Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

MY LETTER TO SEN BILL CASSIDY, MD

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 31, 2025

Del has a message for Senator Bill Cassidy, who headed the second of two fiery hearings of RFK Jr. for head of HHS.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. Pushes Back on Chronic Disease, Autism and Agency Corruption

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 30, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hit back at Congress members who attacked his stance on vaccines and the chronic disease epidemic, suggesting today during his second U.S. Senate hearing to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that several members have accepted donations from Big Pharma.

One day after his first confirmation hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, which included an exchange with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) about onesies sold on the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) website, Kennedy testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, for which Sanders is a ranking member.

During an exchange with Sanders, Kennedy said, “Corruption is not just in the federal agencies, it is in Congress too. Almost all the members of this panel … including yourself, are accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.”

This was one of several contentious moments during today’s meeting, which also focused on vaccine safety, the chronic disease epidemic and conflicts of interest in scientific research.

Kennedy frequently questioned the effectiveness of U.S. public health agencies in addressing the chronic health epidemic, which he said has come at a great cost both in terms of fatalities and the epidemic’s economic burden.

“The focus is on infectious disease, and we almost altogether ignore chronic disease, which causes 92% of the deaths in this country,” Kennedy said. Noting that the U.S. had a disproportionate percentage of COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic, Kennedy said it is because “we are the sickest people on earth.”

Kennedy pledged to reverse this trend, if confirmed as HHS secretary, by emphasizing transparency and “good science.”

‘I’m pro-good science’

Unlike yesterday’s hearing, today’s hearing focused extensively on Kennedy’s views on vaccines and vaccine safety. Kennedy responded to claims he is “anti-vaccine” and “anti-industry.”

“I’m neither. I’m pro-safety. I’m pro-good science,” Kennedy said. “We should always follow the evidence no matter what it says.” Kennedy said he wouldn’t “impose” his opinions on HHS scientists. Instead, he would support examining “all the data” by empowering HHS scientists to do their job.

“We will have the best vaccine standards, with safety studies,” Kennedy said.

Much of the discussion about vaccines centered on rising autism rates, with Kennedy noting that they have increased from 1 in 10,000 to as high as 1 in 34, calling this an “explosion” that public health agencies have long overlooked.

Kennedy referred to a recent peer-reviewed study of 47,000 9-year-olds to respond to claims by members of the committee that the link between autism and vaccines has been definitively debunked. The study found that autism rates were higher among vaccinated children and increased as the number of vaccinations grew.

“Why don’t we know what’s causing this epidemic?” Kennedy asked. “Why hasn’t CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] been looking at other hypotheses to determine the etiology of why we’ve had this dramatic 1,000% increase in this disease that is destroying our kids?”

Several members of the committee openly agreed with Kennedy’s stance on autism.

“1-in-36. If that’s not a pandemic, then what is?” asked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). “Can any of you guys with a straight face say that we shouldn’t look at every aspect to what we’re putting in our kids, be it from the food to the vaccines?”

“I just want to follow the science where it leads, without presupposition,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

‘We need a trustworthy government’

Kennedy also addressed the COVID-19 vaccines, stating that mandates and a lack of public trust in their safety have contributed to waning vaccination rates.

“If we want uptake of vaccines, we need a trustworthy government,” Kennedy said. “That’s what I want to restore to the American people and the vaccine program. I want people to know if the government says something, it’s true. It’s not manipulative.”

Kennedy responded to claims by some committee members that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives, pointing out that this statement can’t be made definitively because public health agencies “don’t have a good surveillance system.”

Kennedy cited a 2021 lawsuit he filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, as an example of deficiencies in the safety testing by public health agencies.

“I filed that lawsuit after CDC recommended the vaccine for 6-year-old children without any evidence that it would benefit them and without testing,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy said he would “support the vaccine program” — but by ensuring “that we have gold-standard, evidence-based science.”

‘A generation of kids’ has been ‘written off’

Kennedy suggested that agency capture and the entanglement of Big Pharma with drug regulation and safety, have adversely affected Americans’ health outcomes.

“Prescription drugs are now the third-largest cause of death in our country … Americans are getting less and less healthy. Seventy percent of pharmaceutical profits globally come from our country, which has 4.2% of the world’s population. We’re the only country that allows full-scale pharmaceutical ads on TV,” Kennedy said.

