Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute With Poland, Romania
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 30, 2026
A vaccine contract dispute between Pfizer and the European Union (EU) has resulted in Pfizer freezing billions of dollars in funds earmarked for air traffic control in Poland and Romania.
Eurocontrol, an intergovernmental organization that coordinates air traffic control management across Europe, notified Poland and Romania’s air traffic control agencies earlier this month that it was freezing the funds after Pfizer enforced an April court ruling in Brussels.
The April 1 ruling requires Poland and Romania to pay Pfizer about $1.5 billion and $640 million, respectively, plus interest and fees, for additional vaccine doses, per a 2021 contract signed between the European Commission — the EU’s executive branch — and Pfizer.
Poland and Romania refused further COVID-19 vaccine deliveries in 2022, citing falling demand for the shots, according to Bloomberg. Poland also cited financial pressures it was facing after taking in refugees fleeing the conflict in Ukraine.
Brussels Signal reported Poland sold or donated some of its surplus vaccine doses. According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldovean, “Romania was among the European countries with the lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates.”
These actions led Pfizer to sue the countries in 2023, resulting in the April 1 ruling.
In a statement provided to The Defender, the Warsaw Enterprise Institute (WEI) said that the case, which is still ongoing pending the two countries’ appeal, is being heard in Belgium because the EU’s contract is governed by Belgian law.
Polish and Romanian authorities have said they will appeal the ruling. Polish public broadcaster TVP World reported that Poland sought a delay in the enforcement of the April 1 ruling pending its appeal, but that the Belgian court rejected this request.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not involved in the lawsuit, called Pfizer’s actions “outrageous and unethical,” arguing that “it could potentially endanger the safety of flights to or from Poland and/or Romania” by depriving those countries’ air traffic control authorities of funding required for their operations.
Łukasz Wojdyga, director of the WEI’s Center for Strategic Studies, took a different view. He said that while Pfizer is exercising its rights under the law, which allow it to freeze the disputed funds even despite the expected appeals, the focus should be on the flaws in the EU’s contract. He said:
“Even if this form of enforcement is allowed under Belgian law, targeting the main source of funding for an institution responsible for air-traffic safety strikes me as disproportionate and irresponsible.
“At the same time, a creditor has the right to enforce a court judgment and protect the interests of its shareholders through any lawful means.
“For that reason, the main focus should not be on blaming Pfizer for pursuing its claim. It should be on how the contract was negotiated, approved, and signed in the first place.”
Some legal and policy experts who spoke with The Defender suggested that Pfizer had other options available to it rather than immediately freezing the two countries’ funds held in Belgium. Other experts suggest that the EU’s contract with Pfizer is, itself, invalid, as it was signed through a dubious and potentially illegal process.
EU hasn’t revealed Pfizer CEO text messages, despite ruling
The EU-Pfizer contract has long faced scrutiny. For Wojdyga, the central question isn’t whether Pfizer is entitled to collect what it is owed. It’s how European and national authorities allowed such a “large, expensive and one-sided agreement to be signed, leaving taxpayers to carry most of the risk.”
According to Brussels Signal, the 35 billion euro ($40 billion) contract between the EU and Pfizer “was one of the largest in EU procurement history.” It was signed amid “claims that the EU may have paid up to fifteen times the production cost per dose, raising concerns that billions in taxpayer funds were overpaid.”
There are also questions about how European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen negotiated the contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and about potential conflicts of interest between the two parties.
Last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission violated EU law by denying The New York Times’ request to review text messages related to the contract between von der Leyen and Bourla.
The European Commission claimed it didn’t have the text messages. But according to the ruling, the commission did not provide “plausible explanations” to justify “the non-existence or non-possession” of the documents. The commission previously claimed the texts didn’t qualify as documents, according to Politico.
In 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that the commission’s decision to heavily redact key portions of COVID-19 vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic violated transparency rules.
In 2023, the European Parliament blocked an attempt to cross-examine von der Leyen regarding the text messages. The previous year, Bourla refused to testify before the European Parliament about the contract terms.
According to Brussels Signal, “scrutiny has been directed at potential conflicts of interest involving von der Leyen’s family,” as her husband Heiko “is the medical director at Orgenesisi, a biotech company that received EU funds and partnered with Pfizer.”
According to activist Frederic Baldan, CEO of CEBiz:
“Ursula von der Leyen, without any mandate, bypassed the committees and negotiated directly with Albert Bourla via Signal messages programmed to self-destruct. She thus circumvented the anti-corruption safeguards of her own Commission. The price increased in an inexplicable manner and the quantities ordered became insane.”
Wojdyga noted that the commission did not appeal the 2025 ruling in time, “making the ruling final.” Yet, the text messages still haven’t been released. Gheorghe Piperea, a member of the European Parliament, said that “the content of those messages remains secret to this day.”
Documents leaked in 2022 showed that U.S. and EU officials pressured European drug regulators to rush approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns.
According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldoveanu, questions remain over how the parties determined the number of doses each country would receive under the contract.
“Romania ordered 120 million doses of the vaccine, based on a ‘strategy adopted at the EU level,’ even though Romania’s population is less than 20 million people,” Moldoveanu said.
For Piperea, the EU-Pfizer contract “ought never to have existed” in the first place, because the EU took on powers it doesn’t have under the treaties of the European Union.
