to vaccinated pilots only if they present “a clean bill of health on ALL [emphasis added] tests.”
- Medically decertifying and grounding any pilot who fails one or more of the aforementioned tests, or who otherwise displays symptoms of possible blood clotting issues or myocarditis; re-testing these pilots at six-week intervals until they return to a medically acceptable condition.
- Allowing commercial aircraft to be operated only by pilots who can show a clean medical examination undertaken a minimum of five days after each COVID vaccination and booster shot, stating that “the current FAA wait time of two (2) days is insufficient to detect a significant number of blood clotting and myocarditis cases (which are manifesting more than 47 hours post-inoculation).”
- Immediate investigation, on the part of the FAA, of all commercial air carriers and all insurance companies providing coverage to commercial airlines, regarding the application of federal do-not-fly regulations.
- Creation, by the FAA, of “a database to track pilot adverse events in a manner similar to VAERS,” stating the likelihood that “medical adverse events post-vaccination in pilot populations are occurring at greater rates than have been tracked or monitored in either civilian or military populations …”
“[A]ny in-house counsel, any CEO, any insurance company number-cruncher, any airline regulator who reads this [letter] is going to be nothing if not clear about the fact that … there is a problem brewing,” Dundas said.
“Right now, they have completely abandoned their duty to both the pilot population and the American flying population by allowing carriers to mandate a non-FDA-approved medical intervention, in violation of their own regulations and guidance,” she added.
Yoder expressed his unease with the current level of safety of air travel as a result of the vaccine mandate for pilots, stating that passengers are taking a risk by flying.
“Every time a passenger flies with a fully vaccinated crew, they are accepting a predictable risk that their pilots have been injected with an inoculation which has known side effects of blood clots, strokes, myocarditis, all of which can lead to cardiac arrest, incapacitation and sudden death,” he said.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
Lockdown ideology remains a widespread global plague upon humanity
Faucism infects Shanghai
By Jordan Schachtel | April 18, 2022
To the ruling class, human rights are an afterthought.
Far from perceiving each other as adversaries, the Public Health cartel in the West and in China are more accurately defined as competitors in a friendly game of chess, and humanity are their pawns.
As global leaders remain noticeably silent on the situation in Shanghai (some have taken to explicitly endorsing the lockdowns), there seems to be unanimous approval for the idea that top-down draconian lockdowns are both ethical and moral, no matter how many human beings must suffer in the process. In China, a large swath of the United States, and almost everywhere in between, COVID Mania has shined a light on the negligence and inhumanity of our ruling class, which views citizens as subjects and serfs unworthy of their unalienable rights.
The lockdown ideology, or in one-word, Faucism, remains prevalent everywhere. And in Shanghai, the projected commitment to Zero COVID remains intact.
If you thought the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — which first popularized the lockdown ideology in Wuhan — was ready to admit to the catastrophic failures of its Zero COVID lockdown program, think again.
Now almost a month into its hard lockdown of over 25 million people in Shanghai, China continues to rally behind its purported commitment to Zero COVID, or the fraudulent notion that a respiratory virus can be eliminated from a population through top-down government action.
In a front-page article in Monday’s Study Times (the publication for the CCP’s Central Committee), Ma Xiaowei, China’s minister of its National Health Commission, stood behind China’s “dynamic zero-Covid” policy. Dismissing dissent from the Zero COVID narrative, Ma attacked the “erroneous” idea of “coexisting with the virus.”
China’s state-run Global Times and other Party platforms echoed the message:
“Scientific, precise and dynamic zero tolerance is a major decision made by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and President Xi Jinping based on science and laws, Ma said, urging officials to oppose claims about co-existing with the virus and treating the virus as flu.”
In another interesting tidbit, the Global Times interviewed a senior Chinese CDC epidemiologist, whose pro-lockdown message may sound remarkably similar to that of his western counterparts:
“Those three deaths serve as an alarm for the country not to let its guard down in the face of Omicron, as it is extremely dangerous for unvaccinated vulnerable groups with underlying diseases, a senior expert from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the Global Times on condition of anonymity, noting that this is a fundamental reason why many epidemiologists agree not to ease the current antivirus strategy.”