“A generation of kids” has been “written off” as a result of factors such as “misplaced institutional loyalty” and “entanglements with the drug companies,” Kennedy said.

“Our country will sink beneath a sea of desperation and debt if we don’t change course and ask the fundamental question, ‘Why are healthcare costs so high in the first place?’ The obvious answer to that question is chronic disease,” Kennedy said.

According to Kennedy, “a very little, low percentage” of the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is devoted to studying chronic disease — and the toxins that cause them. He vowed to change this if confirmed.

“We are allowing these companies — because of their influence over this body, over our regulatory agencies, to mass-poison American children. And that’s wrong. It needs to end,” Kennedy said. “The president’s pledge is not to make some Americans healthy again, but to make all Americans healthy again.”

Kennedy’s message drew the support of some of the committee’s members including Paul, who in a post on X said, “RFK Jr. has my vote.” Despite his contentious series of exchanges with Kennedy, Sanders also expressed support for Kennedy’s agenda to “Make America Healthy Again.”

According to Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, today’s hearing was “a courtesy hearing.” Yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Finance Committee “is the decisive vote that will take the final vote to the Senate floor.”

Kennedy will then require a simple majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed as HHS secretary. If confirmed, Kennedy will lead a department that oversees 13 public health agencies, including the CDC, FDA and NIH.

Related articles in The Defender

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.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The scourge of prosocial censorship

By John Ridgway | Climate Scepticism | January 25, 2025

On 30th April 2014 a Swedish meteorologist caused shock waves to reverberate across the international community of climate scientists. This was not because he had made a major discovery, nor had he been involved in a scientific scandal. But what he had done was to commit the cardinal sin of joining the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The reason why to some this was so shocking was because he wasn’t just any old Swedish meteorologist; he was Professor Lennart Bengtsson, the former head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts before becoming its director until 1990. He had then moved on to become director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Amongst his many accolades he had been awarded the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996, the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research in 2005, and the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization in 2006. In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology.

Only a fortnight later the same Swedish meteorologist caused an aftershock by resigning from the same foundation. The self-appointed guardians of scientific truth at DeSmog will tell you that it was because he hadn’t quite realised what a shower of reprobates he had joined and so he quickly learned to regret his actions. However, this is what Bengtsson said in his resignation letter:

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF… Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

Bengtsson’s censorious colleagues seemed quick to prove his point by denouncing his accusation that they had denounced him. Gavin Schmidt, for example, dismissed his reference to McCarthyism as being “ridiculous”, suggesting instead that it was the brave scientists such as himself who were the real victims of a witch hunt.

Appalling though it may seem that Professor Bengtsson should have been treated this way, he cannot claim to have not seen it coming. Earlier that same year a paper, in which he had the temerity to suggest that the projected warming was unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as others had maintained, was rejected by the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters on the basis that his findings were “less than helpful“. By way of clarification, the peer reviewer concerned added the reproof, “actually it [the paper] is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side“. When Bengtsson and others, such as meteorologist Hans von Storch, condemned the rejection as scandalous, the journal’s publisher was eager to play down the comments made by the peer reviewer, claiming instead that the paper simply did not meet the journal’s high standards. Yes, that old chestnut.

What Bengtsson had in fact been subjected to is prosocial censorship. It is a form of censorship in which work is rejected, and individuals cancelled, not because the work is substandard or flawed, but because it threatens to undermine a cherished ideology or someone else’s concept of societal safety and harmony. Such censorship is never portrayed as such, of course; the reason given is always that the individual(s) concerned were peddling substandard work leading to harmful misinformation.

For example, if you were to be an Emeritus Professor of Risk with an international reputation for expertise in forensic statistics, but you then produced work that called into question government figures that seemed to be misrepresenting the severity of a pandemic or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, you could expect your career to be cancelled on the basis that you are peddling harmful misinformation.

If, for example, you were to be a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist with more than fifteen years of experience pioneering psychotherapy for patients with gender dysphoria, but you then dared to say that everything in your professional experience had led you to the inescapable conclusion that transgender activists were guilty of promoting inappropriate physical interventions to deal with a basically psychological problem, then you could expect to be denounced as “the most evil dangerous Nazi Psychiatrist in the world” — and a transphobe for good measure.

