The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will no longer fund research on “vaccine hesitancy” and strategies for increasing vaccine uptake, The Washington Post reported Monday.
According to Science, the NIH sent notices canceling or reducing grants to the affected researchers, stating:
“It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focus on gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”
NIH will terminate at least 33 vaccine hesitancy grants, Science reported. Nine other grants will be modified or reduced.
The terminations came after NIH, on behalf of interim director Matthew Memoli, asked each of its institutes to develop a list of ongoing and future vaccine hesitancy grants.
Science reported that the agency is considering taking similar action for research related to mRNA products.
Of the terminated grants, 14 were funded by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases — the agency formerly led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — and focused on vaccines for COVID-19, chickenpox, mpox (formerly monkeypox), HPV and a hypothetical gonorrhea vaccine.
“The project appeared on the list because one of its aims ‘is to evaluate health care worker’s [sic] and potential patient’s attitudes towards acceptance of a gonorrhea vaccine if one is developed,’” Science reported.
Other canceled grants targeted modeling of disease outbreaks or “promoting vaccine uptake among racial minority groups or understanding why some parents are reluctant to accept childhood and adolescent vaccines.”
NIH did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Grants targeted ‘vaccine-hesitant’ minority and conservative communities
The Defender previously reported on multiple taxpayer-funded grants, including some awarded by the NIH, that funded research on decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing HPV vaccine uptake.
The Defender obtained the grant information through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in 2023 and 2024
One set of documents, obtained in 2023, revealed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a $4.7 million grant to a scientist — and paid consultant for Merck — to conduct research on how to increase teen uptake of the HPV vaccine. Merck manufactures Gardasil, the only HPV vaccine available in the U.S.
In 2024, the grant’s principal investigator, Noel Brewer, Ph.D., a psychologist and professor in the Department of Health Behavior at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations.
FOIA documents Children’s Health Defense (CHD) received in 2024 revealed that HHS issued $4 million to fund the development of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to “inoculate” social media users against HPV vaccine “misinformation” posted on social media.
Other documents CHD received in 2023 revealed that HHS granted $600,000 for research on how to increase HPV vaccine uptake among Black teens, and that NIH granted $519,399 for a four-year study on a smartphone tool to increase HPV vaccine uptake among adolescents whose parents are “vaccine-hesitant.”
The NIH also funded such studies overseas. FOIA documents CHD received in 2024 showed that NIH awarded $340,000 to test psychological tactics aimed at persuading South African fifth-graders and parents to accept the HPV vaccine.
In 2023, documents showed that the CDC had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in grants since 2021 for the development of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for the training of “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in each U.S. state.
The CDC also funded “Chair Care,” a New Mexico program that trained and paid hairstylists as “trusted messengers” that would target the state’s Hispanic, Black, Native American and conservative populations, who were shown to have the lowest vaccine uptake and highest “vaccine hesitancy.”
‘Vaccine hesitancy’ research targeted personal choice not to vaccinate
“There’s no such thing as ‘vaccine hesitancy,’” Rogers said. “The term itself is completely Orwellian. It was likely coined by an expensive Big Pharma PR firm. The purpose of the term is to cast aspersions on parents who do proper research on the risks of medical interventions,” Rogers said.
According to Rogers, studies like those being discontinued were likely backed by pharmaceutical companies to ascertain how to increase vaccine demand.
“Studies on so-called ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘overcoming vaccine hesitancy’ are thinly disguised marketing studies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry,” Rogers said. “Big Pharma makes plenty of money. American taxpayers should not be paying for marketing studies on behalf of one of the most vile industries on Earth.”
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher said it is inappropriate for the NIH to allocate resources to study people’s personal health choices.
“The purpose of studying vaccine hesitancy is to find ways to increase vaccine uptake in individuals that have made the personal choice to not vaccinate with a particular product,” Hulscher said. “The federal government should simply respect their choice and not waste valuable resources and taxpayer money on trying to change their minds.”
Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said that during the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to address “vaccine hesitancy” resulted in gimmicks intended to increase uptake of the COVID-19 shots — and punish those who declined vaccination.