“The Commission violated the principle of subsidiarity that governs the shared competences of the Commission and the member states. Health policy falls within the competence of the member states, not of the Commission. The member states may be supported in these health policies, but they may not be supplanted by the Commission,” Piperea said.
This also means that if Pfizer believed the contract terms were violated, it should have sought damages from the EU, not from individual states like Romania and Poland.
However, suing the EU would have revealed “that the exceedingly narrow circle of persons who conducted the negotiations — von der Leyen … together with two or three anonymous directors from the European Medicines Agency — possessed neither the competence nor the mandate to bind the member states to payments,” Piperea said.
Wojdyga said all 27 EU governments were represented on the steering board, while the joint negotiating team with Pfizer “included the Commission and seven member states, including Poland.”
The member states were responsible for placing orders, making payments and accepting delivery under the terms of the deal.
However, “the decision-making process matters,” Wojdyga said. “Once the terms of an agreement were presented, a member state had only five working days to opt out,” after which its acceptance was considered legally binding.
He added:
“So, governments technically had a choice. In reality, they had only a few days to assess complex, multiyear financial commitments in the middle of a pandemic, under intense political pressure and amid fears of vaccine shortages. That put national governments under considerable time pressure and limited their ability to carry out a full legal, financial, and public health review.”
Baldan, who initiated a 2023 criminal case against Pfizer challenging the contract, said that in closed session, lawyers for Hungary and Poland confirmed they had “never given any negotiating mandate to von der Leyen” and that the vaccine orders were placed at the EU level and were “inexplicable” to them.
Baldan said the case resulted in a 1,000-page report by the Belgian Federal Police’s anti-corruption unit, finding that “there are sufficient elements to establish the offenses.”
However, the Belgian police handed over the investigation to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which moved to have it annulled.
“This is what allowed Pfizer to resume its civil proceedings and obtain judgments against the member states that refused to pay,” Baldan said.
Has Pfizer endangered air traffic and public safety in Poland and Romania?
Questions remain over whether Pfizer’s freezing of Poland and Romania’s air traffic control funds held by Eurocontrol will put air travel and public safety in question.
According to TVP World, the frozen funds “are critical” because they make up more than 80% of the revenue of the country’s air traffic control agency, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA, or PAZP).
Without the funds, the agency “could quickly lose financial liquidity, making it impossible to pay hundreds of air traffic controllers, whose work is essential for every passenger aircraft taking off, landing or safely flying through Polish airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.
PANSA could also lose the ability to maintain critical infrastructure, including radar installations and communication systems. “For ordinary citizens, this could mean cancelled flights and even the closure of Poland’s airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.
Romania Insider reported that the frozen funds equate to 0.2% of its GDP, posing “a significant burden at a time when the government is attempting to reduce the fiscal deficit.”
Piperea said the April ruling “arrived at a most inopportune moment in Romania, in the midst of recession and a major budgetary deficit.”
“Pfizer places the public in danger by leaving without funds the air-traffic control agency ROMATSA, and the state budget, which is already insufficient and cannot meet pensions, allowances, indemnities for persons with disabilities, and the like.”
Wojdyga said Pfizer’s actions are legal — but raise questions.
“I would not automatically equate the freezing of funds owed to Poland’s and Romania’s air navigation agencies with an immediate threat to passenger safety. Both agencies are still operating, and both governments have said they will protect their financial stability and keep services running. Pfizer also has the right to enforce its claims through lawful means.
“That said, targeting the main source of funding for agencies responsible for air traffic safety is bound to raise concerns, especially since neither agency was a party to the vaccine contract.”
“Pfizer is unlikely to close Poland’s airspace. By targeting PAZP’s revenue, however, it has shown how a poorly designed public contract can create problems far beyond the original subject of the agreement,” the WEI wrote.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Trump’s Nominee for CDC Director Calls mRNA Technology ‘Safe and Effective’
CDC Director Nominee shows a serious lack of scientific understanding
By Sharyl Attkisson | July 16, 2026
When asked at a Senate hearing whether she thinks mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, CDC Director-nominee Erica Schwartz replied, “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”
Both the question and the answer show a serious lack of scientific understanding.
Here’s the scientifically accurate answer to the question: We don’t know the full safety profile of either of the two types of approved mRNA vaccines or the technology. First, It’s all too new. Second, we’re not even collecting the full data.
Read on for details.
According to FDA scientists and other experts in the field, comprehensive safety data isn’t known until a new drug (including vaccines) has been on the market and in widespread use for 7-12 years.
Even now, we aren’t getting full information on safety profiles because the data isn’t even being collected in the comprehensive manner required for accurate analysis.
The established scientific process requires that all illnesses after vaccination be meticulously recorded regardless of whether a patient or doctor thinks the illness is actually connected to the vaccine.
Most doctors are not following the process. Some misunderstand. Others are willfully ignoring. And no authority is ensuring they do their job.
Doctors typically aren’t even asking their ill patients whether they had an mRNA vaccine (for Covid or RSV), which one(s), and when. So they aren’t collecting that crucial data.
Most people, including physicians, don’t understand that patients being treated for any illness are supposed to be queried. This means, for example, someone who come to the ER with a retinal detachment should be asked if he had Covid vaccine, which, how many, and when, and then the data should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Same with someone who becomes sick with a rash, headaches, tendon rupture, stiff neck, depression, or chest congestion. Everything.