If, for example, you were a physicist at CERN with a bright future ahead of you, but were then to suggest that the unbalanced gender representation within your field had nothing to do with patriarchy and everything to do with inherent gender traits, then you could expect to be vilified as a misogynist and ostracised by your fellow scientists.

And if, for example, you were to be a prominent climate scientist who had pointed out that self-censorship was rife within your field and that it was responsible for the absence of papers published in prominent journals that quantify both the climatic and non-climatic causations of wildfires, then you could expect the likes of the Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward to bleat that “Unfortunately, his bogus narrative has predictably been seized upon by the opponents of action to tackle climate change“. Worse still, none other than Professor Ken Rice (think poor man’s Sabine Hossenfelder) would be moved to refer to you as if you are now dead to them:

“Given that there can be preferred narratives within scientific communities, it is always good for there to be people who are regarded as credible and who push back against them. Even if you don’t agree with them, they can still present views that are worth thinking about. In my view, Patrick used to be one of those people.” [His emphasis]

Oh, the shame of it all!

In the above examples, the common narrative is one of a previously respected expert who had sadly fallen from grace because they couldn’t help themselves and had allowed their toxic opinions to compromise their ability to stick to the truth. As a consequence, they instantaneously transform into incompetent bad actors who are a danger to society, heartily deserving of prompt and emphatic prosocial censorship.

To be clear, these are not isolated examples. A recent research paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that both self-censorship and the prosocial censorship of colleagues are commonplace within the sciences — and the problem is only getting worse. Some of the figures make for grim reading:

A recent national survey of US faculty at four-year colleges and universities found the following: 1) 4 to 11% had been disciplined or threatened with discipline for teaching or research; 2) 6 to 36% supported soft punishment (condemnation, investigations) for peers who make controversial claims, with higher support among younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty; 3) 34% had been pressured by peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25% reported being “very” or “extremely” likely to self-censor in academic publications; and 5) 91% reported being at least somewhat likely to self-censor in publications, meetings, presentations, or on social media.

There are, however, trends to be observed. Censorship is more of a problem in the social sciences than within STEM faculties. Women are keener to censor than are their male colleagues. And whilst right-leaning academics are more likely to engage in self-censorship, the left-leaning are far more likely to approve of the prosocial censorship of a colleague. Since prosocial censorship biases both the selection and promotion of staff members, it follows that the system is currently structured in such a way as to entrench the preponderance of left-leaning academics in senior positions. Worse still, the appetite for prosocial censorship is greater within the ranks of the PhDs than it is within faculty staff, suggesting that – to borrow a turn of phrase favoured by climate scientists – the problem is baked in for the future.

As the terminology suggests, those who advocate prosocial censorship will often do so for what they perceive to be the best of possible motives. Most commonly, the intention is to prevent research from being appropriated by “malevolent actors to support harmful policies and attitudes”. Sometimes the research is considered too dangerous to pursue, and in many other cases the censorship is aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. However, no matter how well-intended, the censorship comes with many obvious risks, the clearest of which is the possible suppression of the truth in the cause of a ‘greater good’.

At its most petty, all that may be at stake is one person’s reputation at the expense of a competitor. At its most extreme, prosocial censorship could involve a “wilful blindness of authorities” covering up a heinous crime for fear of offending a section of society, or for fear of giving encouragement to a right-wing that is assumed to be looking for any excuse to destabilise. Somewhere in the middle are the concerns harboured by the climate sceptic. Whilst we understand that science is not supposed to operate by consensus, we would, nevertheless, like to believe that an emergent consensus is the result of a developing common knowledge, rather than the result of social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship. Unfortunately, knowing that Professor Bengtsson’s experiences are far from unique does nothing to encourage such a belief. And, when all is said and done, that is the greatest shame of all. Prosocial censorship may seem a good idea, but it isn’t in the least bit desirable when it undermines the integrity of a discipline and causes widespread distrust amongst the wider community.

January 28, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

NY Times, Again, Tries to Normalize Injecting Kids With Neurotoxins

By Jefferey Jaxen | January 26, 2025

Normalizing neurotoxic vaccine adjuvants has been a bread and butter staple for corporate media for over a decade. 15 years ago it was local KEYE TV CBS Austin who, with a straight face and The Science™-like authoritative tone, told you that injecting mercury ‘helps kids.’

Now, our friends at the New York Times just ran the headline, Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing.