“During COVID, we had health officials combating ‘vaccine hesitancy’ with bribes of lottery tickets, donuts, even free beer, and meting out punishments such as being fired from one’s job. Medical practice surrounding vaccines descended to a disgracefully unethical state during COVID,” Baker said.
mRNA research grants next on NIH’s chopping block?
Citing an internal NIH memo sent March 6, Science reported that Memoli “has requested information on NIH’s investment in mRNA vaccines research,” including ongoing or planned grants and contracts, and collaborations with outside partners.
NIH institutes and programs were asked to respond by this week.
Hulscher drew parallels between mRNA research and “vaccine hesitancy” research.
“Vaccine hesitancy will remain high as a result of the federal government authorizing and mandating experimental modified mRNA injections that are suspected to have killed, injured or permanently disabled over a million Americans. The longer this disaster remains unacknowledged, the harder it will be to regain the trust of Americans,” Hulscher said.
According to the Post, it is “unclear” whether HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “had a role, directly or indirectly, in the move to cancel these grants.”
HHS oversees federal health agencies, including NIH and the CDC.
Scientists and doctors quoted by the Post expressed concern over the NIH’s planned cuts of “vaccine hesitancy” research.
Manoj Sharma, Ph.D., a professor of social and behavioral health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who received a previous CDC grant for vaccine hesitancy research, told the Post, “There is an urgent need to enhance vaccine acceptance behavior, especially due to the potential resurgence of measles and COVID-19 still looming.”
But for Baker, “This statement exemplifies the real goal of these studies, which is not to study behaviors, but to drive behaviors in a predetermined direction.” He added:
“‘Vaccine hesitancy’ grants do not fund scientific inquiry so much as psychological manipulation programs. They reject freedom of choice in favor of a predetermined behavior. It is a form of coercion. Coercion, be it subtle or obvious, is the opposite of informed consent.
“Informed consent is absolutely central to the ethical practice of medicine. NIH should not fund research that undermines the ethical practice of medicine.”
Hulscher suggested that NIH resources previously earmarked for “vaccine hesitancy” studies “should be allocated to proper safety testing of the entire childhood vaccine schedule, where there are currently no products licensed based on long-term placebo-controlled trials.”
Other experts suggested that these resources could be used to rectify harms related to the promotion — or mandate — of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.
“The money saved from cancelling these studies should instead be paid to independent researchers who are documenting the experiences of the millions of Americans injured by vaccines,” Rogers said.
“The grant money would be better used to produce a historical document of the abuses of informed consent during COVID, than to continue these psychological manipulation programs disguised as scientific inquiry,” Baker said.
BY DONALD C. KIRKMAN Scripps Howard Staff Writer WASHINGTON: A group of scientists say there are disturbing signs that the world’s average temperature has started to decline and that the Earth may face another catastrophic ice age in hundreds or thousands of years.
In a report soon to be released, the scientists say evidence is accumulating that the world has experienced unusually warm temperatures for the last 10,000 years and soon will revert to a colder, more hostile climate that man will find difficult to cope with.
The report is based on the findings of 46 geologists, climatologists and paleontologists who met last year at Brown University, Providence, R.I., to review recent studies of fossils, rock layers, sea sediments and biology.
Almost unanimously, these scientists agreed the world definitely will have another ice age similar to the one that ended 20,000 years ago when vast ice sheets covered large stretches of North America, Europe and Asia.
The only question, they believe is exactly when the new ice age will begin—or whether it already has begun.
“There already are signs the Earth is cooling in a cycle similar to those that heralded earlier great glaciations,” the report says. “And while it may take several centuries before any major global effects are felt and several thousand years before ice sheets reform, preliminary signs are already apparent.”
With the warm age ending, the scientists say the world logically can expect a colder, drier climate to crowd man southwards and reduce the world’s cultivatable land resources. Ice sheets once again could reach as far south as Philadelphia, Cleveland and Chicago in about 20,000 years.
“In the future, the report says, vast areas of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Australia increasingly will be affected by dryness of rainfall with its associated scourges—drought, soil erosion and starvation.”
To cope with this harsh, cooler world, man will have to call upon all his ingenuity and resourcefulness.”
During the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, the media briefly latched on to a study which apparently blamed climate change for making the blazes more likely to occur and also more intense. But is that really what the study says? Let’s take a look.