Even when patients do tell a physician they think an illness might be vaccine related, the physician frequently, improperly, determines on the front end that he doesn’t need to report the possible adverse event to the established database unless he thinks it’s connected to the vaccine. That’s not how the system works. No doctor is qualified to make that determination about a new medicine. All illnesses are supposed to be recorded so that previously unrecognized adverse events can be unearthed.
Additionally, many doctors and patients don’t understand— and aren’t being told— that adverse events from vaccines and other medicine can arise months or years after the medicine is taken.
Further, they don’t understand that an adverse event can be related to a drug even if the patient did not initially become ill after taking the vaccine or other medicine.
And the blanket question itself, “Are mRNA vaccines safe and effective,” shows a lack of scientific understanding on the part of the questioner. It begs counter-questions: are they safe for whom? Under what circumstances? Effective at what? It’s as ridiculous as asking, “Is medicine safe and effective?” Depends on whether or not you’re allergic to it. Depends on whether you have predispositions for things that make you more susceptible to the side effects. Depends on whether its particular mechanisms work in your individual biology. These are individual calculations.
Even in the general picture, there aren’t blanket answers. We know mRNA Covid vaccines failed woefully—proved ineffective—at a sliding scale of supposed goals: They don’t prevent infection. They don’t prevent spread. They don’t prevent illness. There’s a debate over whether they prevent serious illness, which most people don’t get from Covid, and children almost never get.
Until we stop pretending that the blanket questions make sense, and that the answers are connected in any way to science, we will continue to have leaders who misinform or mislead.
So, from diabetes drugs that can cause fatal genital tears to acne medicine that can cause sexual dysfunction that never goes away, here are some notable examples of unexpected adverse events that were eventually linked to vaccines or other medications.
- Sildenafil (Viagra) and blindness [non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION)/sudden vision loss].
Viagra treats erectile dysfunction by inhibiting PDE5 to increase blood flow. Early marketing focused on cardiovascular risks but not eye issues. Hundreds of post-approval reports eventually linked it to sudden vision loss from NAION. The adverse event was only recognized when enterprising physicians pressed the issue and published case reports, and I reported on them for CBS News. The FDA added warnings in 2005. Labels now advise stopping use and seeking care for sudden vision changes. Similar risks apply to the PDE5 inhibitor class. - Likewise, Viagra was eventually connected to hearing loss.
Reports emerged of sudden hearing decrease/loss (sometimes with tinnitus/dizziness) after use. Initially not linked, post-marketing data led to label updates advising immediate medical attention. Nobody initially guessed an erectile dysfunction drug could cause deafness and blindness! - Statins such as atorvastatin and simvastatin, and severe and potentially fatal muscle pain/weakness (myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis).
Statins are used to lower cholesterol to prevent heart disease/stroke. Early labels noted mild muscle issues, but the drugmakers initially denied severe cases (including rhabdomyolysis, which can cause kidney failure). Independent doctors, lawsuits, and my reporting for CBS News drew attention to this problem. Eventually, the drug makers added warnings, monitoring advice, and dose adjustments. - Statins and cognitive effects (memory loss, confusion).
Some users reported “brain fog” or confusion, initially dismissed as unrelated. I reported on this, too, for CBS News. Eventually, FDA added reversible cognitive side effects to labels in 2012 based on reports. - Troglitazone (Rezulin) and severe liver failure.
This thiazolidinedione treated type 2 diabetes. Only did post-1997 use among millions reveal dozens of acute liver failure cases (deaths/transplants), originally denied by the drugmaker. Reporting by the Los Angeles Times and then by me at CBS News forced the issue. Eventually, the drug was withdrawn in 2000 after FDA tied it to about 63 deaths. (Scientists say each recognized and reported death implies 1,000 to 100,000 more that are never reported.) - SGLT2 inhibitors such as canagliflozin/Invokana, dapagliflozin/Farxiga, empagliflozin and potentially fatal Fournier’s gangrene (necrotizing fasciitis of perineum/genitalia).
These diabetes drugs lower blood sugar via urinary glucose excretion. Believe it own ot, they can cause life-threatening flesh-eating infections in the genital/perineal area. FDA issued a warning in 2018. The labels now carry strong alerts. - mRNA Covid-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) and myocarditis/pericarditis heart issues.
As you know, these vaccines were found to cause heart inflammation, mostly in young men after second dose. This was initially unexpected. - Covid-19 vaccines and menstrual irregularities.
Many women reported changes such as heavier bleeding and cycle shifts, but were largely called conspiracy theorists. This adverse event like so many others linked to Covid vaccines, weren’t identified—at least they weren’t reported— after initial studies. - Covid-19 vaccines and eye issues. Even without persistent data gathering, there have been enough reports of eye inflammation and retinal problems to raise concern over a possible link.
- Thalidomide and severe birth defects.
Once marketed as a sedative and morning sickness aid in the 1950s–60s, it turned out to cause more than 10,000 cases of babies born with shortened or absent limbs and other defects. - Isotretinoin (Accutane) for acne and persistent sexual dysfunction.
Recent FDA updates added erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, vaginal dryness, and lubrication issues that may persist even when people stop taking the drug. - A similar effect was initially denied by later found with SSRI antidepressants, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. They can cause persistent sexual dysfunction.
- Cisapride (Propulsid) for indigestion and cardiac arrhythmias/QT prolongation. It was withdrawn after heart rhythm deaths. I reported for CBS News on the coverup of a baby death in a fraudulent Propulsid study.