In the article, the NY Times admits, “… aluminum adjuvants are found in 27 routine vaccines, and nearly half of those recommended for children under 5.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, aluminum adjuvants are literally toxic to the human body, causing cellular and nerve death. The corporate media and public health experts will tell you that the aluminum is just in the shots for a little bump… just to kick up the inflammation a notch.

Aluminum adjuvants also cause immune dysregulation, and are used in labs to induce autoimmunity in mice.

Yet aluminum adjuvants are included in 27 shots for children under 5 boasts the NY Times.

Harmful… helpful… or both?

To settle some of the controversy, attorneys representing the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce the studies relied upon to claim injected aluminum is safe.

It took HHS (CDC’s parent agency) nearly three and a half years to come up with its final response in 2022, stating it could not locate a single study.

ICAN’s attorneys also sent the same request to the NIH, which responded the same way, conceding that no records were found.

If the science is ‘robust’ and ‘settled’… where is it?

As far as amounts, we know it’s just a small, precise amount of neurotoxin to kick off inflammation in the body… right?

Back in 2021, top aluminum researchers measured the aluminum content of thirteen infant vaccines and compared it to what the manufacturer’s data claimed was in the shots. The researchers found the following:

If researchers were able to independently verify the neurotoxic aluminum content in test samples, surly the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actively monitoring them to ensure both efficacy and safety. Right?

In 2021, ICAN submitted a petition asking the FDA to:

“… publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each Subject Vaccine is consistent with amount provided in its labeling”

The FDA has yet to release said documentation.

Until manufactures are able to switch the current class of vaccine tech over to next- generation mRNA platforms, the aluminum-adjuvanted shots appear to need defending at all costs.

Disingenuous corporate media outlets and public health experts are using the public’s lack of understanding on this subject to construct hit-pieces in the run-up RFK Jr’s confirmation hearing this Wednesday and Thursday.

Meanwhile, another longtime staple of deceptive media has made a sudden comeback this week as the inaccurate and ignorant slur ‘anti-vax’ is being slung across headlines.

No real journalist would use that word… especially now post-pandemic in the wake of failed shot mandates and delayed compensation for harms caused by the COVID shots in the CICP.

The ‘anti-vax’ industry talking point has become an intellectually lazy attempt to neutralize opposition to greater inconvenient truths. No serious person uses it anymore and expects to not endure rightful scorn and ridicule. It most likely is having the opposite effect whenever it is floated.

January 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

They Think We Are Stupid, Volume 13

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | January 27, 2025

Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you. As always, these headlines are presented without commentary.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy

By Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.

Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).

Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.

This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

World-renowned scientist Dr. Willie Soon: Delivers hilarious informative video about climate

https://twitter.com/WatchGorillaSci/status/1881720432619077901

January 26, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Biden and Trump Administrations Commit Combined Billions to mRNA Vaccine Technologies

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 22, 2025

The Biden and Trump administrations in the last week threw money and political weight behind mRNA vaccine development, sparking backlash from critics concerned about serious safety and efficacy issues tied to the technology.

The Biden administration on Friday awarded Moderna $590 million to fund its work on mRNA vaccines for bird flu and other influenza strains with “pandemic potential,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced.

During a press conference on his second day in office, Trump voiced political support for a $500 billion private-sector project called Stargate.

The joint venture is between OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and others to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence (AI). Part of that project involves AI for early cancer detection and the rapid creation of mRNA cancer vaccines.

The Trump administration developed the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines under Operation Warp Speed in 2020. After Trump left office, the Biden administration poured billions into mRNA vaccine development.

Given Trump’s embrace of the MAHA movement and his nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head up HHS, some predicted his second administration might take a more critical stance toward such vaccines.

“It is deeply concerning, though not entirely surprising, that the incoming Trump administration is continuing to pursue massive funding for mRNA technology, including speculative cancer therapies,” author and natural health expert Sayer Ji told The Defender.

“This direction underscores a troubling bipartisan embrace of experimental biotechnologies, despite the catastrophic fallout from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which have been linked to unprecedented adverse events, disabilities and deaths,” he added.

Biden gives last-minute windfall to Moderna

The Biden administration awarded Moderna $590 million through HHS’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, which has been working with Moderna since 2023 to develop mRNA vaccines for flu vaccines with pandemic potential, including avian influenza A.