Dr Peter Ridd has been researching the Great Barrier Reef since 1984, has invented a range of advanced scientific instrumentation, and written over 100 scientific publications.
Since being fired by James Cook University for raising concerns about science quality assurance issues, Peter Ridd receives no payment for any of the work he does.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed it plans to study the possible link between vaccines and autism, after Reuters reported on the plan late Friday, citing two sources inside the agency.
In response to the Reuters story, the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided an identical statement:
“As President Trump said in his Joint Address to Congress, the rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening. The American people expect high quality research and transparency and that is what CDC is delivering.”
The revelation came days after President Donald Trump, in an address to Congress, referred to the rising rate of autism in the U.S. Trump, citing CDC data showing that 1 in 36 U.S. children have autism, said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is well suited to lead efforts to study the increase.
“There’s something wrong,” Trump said. “So, we’re going to find out what it is, and there’s nobody better than Bobby [Kennedy] and all of the people that are working with you.”
According to The Washington Post, Trump administration officials asked the CDC to perform the study. Newsweek reported that it is “unclear” whether Kennedy is involved in the new study. However, HHS oversees federal health agencies, including the CDC.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) senior research scientist, applauded “the CDC’s newfound curiosity in vaccines and autism.” He said the U.S. “passed an inflection point” in the 1990s, where autism “went from being a rare disease to a more common one” that has been “increasing exponentially ever since.”
“When is an appropriate time to conduct a large study on vaccines and autism? Apparently, two generations later,” Jablonowski said.
Sayer Ji, chairman and co-founder of the Global Wellness Forum, called the news a “pivotal moment, not just in the scientific exploration of vaccine safety, but in the broader issue of public trust in our institutions.”
Ji said the CDC’s plan for a large-scale study “is an implicit admission that prior investigations may have been insufficient, biased or incomplete.” He said the new study “could represent a breakthrough moment” in “resolving this critical health question” and “restoring faith in the integrity of scientific inquiry itself.”
“The cumulative effect of giving multiple vaccines at once as well as over a short period of months has not been studied as a potential contributing factor to autism,” Parks said. “Vaccines have the potential to alter a child’s immune system in ways that are unexpected.”
Parks referred to studies performed in 1970 and 1987 that found autism rates of 0.7 and 3.3 children per 10,000, respectively. “If autism were as prevalent then as it is now, we should have a large number of older autistic adults, which we do not,” Parks said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for CHD, suggested the CDC study should use an unvaccinated control group. Hooker cited his experience performing research using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, noting that the database already contains data on unvaccinated children.
A 2021 study co-authored by Hooker found that vaccinated children were significantly more likely than unvaccinated children to be diagnosed with autism.
Ji said any CDC study examining a possible vaccine-autism link should reflect Kennedy’s recent calls for “gold-standard science.”
He said:
“It must be a true gold-standard study. The methodology must be rigorous, transparent and independent, with no industry or government interference. It should be a prospective, controlled, long-term study comparing fully unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.”
Hooker said the CDC has previously not made data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink available to the public, even though it is taxpayer-funded.
“We’ve never had access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink. We’ve never had access to such a gold-standard database, and that thing takes $50 million worth of tax dollars to maintain every year. It should be open to the public,” Hooker said.
Ji said many past vaccine safety studies were flawed due to a lack of transparency.
“Historically, vaccine safety studies have been marred by selective reporting, data manipulation and redacted findings. Kennedy has long advocated for open access to government data, and if this study follows through on that promise, it would be a seismic shift toward accountability,” Ji said.
Rise in autism cannot simply be attributed to ‘better diagnosis’
Reuters attributed the rise in autism rates to “more widespread screening and the inclusion of a broader range of behaviors to describe the condition.”
Research scientist and author James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., said such claims are “pure disinformation.”
“No rigorous study has shown that these factors are responsible,” Lyons-Weiler said.
“These criteria cannot explain the 7% increase in autism following the removal of vaccine exemptions from California, which has 1 in 22, the highest rate among all states,” Lyons-Weiler said.
Ji said that prior studies claiming to debunk the vaccine-autism link should be called into question, noting that many such studies “suffer from conflicts of interest, flawed methodologies and a lack of truly unvaccinated control groups.”
According to Hooker, many previous studies were flawed because they focused only on a limited number of vaccines and vaccine components.
“The CDC and most of the open peer-reviewed literature focuses on one vaccine and one vaccine component, the MMR [measles-mumps-rubella] vaccine and thimerosal” — a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines. A 2013 study found a link between thimerosal exposure and the risk of an autism diagnosis.
Recent independently performed studies have indicated a connection between vaccines and autism.
Reuters quoted Dr. Wilbur Chen, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and former member of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, who suggested the CDC’s new study could fuel vaccine hesitancy.
“It sends the signal that there is something there that is worth investigating, so that means there must be something going on between vaccines and autism,” Chen said.
But other experts suggest that such statements conceal concerns that vaccines may not be as safe as frequently claimed.
“Americans and those who receive our vaccines overseas should be able to have confidence that American products, especially biologics that are injected into children, meet the highest safety standards,” Parks said. “By addressing parent concerns, the CDC can help to reestablish trust in its guidelines.”
“If the vaccines are safe, transparency should increase confidence, not the opposite,” Ji said. “If vaccines are as safe as claimed, then the data should confirm that and bolster confidence. The fear of ‘hesitancy’ suggests a deeper concern that the results may contradict the official narrative.”
Hooker said the new CDC study is representative of a “new era of openness” and will “encourage greater faith in our institutions and their recommendations regardless of where they fall.”
We’ve all seen or heard the stories about measles “outbreaks” in the media recently. What’s really going on? Are our children at risk? Download — for free — “The Measles Book: Thirty-Five Secrets the Government and the Media Aren’t Telling You about Measles and the Measles Vaccine.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) released “The Measles Book: Thirty-Five Secrets the Government and the Media Aren’t Telling You about Measles and the Measles Vaccine” in 2021.
“The Measles Book” presents reliable medical information from the most credible sources available. It is intended to help you make an informed choice about vaccinating your child.
The main focus is measles. However, many of the issues are relevant to other childhood vaccines. Within the book’s pages, the reader will discover 35 secrets being kept from the general public about childhood vaccines, especially the measles vaccine.
Some of those secrets include:
Vaccines are not safe for every child, and the government and pharmaceutical companies have known this for years.
Some children will get injured or die from vaccines, and the government and pharmaceutical companies know this, too.
Pharmaceutical companies have developed an incredible way to make money from vaccines — and not be held accountable.
When a child is injured or killed by a vaccine, the pharmaceutical company does not pay for the damage it caused — we do!
The information in “The Measles Book” is vital for parents who want to know how to make informed decisions for their children.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions this morning canceled a scheduled hearing on the nomination of Dr. David Weldon, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Axios was the first to break the news, stating that Weldon’s “views questioning certain vaccines have garnered attention since he was nominated months ago and were sure to play a prominent role in questioning.”
The New York Times reached Weldon by phone. The former Florida congressman said he learned of the decision last night when a White House official told him that “they didn’t have the votes to confirm” his nomination.
In a statement to media, posted on X, Weldon said, “The concern of many people is that Big Pharma was behind this, which is probably true. They are probably the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington DC giving millions of dollars to politicians on both sides of the aisle.”
Both Makary and Bhattacharya “largely breezed through” their Senate confirmation hearings and are now set to be confirmed by a full Senate vote, according to STAT News.
Given the Republican control of the Senate, it is expected that Makary and Bhattacharya will be confirmed.
Weldon nomination pulled amid Texas measles outbreak, CDC plan to study vaccines
The CDC has a $9 billion budget and staff of around 13,000, according to NBC.
According to the Times, Weldon said he had been excited about the opportunity to help restore the public’s confidence in the CDC and serve his country again.
Weldon had also been looking forward to working on the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda to address the proliferation of chronic diseases among U.S. Americans, particularly children.
In the days leading up to Weldon’s planned hearing, numerous media outlets ran a slew of articles highlighting Weldon’s history of questioning vaccine safety.
Reuters on March 7 broke the news that the CDC was planning a study on the possible link between vaccines and autism. Some senators “have expressed concerns over Weldon’s views on vaccines,” Reuters said.
The Washington Post confirmed that the CDC planned to “leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out” why autism rates are soaring, including using the agency’s Vaccine Safety Datalink database to study any possible links between vaccines and autism.
The last-minute plan to pull Weldon’s nomination came against the backdrop of news reports about the CDC’s planned study and the West Texas measles outbreak. On March 10, Forbes reported, “Vaccine Skeptic Dave Weldon Is Up To Lead CDC As Measles And Flu Rage.”
According to Forbes, Weldon was a friend of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who “holds similar and, in some cases, seemingly more extreme views on some health matters.”
Wakefield was the first author of the 1998 study, published and later retracted in The Lancet, that linked the MMR vaccine to autism in certain children.
According to STAT News, Weldon requested $1.9 million in the 2005 budget for the center to study “the biological origins” of childhood developmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, Congress chose not to fund it.
In 2007, Weldon introduced a bill “to improve vaccine safety research” that would have transferred the responsibility of tracking vaccine safety from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.
The bill stipulated that the independent agency would:
Conduct or support safety research and monitor licensed vaccines.
Develop a vaccine safety research agenda.
Evaluate means to promote compliance with federal adverse reaction reporting requirements.
Provide a clearinghouse for vaccine studies.
Ensure that functions relating to vaccine monitoring or research on adverse reactions are not carried out by anyone with a conflict of interest.
Oversee the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
Resolve U.S. conflicts of interest related to international agreements, partnerships, and activities.
However, the bill never made it to the House floor for a vote.
Cardiologist & Epidemiologist, Peter A. McCullough, MD, joins Del with a shocking study linking the origins of the current clade of H1N5 dominating the news cycle and crushing the egg industry can be tracked back to a USDA poultry research lab in Georgia.
In April 2023, Lee Turner, of Doak Shireff Lawyers LLP, took over conduct of the defence of Dr. Charles Hoffe vs. the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. Mr. Turner subsequently filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request (F23-1799) with the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to obtain data on Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI). FOI F23-1799 can be accessed at this link.
FOI F23-1799 was released in June 2024 and comprised over 1,300 pages of internal emails between BC CDC staff, Bonnie Henry, Reka Gustafson, and Monika Naus (then head of BC CDC), along with dozens of AEFI reports.
Upon reviewing FOI F23-1799, I noted key elements: discussions of AEFIs in emails, screenshots of non-public AEFI reports available through an intranet, and public-facing AEFI reports presented in chronological order. This arrangement made it possible to determine what BC public health officials like Bonnie Henry, the BC CDC and all 50+ medical health officers scattered over BC health authorities knew and when they knew it.
I reached an unsettling conclusion: BC CDC had manipulated the definition of Serious Adverse Events Following Immunization to lower the reported rates of Serious AEFIs in public-facing reports, thereby concealing the true risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. I publicly shared this finding on June 14, 2024, in a comment on Byram Bridle’s post titled Breaking News: BC Centre for Disease Control Caught Lying and Withholding Important Public Health Data.
While my expertise is not in medical science, I specialize in detecting and documenting corporate and institutional misconduct. My background is in financial statement analysis. I worked as a hedge fund research analyst and compliance officer for a boutique investment firm. I have about 15 years of independent financial research and analysis experience. My focus is uncovering white-collar fraud. I’m not a forensic accountant by any measure; I’m just someone with somewhat odd proclivities for large sets of unstructured data and enjoy immersing myself in new topics.
The Case Against Dr. Hoffe
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC cancelled its February 11, 2022 citation against Dr. Hoffe on February 5, 2025. According to one media outlet, this was done because of a “material change of circumstances.”
The College accused Dr. Hoffe of professional misconduct; specifically spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s an excerpt of the College’s accusations:
“… publicly expressing that the COVID-19 vaccinations cause microscopic blood clots that cause serious neurological harm, female infertility, and a high number of deaths that is not recognized by public health; …”
Many other doctors were publicly denouncing the COVID-19 vaccines and were persecuted by the College. However, the level of persecution against Dr. Charles Hoffe is particular. The College retained eight experts against Dr. Hoffe. Why is that?
In early 2021, Dr. Hoffe submitted a temporally- and vaccine lot-associated cluster of 11 AEFI reports to Interior Health, 10 of which involved Moderna lot #300042698, administered between January 18 and February 5, 2021.
As Dr. Hoffe began filing AEFI reports in early 2021—most notably in April and May— and went on public tours in BC warning the public about the harms of COVID-19 vaccines his actions posed a direct threat to a state narrative that sought to suppress information about vaccine-related harm. His findings challenged the political and ideological foundation underpinning the mass vaccination program and the totalitarian controls over the population that came along with it.
The evidence in FOI F23-1799 suggests that Bonnie Henry, the BC CDC, all health authorities, and all 50+ Medical Health Officers in BC were fully aware of these issues. Dr. Hoffe’s real “offence” was exposing what the BC government concealed from the public since early 2021. Dr. Hoffe’s AEFI reports constituted a cluster of AEFI associated with unexpected harms which required public health authorities to investigate and disclose to the public.
This post, and a few more to come, will cover my findings and analysis of how BC public authorities handled the COVID-19 vaccine AEFIs. … continue
Most infant formulas in the U.S. contain mostly added sugars instead of natural lactose, which experts say can harm early development, a new report from the University of Kansas shows.
“Infants may consume upwards of 60 grams of added sugars per day, or the equivalent of two soft drinks per day if they are entirely formula-fed,” researchers say in the study, published yesterday [Feb. 24, 2025] in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
The findings reveal “the staggering extent” to which sugar-laden U.S. formulas undermine federal healthy diet recommendations for infants—and cannot be easily avoided, they say.
“[Most] of the formulas that parents and caregivers feed their infants likely present a substantial risk to their infant’s health and development. Ultimately, caregivers and infants in the US deserve a formula market that promotes healthy infant development and does not promote early obesity risk.”
Added sugars provide energy but lack nutritional value, boosting the odds of rapid infant weight gain that can eventually lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. They may also make babies develop a stronger preference for sweet foods, increasing the risk of overeating and obesity later in life. And they do not support beneficial gut bacteria as well as lactose.
In contrast, lactose, which is naturally found in breast milk, cow and goat milk, is perfectly designed to support an infant’s nutrition, immune system, and gut health, researchers say. Because lactose digests slowly, it doesn’t cause the sharp spike in blood sugar that can set the stage for long-term health problems. It also satiates hunger and helps the body absorb minerals that are important for bone health.
Dr. David Ludwig, an endocrinologist and researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital who conducted some of the original studies linking sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food to obesity, calls infant formula spiked with added sugars a “metabolic nightmare for infants.”
“You lose the beneficial effects of what lactose does, and you get the harmful effects of what these fast-digesting sugars do,” Ludwig says. “Unless we’re talking about the very rare child who can’t take lactose, that should be the dominant carbohydrate.”
Out of 73 formulas available in the U.S. in 2022, the vast majority of which were for infants up to 12 months old, the researchers found only five contained mainly naturally occurring lactose—and those are no longer available in this country. It is unknown whether any formulas on the current U.S. market contain primarily naturally occurring lactose, they say.
The study also shows the quality and type of sugars in infant formulas varied by formula. Gentle (with marketing claims such as “gentle,” “soothe,” “sensitive,” or “acid reflux”) and lactose-free formulas contain less sugar than standard formulas but much more starch, the study shows.
“Our findings highlight a major problem with the infant formula supply,” says lead author Audrey Rips-Goodwin, who headed the analysis of data from the Nutrition Data System for Research for KU’s Health Behavior and Technology Lab. “Our infant formula market totally contradicts what experts in infant health recommend.”
Children under 2 years should not be given any foods or beverages with added sugars, since they need nutrient-rich diets and are developing taste preferences, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2020–2025). Yet with few formula options free of added sugars, the researchers say parents and caregivers who can’t breastfeed or access breast milk face tough choices in terms of finding a nutritionally suitable formula due to lax government regulations.
Unlike adult food products, US regulations do not require that added sugars be reported on the nutrition label of infant formulas (only total carbohydrates). The FDA specifies 30 nutrients that must be included in infant formulas but does not regulate the types of carbohydrates or require their clear labeling. That means formula manufacturers can use any type of carbohydrate, including starches or added sugars such as corn syrup solids, fructose, and glucose.
“Consumers are blinded to the fact that added sugars may be present in infant formulas, and in what quantities,” the researchers say. “As a result, parents and guardians may unknowingly feed their infants formula that contains substantial quantities of added sugars.”