- Rofecoxib (Vioxx) and cardiovascular events. Nobody guessed a pain medicine and arthritis drug would cause heart attacks and strokes. All concerned initially denied the signals but the medicine was eventually removed from the market for this reason.
- Fenfluramine/phentermine (Fen-Phen) weight loss drug and heart damage. This is another drug that caused unpredicted heart problems and was eventually taken off the market after the FDA had approved it as “safe and effective.”
- Certain fluoroquinolones and tendon rupture/peripheral neuropathy. Who would have guessed antibiotics could cause a tendon rupture or nerve damage? Eventually, all agreed that fluoroquinolones can do this, and a serious “black box” warning was added to the label.
- Antipsychotics and tardive dyskinesia. Drugs meant to control psychotic tendencies can actually cause serious movement disorders, which nobody anticipated initially.
- What about when a cancer treatment causes cancer? Tamoxifen for breast cancer can cause and uterine cancer. Nobody predicted that. The warning was later added to the labels.
- Ketamine for pain and anesthesia and bladder damage. This side effect only emerged when there was greatly expanded psychiatric use of the medicine.
- Lots of medicines cause unexpected bone loss, including medicine that’s prescribed to protect bones! They include bisphosphonates like Fosamax or alendronate, Actonel, Boniva, and Reclast. They are commonly prescribed to treat and prevent osteoporosis by slowing bone breakdown. However, after lots of use, scientists learned they can actually cause serious bone problems, including thigh bone fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw (dead jawbone), and delayed bone healing. FDA eventually added warnings and updated the labels. Other drugs eventually linked to bone loss and fracture risk include: corticosteroids like prednisone for inflammation, asthma, autoimmune diseases, and allergies; acid reflux drugs like omeprazole/Prilosec or esomeprazole/Nexium); aromatase inhibitors (like anastrozole/Arimidex) for breast cancer; and the injectable birth control shot Depo-Provera.
The Manual Behind the Mandates
An Essay on Paul Offit’s Bad Faith
Lies are Unbekoming | July 14, 2026
In June and October 1998, Paul Offit sat on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and voted twice in favor of Wyeth-Lederle’s RotaShield rotavirus vaccine: on June 25 to recommend it for routine childhood use, and on October 22 to add it to the federal Vaccines for Children Program.¹ Offit’s own rotavirus vaccine, developed at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in partnership with Merck, was under development at the time. On October 22, 1999, exactly a year after his second vote, ACIP rescinded the RotaShield recommendation after CDC identified an elevated rate of intussusception in vaccinated infants. Intussusception is a bowel condition in which one segment of intestine telescopes into another and cuts off its own blood supply; without emergency intervention, it kills. The surveillance data at the point of withdrawal included hospitalizations and infant deaths. Offit abstained from the withdrawal vote.² Seven years later, Merck’s RotaTeq, which Offit co-invented, received ACIP recommendation for the same schedule slot. The patent sale netted him at least six million dollars by his own account, with other public estimates running higher.³
In June 2000, the United States House Committee on Government Reform published Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making. The report named Offit specifically. It concluded that “conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings.”⁴
In March 2015, Basic Books published Offit’s Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine. The book accuses religious parents of moral failure. It calls for the elimination of religious exemption from vaccination law. It endorses criminal prosecution of parents who withhold pharmaceutical products from their children on religious grounds, including, under the Oregon sentencing guidelines Offit presents as a model, terms of up to twenty-five years in prison.⁵
Offit is the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania and directs the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has written five previous books along the same lines, including Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All and Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. His public role for two decades has been to defend the schedule and to condemn parents who decline it. Book after book, he plays the doctor calmly explaining what the parents are getting wrong.
Bad Faith extends the position into religion. It was published five years before COVID. Its recommendations were substantially enacted between 2015 and 2022. Read now, it functions less as ethical inquiry than as a legislative operations manual whose program was executed.
The Method
The book opens with cases designed to overwhelm objection. A Wisconsin pastor performs an exorcism on an eight-year-old boy with autism and asphyxiates him under his own body weight.⁶ An ultra-Orthodox mohel in Brooklyn performs metzitzah b’peh, sucking blood from a circumcision wound with his mouth; eleven infants develop what medicine identifies as neonatal herpes, two die, and two suffer permanent brain damage.⁷ At a Texas ministry associated with televangelist Kenneth Copeland, sixteen people including a four-month-old become ill in what Offit calls a measles outbreak connected to a daycare center on church property.⁸ In Ireland, a Hindu woman named Savita Halappanavar dies after a Catholic hospital refuses to remove her miscarrying fetus while a heartbeat is still detectable; the coroner attributes her death to septicemia.⁹
None of these cases involves ordinary religious exemption from vaccination. What they share, at the level Offit uses them, is that religious belief was present at the scene of a death. What they do not share is the specific practice the book has been marshalled to condemn.
That is the book’s central rhetorical move. It builds a moral gradient from ritual mutilation and life-refusal to any parental decision that rejects a pharmaceutical recommendation on religious grounds. The gradient does not require the cases to be comparable. It requires only that the reader carry the emotional freight of the extreme cases into the ordinary one.