Last year BARDA gave the biotech company $176 million as part of the same initiative.

HHS said the new round of funding will help Moderna accelerate the development of a bird flu vaccine matched to strains currently circulating in cattle and birds. It will also expand the clinical data needed if other flu strains with pandemic potential emerge.

Moderna said in a statement that it plans to launch a Phase 3 study for its investigational pandemic influenza vaccine (mRNA-1018) after “positive” Phase 1/2 results, which will be released to the public at an upcoming meeting.

“It seems to me that this last-minute night and fog action by the Biden administration is designed to shovel as much dough to Moderna as possible to mitigate the risk posed by Robert Kennedy, provided he gets through Senate confirmation,” John Leake at the McCullough Foundation told The Defender. “Putting the brakes on that is a plausible interpretation.”

With the funding, Moderna also will design and test an H7N9 pandemic influenza vaccine in a Phase 3 trial. The company will design up to four more “novel pandemic influenza” vaccines that it will test in preliminary safety and immunogenicity studies.

“mRNA technology will complement existing vaccine technology, allowing us to move faster and better target emerging viruses to protect Americans’ against future pandemics,” said Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Dawn O’Connell. BARDA is part of ASPR within HHS.

The award is the latest component of the BARDA Influenza and Emerging Infectious Diseases Division’s medical countermeasure portfolio, set to continue to make major investments in “medical countermeasures” for potential pandemics as part of BARDA’s 2022-2026 strategic plan.

BARDA administers the funding through its Rapid Response Partnership Vehicle (RRPV), a technical financial vehicle that allows it to fund private industry through collaborations that are not subject to the same regulations as other federal funding.

On Jan. 16, the day before HHS announced the $590 million for Moderna, the agency announced another $211 million award to BARDA’s RRPV to “support development and long-term manufacturing capability of an RNA-based vaccine platform technology to combat evolving 21st century biothreats.”

RRPV is soliciting proposals for mRNA vaccine developers to develop a broad response capability. It seeks proposals that will first develop mRNA flu vaccines and then, once they are licensed, focus on continual pandemic preparedness exercises. Applications are due by Jan. 31.

Trump throws weight behind mRNA technology

Although the Trump administration did not promise funding for Stargate, the president endorsed the initiative and reversed a Biden administration executive order that Republicans said hindered AI development.

“I’m gonna help a lot through emergency declarations, because we have an emergency, we have to get this stuff built,” Trump said.

During the press conference announcing the initiative, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison touted the promise of AI and mRNA vaccines. He said AI would be able to detect cancer in its early stages and customize mRNA vaccines to treat them within 48 hours.

Critics pointed to the unprecedented number of adverse effects associated with existing mRNA vaccines, the lack of success in cancer vaccines thus far, and ethical concerns associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, Ji wrote on Substack.

“That is not a vaccine,” Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said, commenting on the concept. “That’s a gene therapy. What we’ve seen from the COVID mRNA shots is that they’ve been disastrous for the immune system.” Holland noted that the injections themselves have been linked to turbo cancers.

Other experts also cast doubt on the idea. “That’s not going to happen,” oncologist Vinay Prasad wrote on his Substack.

Prasad said hundreds of cancer therapeutic vaccines have been studied and failed. The one that received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended survival by only four months.

There is no reason that mRNA vaccines would have greater success, given the compromised immune system of cancer patients, he added.

Additionally, Prasad said, mRNA vaccines, “clearly have unique and idiosyncratic toxicity. Because they were pushed so hard for covid-19, there’s a huge fraction of the public who does not want them. They do have unexplored long-term safety questions. I’m not going to be standing in line to get any. “

Ji told The Defender that Trump’s support for the initiative had been “particularly disheartening” for the MAHA movement.

“Trump ran on a platform of health sovereignty and freedom, yet this Stargate initiative feels like a significant departure from those values,” Ji said. He added:

“Instead of investing in regenerative, self-healing approaches to health and addressing the root causes of diseases like cancer, resources are being funneled into a technology that many view as inherently transgenic and transhumanistic, violating core principles of health and human dignity.”

Leake, a critic of the COVID-19 vaccines and the power concentrated in the bio-pharmaceutical complex, said he was less concerned about Ellison’s statements than others.

He wrote on Substack that he thinks it’s better for Trump to “capture the Billionaire Nerds” than to shun them. He told The Defender the tech billionaires already have so much power over the deep state and the legislature that pragmatically, Trump will have to negotiate with them.