As we’ve observed over the course of COVID Mania, China is not unique in its depravity. Though their lockdowns are the most strict to date, quarantine camps, movement restrictions, and digital tyranny has populated every corner of the globe.
Dr Anthony Fauci, the top government health bureaucrat in America, and the go-to “public health expert” for COVID doctrine in the West, unsurprisingly has no issue with the humanitarian catastrophe that is the Shanghai lockdown.
In an interview this weekend, Fauci remarked: “you use lockdowns to get people vaccinated,” endorsing government barbarism to compel behavior.
If this was only a China problem, surely, world leaders would be lining up to condemn the human rights crimes being committed against Shanghai citizens.
However, throughout the world, the hubris-fueled Public Health cartel remains absent from commenting on the Shanghai situation. Instead, with plenty of lockdown blood on their own hands, they stick to the message, and remain insistent upon top-down pandemic policies that have resulted in societal and economic ruin.
As COVID Mania has made clear, the entire “Public Health” system is a force for destruction, whether its proponents propagandize for it in English, Chinese, or another language.
The war against Corona cannot be won, and so for many it will never end
Three thousand retweets for the transparent panic mongering of everybody’s fake epidemiologist
eugyppius | April 18, 2022
Many of you are probably tired of hearing me write about Karl Lauterbach, but he is the health minister of a major European nation, and his increasingly crazed bearing is becoming an important story unto itself. Infections are collapsing in Germany and across Europe, despite the lifting of all restrictions, which is like garlic to Lauterbach’s peculiar brand of vampire. Thus he took to BILD on Easter Sunday, in a desperate effort to stir up some fresh fear. In the fall, he said,
“It’s quite possible we’ll end up with a highly contagious Omicron variant that is as deadly as Delta. That would be an absolute killer-variant.” … The intervals at which new variants emerge to replace old ones are getting shorter and shorter [he said], which is “cause for concern.”
He also said it’s very likely that we’ll have to bring back the mask mandate sooner or later, and advised everyone to continue muzzling themselves voluntarily. There is no longer even any pretence, of restrictions as temporary measures or of the pandemic as a transitory phenomenon.
Pro-lockdown Researcher Accuses Critic of “Libel”
By Noah Carl | The Daily Sceptic | April 17, 2022
A new pro-lockdown study has been doing the rounds on social media. In a Twitter thread, one of the authors claims that it “confirms the tragic consequences of delaying the UK’s first lockdown”. He argues that, if lockdown had started just one week earlier, there would have been up to “35k fewer deaths”.
Although the thread went viral (as many pro-lockdown threads do), the study was not without its critics. One of these was Philippe Lemoine, whose work I’ve discussed several times here on the Daily Sceptic.
In a Twitter thread of his own, Lemoine retorted that the study “doesn’t confirm jackshit” and merely exemplifies the “ridiculous methods that pass as counterfactual analysis in the field of epidemiology”. He went on to say that drawing strong conclusions about the “tragic consequences” of delaying lockdown is “intellectually dishonest”.
Profanity aside, the criticisms Lemoine proceeds to outline are well taken. As he points out, the latest pro-lockdown study is based – yet again – on the assumption that epidemics keep growing exponentially unless the government decides to do something. This assumption is not merely questionable, but false.
We know from examples like South Dakota – whose libertarian governor Kristi Noem did basically nothing – that infections start falling long before the herd immunity threshold is reached, even if there’s no lockdown. (There are at least eight other places where infections fell from a peak in the absence of both business closures and stay-at-home orders.)
Armed with the assumption that the only thing capable of arresting epidemic growth is lockdown, the authors conclude that Britain’s first lockdown had a large effect – one that would have been even larger if it had been imposed a week earlier.
Of course, there’s ample evidence to suggest this isn’t true: infections peaked around the same time in no-lockdown Sweden; reconstructions of Britain’s epidemic curve show cases peaking before the first lockdown; and Chris Whitty himself told MPs that “R went below one well before, or to some extent before, March 23”.
So, another pro-lockdown modelling study based on assumptions that we know are wrong. (Note: I’m not saying the lockdown had absolutely no effect; just that you can’t claim it had a large effect.) However, the story doesn’t end there.
The author of the original Twitter thread didn’t take kindly to Lemoine’s criticisms. After demanding to know “who specifically” Lemoine was accusing of intellectual dishonesty, he asked him to remove the “libellous” tweet and “desist from further public defamation”.
While Lemoine (a Frenchman) could have perhaps been politer, resorting to accusations of “libel” when faced with criticism isn’t a ‘good look’ for a scientist. It suggests you’re more concerned with social status than with finding out the truth. Why not just ignore the Twitter digs, and answer the man’s criticisms?
While this little dispute hardly matters, it doesn’t show ‘The Science’ of lockdown in a very favourable light.
MIT’s Dean of Science responds to me: She’s NOT interested in looking at the vax safety data!
She has intellectual curiosity in all areas of science… except the vaccines
Steve Kirsch with MIT Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala taken April 15, 2022 at MIT breakfast in Palo Alto
By Steve Kirsch | April 15, 2022
Summary
The Dean of Science at MIT believes open discussion to resolve differences of scientific opinion should be encouraged. That’s the good news.
However, when I asked her whether she would publicly call for such a discussion for the vaccines, her answer was “No.” That’s the bad news.
I also asked her if I could show her data that would change her mind. Her answer was, “No.”
This is an important issue; it is an issue that affects the health of every MIT student, staff, and faculty member. She knows that there are two legitimate sides of this issue because she knows that at least one MIT faculty member agrees with me that the COVID vaccines are dangerous. Yet open discussion on this is forbidden at MIT. They simply are not interested in hearing from anyone with any credentials (such as my colleagues) who is able to challenge their policies.
Dean Mavalvala should be actively facilitating the resolution of this important issue by calling for an open discussion. Instead, she is stonewalling and hoping it will go away. She’s wrong. It won’t.
My meeting with Dean Mavalvala
I was able to speak personally to the Dean of Science at MIT today thanks to an MIT breakfast scheduled 10 minutes from my home.
As you can see from the photo above, she’s fully bought into the mainstream narrative that masks work even though the science says they don’t work at all (and it isn’t even a close call). So I didn’t think my conversation would go that well. I was right.
I started off asking her why nobody at MIT would sponsor my talk. She said that the faculty sponsor must be both familiar with and supportive of the body of work.
OK, so that’s actually a reasonable response. No objection from me.
She also knew that Professor Retsef Levi had agreed to sponsor my talk on the MIT campus. But it wasn’t MIT who located Professor Levi. I was the one who found Professor Levi. He subscribes to my Substack and saw my frustration and reached out to me.
Professor Levi is a hero… one of the few (perhaps only) MIT faculty members who independently looked at the data and came to the same (obvious) conclusion that the vaccines were bad news. All of his attempts to persuade other MIT faculty members to look at the underlying data were unsuccessful. So now I don’t feel so bad. It’s not just me. People just don’t like to be shown they are wrong…especially on something that is life threatening.
I asked Dean how I could convince her that the MIT policies on the vaccine and masking were wrong. She replied that science advances through peer-reviewed research.
I said sure, but that process has been corrupted. She agreed with that but said that’s the way it is.
She was not interested in looking at any data that would challenge her beliefs that the vaccines are safe and effective
Next, I asked if I could meet with her to share the data showing the vaccines are unsafe. She said she was not interested in that because that isn’t her field.
That’s interesting because right after our conversation, she gave a talk about how she is fascinated by all areas of science and loves her job as Dean since she gets to learn about all the cool stuff going on at MIT.
Yet she is not interested in seeing data that challenges her beliefs that affect everyone at MIT, and that has likely caused injury and perhaps death of MIT students, staff, and faculty members. So her intellectual curiosity basically stops at the point that I challenge her strongly held beliefs.
I said that it is really important that there should be an OPEN discussion between the different points of view on the vaccine. She agreed.
She then gave her talk.
After the talk, I asked her if she would “walk the talk.” Specifically, would she publicly call out the “experts” who refuse to be challenged to have an open discussion with those who have differing views?
Her answer was “no” she wouldn’t call for this because she thinks the vaccines are safe.
I pressed her on this. I believe that her role as Dean of Science at MIT includes championing science in public policy. When public policy is based on bad science, all our science leaders should be speaking out about that. At that very instant, she and her handlers insisted that “she had to leave” before she could answer my question.
So I then sent her the following email offering to finish the conversation.
Dean Mavalvala,
I’m sorry you were rushed at the end and we didn’t have time to continue our conversation.
This is important to resolve as we believe that over 100,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccine and we have 10 different ways to show that. If we are right, the vaccines should be immediately stopped and not mandated at MIT.
I would like to finish our conversation on a zoom call. It would take less than 5 minutes.
I think you have a responsibility to call for the right thing which is an open discussion between the two sides. You agreed this was the right thing to do before your speech.
This isn’t going to be resolved by “peer reviewed science” since that process has been corrupted (which you acknowledged). Also, resolution of differences through publication of peer reviewed studies is a laborious, time consuming process that has been corrupted.
It’s important to have the disagreements over the vaccine resolved ASAP as a huge number of Americans refuse to be vaccinated. Are they justified? It’s a matter of great public concern.
Open discussions are a faster, more efficient way to resolve such differences. This is especially important when we are in a state of emergency.
For example, in less than 2 hours, we were able to resolve all of our issues with the Bangladesh mask study due to the interactive nature of the discussion. In just 2 hours, it became clear to any objective viewer that the study failed to show masks worked. This would have taken years to resolve via peer review since there would be conflicting papers.
In addition, science is supposed to encourage resolution of differences through discussion and debate rather than censorship.
I note that the scientists who disagree with the mainstream narrative WANT an open discussion/debate on the key issues.
Yet those who claim the vaccines are safe and effective WANT censorship and REFUSE to be held accountable.
For example, this happened in Canada where 3 top Canadian scientists asked for a discussion with Canada’s health authorities. The authorities did not show up at the table. They sent no one. How do we resolve our differences when the other side is afraid to show up at the table?
As Dean of Science at MIT you should be speaking out publicly against the censorship of scientists because you should be a defender of Science. Similarly, I believe you should call for those who promote the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety to accept challenges from legitimate qualified scientists. You could say this is not your role, but the fact is that no other prominent person is stepping up to the plate to do this. As a defender of science, it is your responsibility to step in and make things right, don’t you think? If not, who will?
-steve
I will let you know if I hear back. Don’t hold your breath.
If you know anyone at MIT, be sure to share this article with them.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
Trans agenda is ‘normalization of sadism’ – US author
RT | September 23, 2026
The US Democratic Party has embraced a transgender agenda that amounts to “the normalization of sadism,” author A.J. Rice has said, warning that radical trans policies would return if the party is allowed to regain power.
Speaking to RT’s America First host Scotty Nell Hughes about his new book, ‘The Curse of the Bearded Lady: How the Trans Mafia Whacked American Sanity’, Rice argued that activists have gained significant influence in schools, medicine, and corporate America while people who questioned the agenda have faced pressure to stay silent.
The author described the “trans mafia” as the sprawling network of people and institutions that have helped the movement gain influence. He singled out parts of academia, wealthy backers, and corporations, and stated that providers of transition-related treatment also have a financial incentive to keep young people in their care indefinitely.
Rice argued that the consequences of these policies ultimately fall on children who are being drawn toward gender-affirming medical treatments and on girls who are expected to share locker rooms or compete in sports with biological males.
He noted that while voters rejected the Democrats’ approach to gender in 2024, the party, which has been “captured by madness,” has since only doubled down and is seeking what is effectively “the normalization of sadism.” … Full report
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘We don’t seek permission to defend our country’: Snippets from President Pezeshkian’s UNGA address
- NATO chief wants Europeans to fight American wars [for Israel]
- German chemicals giant reveals details of downsizing
- Refaat Al-Areer Was The Canary In The Coal Mine In Israel’s War On The Truth
- Israeli election committee bars candidate from Knesset race over Gaza war opposition
- French-Lebanese man files war crimes complaint over Israeli attacks
- Mahan Air Flight Lands in China Despite US Threat against Iranian Airlines
- US eyes $10bn fund to rebuild war-battered Gulf infrastructure
- Trump meets Rodríguez near Maduro’s prison as Venezuela’s oil flows to US
- Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