The study builds on others that revealed the high sugar content of infant formula. It also comes less than a year after news reports that two of Nestlé’s leading baby-food brands, promoted as healthy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, contain high levels of added sugar.
To promote healthy development, the researchers say efforts should focus on requiring formula companies to produce products that contain naturally occurring lactose as the only sugar. The amount of lactose present in infant formula should also reflect that of human milk.
At the same time, societal barriers to breastfeeding, including a lack of parental leave and affordable early child care, should be removed, the researchers add.
“[The] focus on an individual-level solution (breastfeeding promotion to women and caregivers) is not well matched to addressing the systemic nature of the problem and places an unfair burden on women and families who are expected to navigate this systemic issue,” Rips-Goodwin says.
Senior author Tera Fazzino agrees.
“Even though breastfeeding is promoted as the best option, the lack of support makes it hard to do exclusively,” says Fazzino, associate director of the Cofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research & Treatment at KU’s Life Span Institute. “Most parents end up using formula, either as a supplement or completely. But our findings suggest that formula itself may pose a serious risk to infant health.”
A federal judge blocked AB 2098 in January 2023, and the law was later repealed. However, according to the lawsuit, the Medical Board of California is still targeting “COVID misinformation” and is threatening physicians with disciplinary action.
According to the petition to the Supreme Court, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, “with the assistance of the California Legislature,” have threatened disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs and other physicians for offering information to patients that departs from official COVID-19 narratives.
Lawsuit hopes to set precedent that ‘informed consent is free speech’
The case seeks to resolve contradictory precedents from two federal appeals courts on whether the First Amendment protects physicians’ communications to patients — “a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.”
In a Physicians for Informed Consent press release, Rick Jaffe, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit “touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent.”
Tyson said patients cannot provide informed consent if their physicians are denied the opportunity to speak freely.
“We want doctors and all providers to be able to discuss risks and benefits with our patients, be able to speak out against things that are wrong, and be heard when breakthroughs are made,” Tyson said. “The hope is the Supreme Court will set the precedent that informed consent is free speech.”
Supreme Court asked to decide between competing legal precedents
According to the petition, federal courts have established competing legal precedents relating to medical free speech.
In a 2022 decision in Tingley v. Ferguson, the 9th Circuit upheld the ability of professional boards in Washington to restrict members’ speech, arguing this is similar to the boards’ enforcement of “other restrictions on unprofessional conduct.”
But in a 2020 decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the 11th Circuit struck down local ordinances that limited the speech of therapists and counselors, finding that such content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions violate the First Amendment, which has no carveout for controversial speech.
Tyson said the California Medical Board’s disciplinary proceedings against him jeopardized his career. “I had to defend my position against the [board] and almost lost my license … That would have been devastating to the community I serve and to all those I employ.”
Jaffe said Kory v. Bonta is similar to another First Amendment case relating to medical speech, Stockton v. Ferguson. Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit seeks “to protect the right of physicians to speak” and the public’s right to hear such speech.
CHD is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are several doctors facing disciplinary proceedings by the Washington Medical Commission for their public statements criticizing mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Basketball legend John Stockton is also a plaintiff, advocating for the public’s right to access and listen to “soapbox speech.”
In January, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal in Stockton v. Ferguson. The case remains active before the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, Jaffe said.
“The two cases represent the entire spectrum of cases involving what physicians say and would allow the court to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to whether and how much the First Amendment protects professionals when they communicate to patients and the public,” Jaffe said.
According to Physicians for Informed Consent, four justices must agree before the full court can hear Kory v. Bonta. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, it will hear Kory v. Bonta in October.
Jaffe said the Supreme Court may ultimately jointly consider Kory v. Bonta and Stockton v. Ferguson. He credited CHD with its role in supporting both cases.
“We hope to establish the constitutional right of healthcare providers to speak out against the prevailing medical and scientific consensus about COVID-19, as well as whatever public health challenges face the country in the future,” Jaffe said.
With the NIH showing little concern to study long COVID despite pouring $1 billion into research, a new bombshell study on patients with a debilitating post-vaccination syndrome is showing elevated spike protein levels over 2 years (the time of study) after vaccination.
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 