“Trump doesn’t have control over Larry Ellison’s tongue. Larry Ellison is going to say what Larry wants to say,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that in any US government deal that is ultimately consummated with Larry Ellison as a partner that his fantasies about mRNA have to be realized. It’s just Larry Ellison spitballing.”

Elon Musk also doubted the claims touted in the press conference. He wrote on X that the companies “don’t actually have the money” to back their pledged infrastructure investment.

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.

January 25, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Collapse Of The Antarctic Sea Ice Scam

By Tony Heller | January 15, 2025

Academics and the press have been attempting to profit from a completely fictional story about Antarctica, which has collapsed.

January 24, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Why Trump’s Hypersonic Theft Allegations Are Flat-Out False

Sputnik – 24.01.2025

President Trump claimed that Russia stole the design for hypersonic missiles during the Obama administration, stating in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “some bad person gave them the design,” while also boasting that the US would have even better super hypersonic missiles.

Yury Knutov, military expert and historian of the Air Defense Forces, refuted Trump’s claim, explaining to Sputnik that:

  • First, there’s no need for Russia to steal US technology since it showcased the first hypersonic device back in 1991.

“The Soviet Union always outpaced the US in terms of resistance of materials-related work [vital for hypersonic missiles]. While the US focused on electronics and microchips,” Knutov told Sputnik.

  • This led to the creation of the first-ever hypersonic laboratory, Kholod (lit. Frost).
  • A model of the S-200 missile fitted with a Kholod was bought by the Americans in the 1990s, who thoroughly studied the relevant documentation.
  • Russia now has hypersonic missiles in three domains: air-based Kinzhal, sea-based Zircon, and land-based Oreshnik missiles. “Something no other country in the world has. This is why we outstrip the US in this regard.”
  • “The country that was the first to launch a hypersonic vehicle cannot steal anything from the US, which only last year successfully tested a hypersonic missile.”

“As for Trump’s claims, he was either misled or made up a story to compensate for the failures of the US military-industrial complex. On the other hand, Trump apparently needs an argument in Congress to increase funding for the US hypersonic weapons program,” Knutov concluded.

January 24, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Scientific Societies Err on ‘Climate Change’

By Wallace Manheimer | American Thinker | January 10, 2025

Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States. It is therefore imperative for all that their views be based on sound science, and if not, these societies should change their statements.

A recent publication and podcast have examined the scientific organization’s climate statements, and have found numerous errors, errors which are easy to find by simply comparing the societies’ statements with data from such reliable sources as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Here is one example. The AGU states “Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life from space, and measurements of crop production, have shown that if anything, increasing CO2 has increased both plant life and crop production. After all, CO2 is a vital nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we have experienced, possibly in part due to the increased CO2, has increased the growing seasons in the temperate latitudes.

As another example, the ACS statement asserts: “Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts… are increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being.”. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is measured by what is called NOAA’s Palmer drought index and this index is displayed as a graph vs of index versus year. It shows clearly, that in the United States the worst sustained droughts in the U.S. were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were in the 1970s through the 1990s.

Tens of thousands of scientists, including over 10,000 with Ph.Ds., have critically examined the evidence, and have concluded that a CO2-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They have willingly and publicly asserted this, by adding their names to document such as, the Oregon petition, Clintel Climate Petition , and the CO2 Coalition. Among other things, the societies should not ignore these, professional conclusions of many of their members.

Accordingly, and with humility, I suggest that these societies do the following:

  1. Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
  2. Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
  3. Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
  4. Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.

By changing their statements to ones that are more moderate and scientifically correct, these societies will not only be helping the professions they serve, but more important, will ultimately be aiding humanity. On the other hand, if they keep their statements as they are, they will remain on the wrong side of history, and posterity will not look kindly on them. And posterity may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “green new scam,” these society presidents may find themselves hauled before Congress to receive the university president treatment.

After all, the APS statement says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.” What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater? Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today. Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed. Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

There are many such statements that Congress can quote, to very publicly humiliate these society presidents. As a committed life fellow of the APS, I hope these societies will change their statements now, before the roof collapses on them.

January 23, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

FL GRAND JURY EXPOSES COVID VACCINE HARMS AND FAILURES

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 16, 2025

 

January 22, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »