CDC Escalates Childhood Hyper-Vaccination Agenda for 2025
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | Courageous Discourse | November 30, 2024
The 2025 Immunization Schedule was approved by ACIP and adopted by CDC Director Mandy Cohen on October 24, 2024:

Children are now recommended to be exposed to 36 vaccine doses from in-utero to age 2 (4 doses in the pregnant mother, 32 doses in the child from birth to age 2). By age 18, the CDC now advises over 70 doses when taking into account routine COVID-19 and flu injections. This represents a massive increase in recommended vaccine doses since the inception of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act giving vaccine makers full liability protection:

Since they enjoy full liability protection, pharmaceutical companies currently get their injections approved with no long-term, placebo-controlled trials. Follow-up periods range from just 3 days to 6 months, with most studies lacking a placebo group entirely. It’s evident that our regulatory agencies are compromised and are not prioritizing the public’s best interests:

Childhood hyper-vaccination is likely contributing to the skyrocketing autism rates:

The vast majority of American’s have clearly demonstrated their rejection of unnecessary and unsafe vaccines and likely won’t comply with the absurd ACIP schedule. A recent CDC report found that the vast majority of adults refuse COVID-19 genetic booster shots with no human data, as well as flu and RSV vaccines:

The ill-advised federal vaccine racket needs to be re-assessed based on proper scientific studies and restructured to protect the health of America’s children.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Corporate Media Meltdown Over Trump’s CDC Director Pick Dr. Dave Weldon
A look a the possible changes ahead for the CDC under his leadership
By Jefferey Jaxen | November 25, 2024
Former seven-term congressman Dr. David Weldon was chosen by President-elect Donald Trump going into this past weekend to serve as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Amidst the flurry of possible appointments grabbing headlines, Dr. Weldon has the opportunity to change the way America has handled public health for decades.
The Washington Post described Dr. Weldon in the second sentence of its breaking news article as “… a strong critic of the CDC, especially its vaccine program.” The reporting meant the sentence to be a negative, ironically, it’s probably now a breath of fresh air for most Americans post-COVID.
“… increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves” wrote Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, less than a month ago when admitting most people don’t believe corporate/legacy media anymore. It’s like WAPO’s recent reporting on Weldon already forgot this warning.
The New York Times claimed that Dr. Weldon was “skeptical of vaccine safety,” a designation that would have worked to neutralize his voice in years past when the outlet still garnered attention and respect.
STAT News wrote, “The former Florida congressman sponsored legislation that would have carved out the CDC’s vaccine safety research…”
The Vaccine Safety Bill to ‘carve out research’ Dr. Weldon introduced in 2007 wanted to establish an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services to handle the nation’s vaccine safety. His reasoning at the time was that the CDC had an inherent conflict of interest being responsible for both vaccine safety and promotion—an issue unchanged to this day.
In Weldon, the public also finds a rare leader who has been willing to ask politically forbidden questions about links between vaccines and autism along with the greater questions about health outcomes of children receiving HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule compared with children who had not been vaccinated. In addition to why there’s been limited investigation to determine what children may be as risk of being harmed by vaccines.
“The thing I continue to find extremely disturbing is the fact that the CDC still does not allow researchers access to the vaccine safety data… The best way to get answers on the vaccine safety data is to open it up and let objective scientists come in and look at it.” – Rep. Dave Weldon at the Vaccines & Autism House Government Reform Committee 2002
One of the key data tranches Weldon is referring is vaccine safety datalink or VSD. A monitoring system using electronic health record data from health sites around the country to assess vaccine safety and detect adverse events in near-real time. Also a system that the public and independent researchers are blocked from accessing.
Besides the possibility of allowing the sunlight of independent researchers to comb through once-hidden vaccine data while dedicating resources to health-affirming tools outside of one-size-fits-all shots, Dr. Weldon will have veto power over the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
ACIP makes recommendations about which vaccines are added to the U.S. schedule, among other decisions. The committee needs final approval from the director of the CDC to implement their calls. Dr. Weldon would hold a power position over a committee who unanimously rubber-stamped every COVID vaccine and booster from infants to the elderly, among other questionable call throughout the years leading to reduced public trust.
Another approach long-called for, and even once implemented by the CDC, would be to automate their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to instantly detect and report potential safety issues with the shots they promote.
In 2006 this was attempted through a $1M HHS grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. The researchers found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” yet predictably, the CDC never followed up.
As many new to this conversation are rushing the gates to further their careers or gain influence and power on the back of the rapid political change we find ourselves at the beginning of, there have been those holding a strong space with little fanfare. Dr. Dave Weldon is one such individual.
His decades-long hopes to reform the CDC and, more importantly, protect American children and families from unrestrained harms brought upon so many by liability-free injectable pharmaceutical products which have enjoyed a privileged position away from full public and scientific scrutiny may soon see the light of day.
To the readers, is the CDC even salvageable at this point?
What other major areas of reform could help rapidly transform public consciousness around health and healing?
Sputnik Investigates: Why Doesn’t the US Ban Water Fluoridation?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 27.11.2024
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump as health and human services secretary, has vowed to remove fluoride from public water systems in the US if his appointment is approved by the Senate.
“Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease,” tweeted RFK Jr.
What is Water Fluoridation and Who is Peddling the Practice?
Community water fluoridation was introduced in the US in 1945 and envisages adjusting the amount of fluoride in drinking water to a current recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
- CDC is part of the US Department of Health and the major agency that has led water fluoridation since 1975. Its declared goal is to increase the proportion of US people using fluoridated water.
- CDC claims that water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves $6.5 billion in dental treatment costs for the nation annually.
- Over 209 million Americans have access to fluoridated drinking water, as per CDC.
- It’s up to state and local governments to decide whether to fluoridate their community water. According to some estimates, US communities spend over $300 million annually on water fluoridation.
- For its part, CDC: actively propagates water fluoridation across the US; supports infrastructure in states to promote water fluoridation; monitors coverage and quality of fluoridation; provides technical assistance to state fluoridation programs
- CDC’s FY2025 budget, requested by President Joe Biden, amounted to $19.7 billion, whereas CDC’s department overseeing water fluoridation (Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion) was assigned $1.5 billion, a 9% increase compared to FY2024.
Despite the CDC propagating community water fluoridation, the measure is surrounded in controversies with critics referring to numerous alleged health risks.
- While the CDC claims community fluoridation led to a 25% reduction in cavities in children, international oral health data shows almost the same level of reduction in cavities in the countries which have not fluoridated their water over the past decades.
- According to the WHO, prolonged exposure to high concentrations of fluoride (over 1.5 mg/L) could cause tooth enamel and skeletal fluorosis.
- 2024 studies indicated that high exposure to fluoride for pregnant women could be associated with lower IQ in children as well as neurobehavioral problems.
- Scientists warn that it is impossible to control the dose of fluoride each individual receives when consuming fluoridated water: first, water consumption varies; second, an average person also receives fluoride from sources other than the water supply.
Moreover, to fluoridate its water systems, the US uses technically-grade chemicals:
fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6; also referred to as hydro fluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS), a by-product of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, which is used by most US water systems; sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and sodium fluoride (NaF)
A 2014 study showed that HFS contains arsenic (As) – that could be responsible for lung and bladder cancer cases – whereas both HFS and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb).
On November 22, Florida surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, issued guidance calling to stop adding fluoride to the water supply
On September 24, a federal district court in California ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoridation of drinking water to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to health.
Axios noted that even if RFK Jr assumes the position of health and human services secretary, he wouldn’t be able to prohibit fluoridation. However, if the EPA recognizes it as a toxic substance, it could stop the practice.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Picked For NIH Chief as Free Speech Takes Center Stage in Science
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 26, 2024
With a decision that has garnered the attention of both supporters and skeptics of America’s public health establishment, President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health. For a nation battered by years of pandemic policies, conflicting narratives, and public mistrust, there’s more to this nomination— it’s a declaration.
Dr. Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and a leading voice in health policy, has been a consistent advocate for evidence-based decision-making and open scientific discourse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he gained national attention for his principled stance against lockdowns and sweeping mandates, which he argued caused more harm than good. Now, he’s poised to bring that same conviction to one of the most influential scientific institutions in the world.
Rather than being welcomed as a critical voice, Bhattacharya faced vilification from a system allergic to dissent.
Fighting for Free Speech in Science
Perhaps Bhattacharya’s most defining moment came when he fought back against censorship. The Stanford professor became a plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of colluding with Big Tech to silence dissenting voices on public health.
The suppression of ideas, Bhattacharya argued, isn’t just an affront to the First Amendment; it’s antithetical to the scientific method. By standing up, he wasn’t just defending his views but ensuring that future debates about public health policy could happen in the open, where they belong.
A New Era for the NIH
With his appointment as NIH director, Bhattacharya is stepping into a role that carries enormous responsibility. But for a man who has spent his career challenging conventional wisdom, this is an opportunity to turn the page on a period of public disillusionment with science.
In an X post following the announcement, Bhattacharya, who was once blacklisted from Twitter under the old regime, promised to reform America’s scientific institutions to make them “worthy of trust again” and to ensure that NIH-funded research would focus on improving health outcomes for all Americans.

President Trump underscored this vision, calling Bhattacharya a leader who will restore the NIH to its “Gold Standard” while addressing America’s greatest health challenges. Paired with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another advocate for reform, Bhattacharya is set to tackle systemic issues such as chronic illness, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and the erosion of public trust in science.
China Creates Coating Making Warplanes Invisible to Anti-Stealth Radars
Sputnik -25.11.2024
BEIJING – Chinese military scientists have developed a stealth material for aircraft and other defense equipment that minimizes their visibility for anti-stealth radars, Chinese media reported on Monday.
The South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the new material, unveiled by the National University of Defense Technology, can convert electromagnetic waves with wavelengths from 2.3 feet to 0.6 feet into heat, which effectively covers the operating bandwidths of most current anti-stealth radars, specifically the P-band and L-band.
The new material is lightweight, flexible and easy to produce in large quantities, making it suitable for covering aircraft or other weapon platforms requiring stealth capabilities, the newspaper said.
Scientists have said that the new material was cost-effective and could be used in various types of military equipment. They believe that this technology could become “the key for China to win future wars.”
China currently holds the majority of the world’s patents in metamaterials.
Healthcare workers file class action lawsuit against the Ontario government over its COVID-19 vaccine directive
The Canadian Independent | November 22, 2024
A $170-million class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Province of Ontario and its Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, alleging negligence, misfeasance in public office, tortious inducement to breach contract, and violations of privacy rights related to the implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.
Lisa Wolfs is the primary plaintiff in the lawsuit. She was previously employed as a Clinical Nurse Educator with London Health Sciences Centre and initiated the suit on behalf of unionized healthcare workers in Ontario. At the heart of the lawsuit is the challenge to the legality of Directive 6, a public health order issued in August 2021 by Dr. Moore.
Court documents show that Wolfs went on medical leave on September 15, 2021, was later cleared to return to work, but was terminated on August 4, 2022, under the enforcement of COVID-19 Directive 6.
Filed under Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the lawsuit seeks to represent tens of thousands of unionized healthcare workers across the province who were subject to the directive. The plaintiff argues that the mandate imposed unauthorized changes to her employment contract, forced the disclosure of personal medical information, and caused significant economic and emotional harm.
Directive 6 mandated that hospitals, home and community care service providers, and ambulance services implement a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for employees, staff, contractors, students, and volunteers.
Under the directive, healthcare workers had to provide proof of vaccination, a medical exemption, or participate in an educational program to maintain their employment. Wolfs argues that these policies led to her termination after nearly 16 years of service, despite her previously exemplary record. Her lawsuit claims that her dismissal violated the terms of her employment contract, which did not include mandatory vaccination as a condition of employment or allow for unpaid leave under these circumstances.
The lawsuit accuses the Ontario government and Dr. Moore of several violations. First, it alleges negligence, claiming that the vaccination policies were implemented without sufficient evidence supporting their efficacy in preventing COVID-19 transmission.
Second, it accuses Dr. Moore of misfeasance in public office, arguing that he acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness to vaccine risks and the lack of long-term safety data.
Third, the lawsuit alleges tortious inducement to breach contract, stating that the directive unlawfully interfered with employment agreements between healthcare workers and their employers.
Finally, it argues that the directive infringed on workers’ privacy rights by requiring the disclosure of vaccination status or medical exemptions.
In addition, the suit questions the public health rationale behind the mandates, referring to Health Canada product monographs. According to the claim, these documents do not indicate that approved vaccines such as Pfizer’s Comirnaty or Moderna’s Spikevax prevent COVID-19 transmission, undermining the stated purpose of the directive. Additionally, the lawsuit raises concerns about vaccine safety, highlighting adverse events reported during clinical trials and instances of product recalls or restrictions.
Seeking $170 million in damages, the lawsuit includes $50 million for pain and suffering, $50 million for misfeasance in public office, $20 million for tortious inducement to breach contract, and $50 million in punitive damages. The claim also includes compensation for lost income, medical monitoring expenses, and legal costs.
The case will proceed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where the plaintiff will aim to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. If successful, it could set a precedent for addressing grievances related to pandemic-era workplace policies.