The move is announced on page xiii. Offit writes, in his own voice, that he began the book expecting to arrive where Dawkins and Hitchens arrived, at the conclusion that religion is illogical and potentially harmful, but instead found himself moved by the Old and New Testaments. “The reader will be surprised to learn that the hero of this book isn’t science or medicine or doctors; it’s religion.”¹⁰
The concession does specific work. It reassures the religious reader that the book is not hostile to their tradition, and it disarms the skeptical reader who has watched vaccine industry figures dismiss religious objections as backward. Once both are quieted, the book proceeds to recommendations that religious readers, warned properly, would reject on sight.
Rita Swan is the emotional engine of the book. Offit opens with her and closes with her. To understand what he does with her, it helps to see her before he found her.
She was raised in Christian Science. In 1977, her fifteen-month-old son Matthew died after his parents, following church teaching, refused medical care for what was diagnosed as bacterial meningitis.¹¹ A year after his death, still a Christian Scientist, she went to the medical library at Wayne State University in Detroit. She had heard about another Christian Science child, a boy named Danny, whose meningitis had reportedly resolved without medical treatment; she wanted to understand why God had saved Danny and not Matthew. She read the textbooks. Danny had one kind of meningitis, viral, which typically resolves on its own. Matthew had another, bacterial, which does not. Antibiotics would have saved him. She sat on the floor of the library stacks and read the paragraph over and over. In her own words: “I did not have to be afraid that Matthew had died because we were not right with God. I knew that I wasn’t giving up a magical, supernatural protection or any kind of protection from evil because Christian Science had no power. It hadn’t healed anything.”¹²
That is the moment before Rita Swan became a public figure. She left the church, founded an organization called Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, and dedicated her life to eliminating religious exemption from child abuse and neglect law. Everything after sits downstream of that library floor. What Offit builds on top of it in Bad Faith is a criminal-law regime under which the state prosecutes not only parents like Rita Swan’s former self, but parents who bear no resemblance to Rita Swan’s former self at all.
Swan’s grief is real. Her son died. Her devotion to what she now believes is real. None of that is at issue. What is at issue is the strategic use to which her narrative has been put. Offit takes a mother whose child died in 1977 after her family refused emergency medical treatment for a present, acute illness, and uses her story to justify the elimination, in the 2010s, of the religious right to decline pharmaceutical injection of a healthy child. The two positions are not the same. Nothing in Matthew Swan’s death establishes what the parents of a healthy two-month-old should be permitted to decide about a hepatitis B injection.
The emotional weight travels regardless. That is the point of putting Rita Swan on the first page and the last page of the book.
Once the extreme cases have done their work, the ordinary case follows. Offit writes: “On any given day in America, tens of thousands of children whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them for religious reasons can be found in daycare centers, schools, playgrounds, and churches across the country.”¹³ The sentence sits between the paragraphs about the Copeland church and the paragraphs about the woman dying at St. Joseph’s in Phoenix. By the time the reader arrives at unvaccinated children in daycare centers, the frame is set. They are on a moral continuum with mohels who kill babies and hospitals that let mothers die.
The frame does specific violence to the categories. A parent who declines a rubella vaccine on religious grounds is not the parent who prays over a bowel-obstructed child until he dies. Collapsing the two into one policy target requires an argument. Offit does not make the argument. He performs the collapse rhetorically and moves on.
Standing Up
Chapter 12 is called “Standing Up.” It is the book’s operations manual.
The model case is Oregon. Between 1999 and 2011, Rita Swan and Oregon prosecutor Terry Gustafson worked to strip religious exemption from Oregon’s criminal code. In 1999, Representative Bruce Starr introduced a bill repealing all religious exemptions to child abuse and neglect statutes. The Christian Science Church lobbied against it. The legislature compromised, repealing five of the exemptions.¹⁴ Twelve years later, after further deaths among children in the Followers of Christ church, Swan and her husband moved from Iowa to Oregon and lived in Salem for four months lobbying for full repeal. This time the Christian Science Church withdrew opposition. Governor Kitzhaber signed the bill. Religious exemption in Oregon was eliminated.¹⁵
Offit reports these events approvingly. He notes that under Oregon’s mandatory sentencing guidelines, parents convicted of religiously motivated child abuse or neglect could face up to twenty-five years in prison.¹⁶ He offers this as a template.
The Schaible case is the chapter’s central prosecution. Herbert and Catherine Schaible, members of the First-Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia, lost their two-year-old son Kent in 2009 after choosing prayer instead of medical care; the coroner ruled the death due to bacterial pneumonia. The Schaibles were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years’ probation, with an order to seek medical care for their remaining seven children. In 2013, while under probation, their seven-month-old son Brandon died of the same condition. The Schaibles were charged with third-degree murder and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. Their remaining children were removed to foster care.¹⁷
Offit reports the case as vindication of the prosecutorial approach. What the chapter does not report is the distinction between the Schaible position and the position of the parent who declines a hepatitis B or MMR injection for a healthy child. The Schaibles refused antibiotics for their acutely ill children. The parent refusing MMR is refusing pharmaceutical injection of a well child in the absence of any acute illness. One is refusal of treatment for present illness; the other is refusal of a product administered to a healthy body. Arguing for equivalent prosecution requires arguing for equivalence between the two positions. The chapter does not attempt the argument. It stacks the cases.
The children whose deaths Offit catalogues are real. Kent and Brandon Schaible are dead; more than eighty children lie in the Followers of Christ cemetery in Oregon; Matthew Swan was fifteen months old when he died in 1977. None of that is at issue here. What is at issue is the argumentative bridge: whether the deaths of children whose parents refused treatment for acute illness license the criminalization of parents who decline pharmaceutical products intended for a healthy body. Offit says yes. The book’s structural task is to make that inferential leap feel intuitive rather than argued.
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics awarded Rita Swan the President’s Certificate for Outstanding Service. Robert W. Block, then AAP president, presented her with a plaque at the national meeting.¹⁸ The award marks a specific institutional turn. The largest pediatric medical body in the United States awarded its highest honor to a lay activist whose organizational mission is the elimination of religious exemption. Since then, the AAP has campaigned publicly for the removal of non-medical exemptions from state vaccine mandates.
The concession on page xiii is at this point difficult to sustain. The book that opens with “the hero of this book isn’t science or medicine or doctors; it’s religion” also contains, one hundred and eighty pages later, the sentence: “the American public’s instinctive tolerance for religion often exceeds reason.”¹⁹ Both sentences are Offit. Both are Bad Faith. The hero of page xiii and the tolerance-that-exceeds-reason of page 193 are the same subject in the same book. The concession was a hospitality. Chapter 12 is what waits behind it.
Offit’s resolution is to distinguish between religion properly understood, which is charity, and religion improperly performed, which is medical neglect. Charity is what he defends. Anything else is subject to statute. The distinction is convenient. It is also a claim no religious tradition would recognize as an outside authority’s to draw. Offit is not a theologian. He is a pediatrician with a financial stake in vaccine uptake and an institutional platform at the largest children’s hospital in the country. The book adjudicates which religious practices are protected and which are prosecutable. Parents disagree at their statutory peril.
From Print to Statute
Bad Faith was published in March 2015. Three months later, on June 30, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB277, eliminating both religious and personal-belief exemptions from the state’s school vaccination requirements. California became the third state, after Mississippi and West Virginia, to permit only medical exemption.²⁰ The bill had been introduced in February 2015, roughly the same month Basic Books shipped Offit’s manuscript. Public advocacy for the bill drew heavily on the framing Offit had spent the previous decade establishing. Four years later, in 2019, California passed SB276, restricting the medical exemptions that had replaced the eliminated religious ones. What began as a policy conversation about religious refusal ended as a near-total mandate.
In June 2019, New York eliminated religious exemption by legislative vote. The bill passed in response to what the state described as measles outbreaks in Rockland County and Brooklyn, communities with large Orthodox Jewish populations. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill the same day it passed both chambers.²¹ Maine passed LD 798 in May 2019, eliminating religious and philosophical exemption; the law survived a March 2020 ballot referendum challenge.²² Connecticut eliminated religious exemption in April 2021.²³ Mississippi, which had never permitted religious exemption to school vaccination, was ordered by a federal court in 2023 to allow one under Bosarge v. Edney.²⁴
The COVID-era mandates of 2021 and 2022 extended the framework beyond state school law. Federal contractors, healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding, and workers at companies with more than one hundred employees faced injection requirements as conditions of employment. Military personnel faced separate mandates. Religious exemption processes existed on paper. Employers rejected them at scale, and litigation over denied exemptions moved through the federal courts for the next several years.²⁵
Family court applied the framework to custody. In October 2017, Oakland County Judge Karen McDonald sentenced Rebecca Bredow of Ferndale, Michigan to seven days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to vaccinate her nine-year-old son under a court-approved parenting agreement. Her ex-husband was granted temporary custody. Bredow’s son received four vaccinations while she was behind bars. She then lost primary custody permanently. Three months later, in a separate Michigan custody dispute, attorney Aaron Siri deposed Stanley Plotkin, Offit’s mentor and vaccine industry co-strategist. Plotkin had been recruited as expert witness for the father seeking to vaccinate his ten-year-old daughter over the mother’s religious objection. The nine-hour deposition on January 11, 2018 ended with Plotkin recusing himself the following day. The father nevertheless prevailed at trial.²⁶ Similar custody rulings have moved through American family courts since. The framework Offit established in Bad Faith, that religious or personal objection to vaccination is a category on which the state may act against the parent, is the framework these courts now apply.
Under the Siri deposition, Plotkin stated the position openly. Asked whether he believed anyone could have a valid religious objection to vaccination, Plotkin answered no. Asked whether he took issue with religious beliefs, yes. Asked whether he stood by his written statement that “vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God includes death and disease,” he answered “I absolutely do.”²⁷ The deposition is the sworn version of what Bad Faith had put in more polished prose three years earlier.
In 2014, forty-eight American states recognized either religious or philosophical exemption to school vaccination. Between 2015 and 2022, four eliminated non-medical exemption: California, New York, Maine, and Connecticut. They joined Mississippi and West Virginia as the states permitting only medical exemption. The injection mandate regime extended in parallel into employment, healthcare, military service, and family law. Whether the reader considers this a public health achievement or a civil liberties collapse, the trajectory is documented. The book’s program was substantially enacted.
The framework has not gone unopposed. Aaron Siri and the firm of Siri & Glimstad have led the litigation counterattack, exposing Stanley Plotkin under deposition in 2018 and pressing federal court challenges to the COVID-era mandates. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense has funded much of the legal and public education work. Bosarge v. Edney, the April 2023 federal ruling that ordered Mississippi to allow religious exemption to childhood vaccination, is one visible product of that pushback. In January 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order directing state health officials to implement a religious exemption process; the resulting conflict between the governor’s office, the state Board of Education, and the state courts is now before the West Virginia Supreme Court. The framework Bad Faith helped establish is now being tested in the same courts that first applied it.
The Document Exists
The record is a public one. In 1998, Paul Offit voted twice at ACIP to add a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule. That vaccine was withdrawn a year later after CDC identified elevated intussusception risk and infant deaths. In 2006, his own rotavirus vaccine was added to the schedule under a subsequent ACIP recommendation. Merck paid him at least six million dollars for the patent, by his own admission, with other public estimates running higher. In 2000, the House Committee on Government Reform named him in a report on conflicts of interest at the CDC. In 2015, he published a book that opens by calling religion “the hero” and closes by endorsing prison terms of up to twenty-five years for parents who cite religion in declining pharmaceutical products for their children.
Between 2015 and 2022, states passed the laws the book recommended. California, New York, Maine, and Connecticut eliminated religious exemption from school vaccination. Federal COVID-era mandates conditioned employment, healthcare, and military service on injection. Family courts began ordering vaccination over parental objection and jailing mothers who refused. In 2014, forty-eight American states recognized non-medical exemption to childhood vaccination. By the end of 2022, forty-four did. Litigation and executive action since have partly reversed the direction of travel, and the story is not settled.
There is a version of this story a defender of the book would tell. In that version, the American vaccine mandate regime built between 2015 and 2022 is a public health triumph, and Bad Faith is the ethical volume that helped make it possible. In that version, Rita Swan on the floor of the Wayne State library reading about her son’s death is the founder of a movement to protect children, and Kent Schaible, Brandon Schaible, and the eighty-plus children in the Followers of Christ cemetery are the reason the state was right to act. That version exists. It is the version Bad Faith itself tells.
The other version is that the author of Bad Faith is a pediatrician who voted rotavirus vaccines onto the CDC schedule while his own rotavirus vaccine was in development at Merck, abstained from the vote to withdraw the failed predecessor after infants died, and sold his own version to Merck for at least six million dollars. In that version, the book that calls religion “the hero” is written by a man the House of Representatives named in a conflict-of-interest report fifteen years earlier, and its policy recommendations, enacted in state after state and then extended into COVID-era employment law, functioned to remove the last legal ground from which parents could decline the products his own industry manufactures. In that version, the mother on the library floor was leveraged into a criminal-law regime she never asked for.
The reader can pick the version. Both start from the same documents. The book calls itself an inquiry into religious belief. The record of what it did calls it something else. Everything is documented: Chapter 12 in the book, Offit’s financial history in the 2000 House committee report, the Schaible convictions in Pennsylvania court records, the state exemption repeals in state statute, the Plotkin deposition in sworn testimony. The elements exist for anyone to verify.
The document exists and says what it says.
How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old
Imagine there is a kid at school named Paul who sells cookies at lunch. He has been selling them for a long time and he is rich now.
One day Paul writes a big book. In the book he says that any kid who doesn’t buy his cookies at lunch is being mean, and that the teachers should send those kids to the principal, and that the principal should punish their parents.
The teachers read Paul’s book. Some of them agree. Soon there is a new rule at school: if you don’t buy Paul’s cookies at lunch, you get sent to the principal’s office.
But some kids have real reasons for not buying cookies. Some are allergic. Some don’t have any money. Some of their families believe cookies are wrong. Some kids just don’t want cookies today. The rule doesn’t care. If you don’t buy them, you are in trouble.
Meanwhile, Paul is still selling cookies. He is still getting rich. He never mentioned in his book that he was the one selling them.
That is the story of Bad Faith. Paul Offit is a doctor who made millions of dollars from a vaccine he invented. He wrote a book saying that religious parents who don’t want vaccines for their children should go to prison. Between 2015 and 2022, several American states passed laws matching what his book said. The vaccines his industry sells are now required in more places than they used to be. The parents who don’t want them have fewer places left to say no.
Paul’s book called religion “the hero.” It wasn’t.
References
¹ Offit’s ACIP tenure (October 1998 to June 2003) and the specific rotavirus votes (June 25, 1998; October 22, 1998; October 22, 1999) are documented in United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, Majority Staff Report, June 15, 2000 (Section V, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Exhibits 38-41 pertaining to Dr. Offit specifically). See also Handley, J.B., How to End the Autism Epidemic (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018), Chapter 4, “The Reward Is Never Financial”; and Olmsted, Dan, and Mark Blaxill, “Voting Himself Rich,” Age of Autism, December 2009.
² Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Withdrawal of Rotavirus Vaccine Recommendation,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(43), November 5, 1999. RotaShield post-licensure surveillance findings, including hospitalizations for intussusception and deaths, are documented in CDC MMWR reports from October and November 1999. Offit’s abstention from the withdrawal vote is reported by Olmsted and Blaxill, op. cit., and by Handley, op. cit.
³ Handley, op. cit., quoting Offit’s own email correspondence acknowledging the six-million-dollar figure, and noting that “other public estimates have been far higher.” Handley’s citation is to Offit-David Brown correspondence, August 18, 2009.
⁴ United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, June 15, 2000. Available via the Children’s Health Defense archive at childrenshealthdefense.org.
⁵ Offit, Paul A., Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine (Basic Books, 2015). ISBN 978-0-465-04061-2. Endorsement of Oregon’s mandatory sentencing appears in Chapter 12.