Scarlett Martyn, a veteran paramedic in Ontario, reached out to The Canadian Independent to highlight this lawsuit. Martyn is a member of United Healthcare Workers of Ontario (UHCWO), a volunteer-run, not-for-profit organization representing thousands of healthcare professionals. The group advocates for health privacy, voluntary and informed consent, and non-discriminatory medical policies in Ontario and across Canada.
Martyn says that UHCWO is raising funds to support the lawsuit. She explained that the organization is crowdfunding to cover potential court costs if class certification is unsuccessful and any named plaintiffs are required to pay legal costs. She also mentioned that if they succeed at the certification stage, the funds raised will be used to cover litigation costs for the class action. You can read more about the UHCWO and donate if you wish at the link below.
Study Showing ‘High Likelihood’ of Link Between COVID Vaccines and Death Republished in Peer-reviewed Journal
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 18, 2024
The largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to date has been republished in a peer-reviewed journal — after twice being censored, according to Nicolas Hulscher, the paper’s lead author and an epidemiologist at the McCullough Foundation.
Science, Public Health Policy and the Law on Nov. 17 published the study, which had been previously withdrawn from Preprints with The Lancet and Forensic Science International.
Hulscher told The Defender the study’s republication signals a “pivotal victory for transparency and accountability in science.” It also marks “a significant setback” for actors in the biopharmaceutical complex and “their Academic Publishing Cartel,” Hulscher said.
Hulscher’s co-authors include Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Peter A. McCullough and Dr. William Makis.
Hulscher told The Defender the study provides “robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death. This means that the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] criteria for a Class I recall have been fulfilled, warranting an immediate market withdrawal.”
The FDA defines a Class I product recall as “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Defender that the COVID-19 vaccine spike protein “can stay around in some people and continue to do inflammatory damage in any site where it gets to through the bloodstream.”
In ‘striking act of censorship’ publishers withdraw study, shut down debate
The study’s publication in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law is the latest twist in an ongoing saga as the authors have tried to get their research out to the public and scientific community, Hulscher wrote on Substack.
The study results were first made public on July 5, 2023, as a preprint with The Lancet on SSRN, an open-access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, posting a statement that the study’s conclusions were “not supported by the study methodology,” The Daily Sceptic reported.
McCullough told The Epoch Times that the study was experiencing “hundreds of reviews per minute” before its removal.
Preprint servers offer a place for the public to view scientific reports and papers while they undergo peer review, making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 130,000 times.
On June 21, 2024, after successful peer review, Forensic Science International published the study.
Within weeks, the study became the top trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas, according to the Observatory of International Research, Hulscher recalled.

“Unfortunately,” Hulscher wrote on Substack, “in a striking act of censorship, Elsevier and Forensic Science International withdrew the article on August 2nd, 2024 in flagrant violation of their own withdrawal policy and COPE guidelines.”
He said they “left no traces behind, completely wiping our paper from the webpage.”
Elsevier and Forensic Science International said that “members of the scientific community” — who remained anonymous, Hulscher pointed out — cited numerous concerns about the study, including inappropriate citation references, inappropriate methodological design and a lack of factual support for its conclusions.
The concerns were “unfounded,” Hulscher wrote. The study authors wrote a rebuttal defending their study and submitted a revised manuscript. However, Elsevier and Forensic Science International rejected the revised manuscript.
Hulscher noted that Elsevier and Forensic Science International “failed to follow the proper scientific discourse method of allowing debate in Letters to the Editor.” Instead, they shut down the possibility of debate by censoring the study.
“This type of academic censorship poses a serious threat to the progress of scientific discovery,” he said.
73.9% of deaths reviewed by authors linked to COVID vaccines
As The Defender previously reported, the study authors did a systematic review of studies on autopsy findings following COVID-19 vaccination.
They first searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination in which the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately, they evaluated 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.” The mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Other causes included vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
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.