⁶ Bad Faith, Introduction, pp. ix-x. Terrance Cottrell Jr., killed August 22, 2003.
⁷ Bad Faith, Introduction, p. xi. See also New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “Notes from the Field: Neonatal Herpes Simplex Virus Infection Following Jewish Ritual Circumcisions,” MMWR 61, 2012.
⁸ Bad Faith, Introduction, pp. xi-xii. The Tarrant County outbreak, August 2013, was traced to Eagle Mountain International Church.
⁹ Bad Faith, Chapter 6, “Dialogue of the Deaf,” pp. 82-85. Halappanavar died October 28, 2012, at University Hospital Galway.
¹⁰ Bad Faith, Introduction, p. xiii.
¹¹ Bad Faith, Chapter 1, “The Very Worst Thing,” pp. 1-18. Matthew Swan died July 1977.
¹² Bad Faith, Chapter 12, “Standing Up,” pp. 177-178. Rita Swan’s account of the Wayne State University medical library and her decision to leave Christian Science.
¹³ Bad Faith, Introduction, p. xii.
¹⁴ Bad Faith, Chapter 12, pp. 184-186. The 1999 Oregon legislative fight and Bruce Starr’s HB 2494.
¹⁵ Bad Faith, Chapter 12, pp. 186-187. Oregon House Bill 2721 (2011).
¹⁶ Bad Faith, Chapter 12, p. 186.
¹⁷ Bad Faith, Chapter 12, pp. 187-191. See also Commonwealth v. Schaible, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. Herbert and Catherine Schaible entered no-contest pleas to third-degree murder on November 14, 2013, and were sentenced February 19, 2014.
¹⁸ Bad Faith, Epilogue, p. 195. American Academy of Pediatrics announcement of the 2012 President’s Certificate for Outstanding Service.
¹⁹ Bad Faith, Chapter 12, p. 193. The full sentence in context reads: “the American public’s instinctive tolerance for religion often exceeds reason—in this case, resulting in a misguided respect for a belief that violates one of the most fundamental teachings of all religions: protecting the vulnerable.”
²⁰ California Senate Bill 277 (Pan/Allen), signed by Governor Jerry Brown on June 30, 2015. Codified at California Health and Safety Code § 120325. California Senate Bill 276 (Pan), restricting medical exemptions, was signed September 9, 2019.
²¹ New York Senate Bill S2994A / Assembly Bill A2371A, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on June 13, 2019, repealing New York Public Health Law § 2164(9).
²² Maine LD 798, signed by Governor Janet Mills, May 24, 2019. Upheld in a March 3, 2020 statewide referendum by a vote of 73 to 27 percent.
²³ Connecticut House Bill 6423, signed by Governor Ned Lamont on April 28, 2021, repealing the state’s religious exemption to school vaccination requirements.
²⁴ Bosarge v. Edney, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 2023, ordering the state to allow religious exemption to childhood vaccination requirements.
²⁵ Federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate litigation includes NFIB v. OSHA, 595 U.S. 109 (January 13, 2022) (staying the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for large employers); Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (January 13, 2022) (allowing the CMS healthcare worker mandate to take effect); and numerous federal cases involving denied religious exemption accommodations.
²⁶ Rebecca Bredow’s jailing and custody loss are documented in contemporaneous news reports from October 2017 (Oakland County Circuit Court, Judge Karen McDonald presiding; Detroit Free Press, CBS News, Washington Post reporting). The separate Michigan custody case in which Stanley Plotkin was deposed by Aaron Siri (January 11, 2018) is described in Handley, J.B., How to End the Autism Epidemic, Chapter 4. The deposition ran approximately nine hours.
²⁷ Deposition of Stanley Plotkin, taken by Aaron Siri, January 11, 2018. Transcript publicly available via the Informed Consent Action Network. The exchange on religious objection to vaccination appears at approximately pp. 42-46 of the deposition.
Dressen v. Flaherty: Vaccine Censorship Case Goes to Appeal
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 10, 2026
Federal officials set out to erase the online voices of Americans who said Covid vaccines had hurt them. A new appeal asks the Fifth Circuit to give those Americans their day in court.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its opening brief on July 7, asking the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive Dressen v. Flaherty.
We obtained a copy of the brief for you here.
A federal judge in Texas had thrown the case out before a single document changed hands in discovery. The suit accuses the Biden administration of running a joint government and private censorship operation against people who went online to talk about vaccine injuries.
Brianne Dressen alleges she was injured after she volunteered for an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, and Suzanna Newell each reportedly suffered serious, debilitating injuries after Covid vaccination. Ernest Ramirez was vaccinated without incident and then lost his healthy 16-year-old son five days after the boy received his first Pfizer dose. The autopsy pointed to an enlarged heart and myocarditis.
They did what people in pain tend to do. They went to social media to trade medical research, look for treatments, share hopeful stories, and find others who understood. For many of them, closed online support groups became a lifeline.
The government treated that lifeline as a threat. The Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, HHS, DHS, CISA, and the White House leaned on social media companies to flag this speech as “misinformation,” shadow-ban it, or delete it outright.
The operation reached across agencies and into the platforms themselves, coercing and colluding with the companies that decide who gets to be heard.
Stanford supplied the machinery. The now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and its “Virality Project” tracked posts and handed the platforms lists of speech to suppress.
The Virality Project targeted Covid-vaccine speech that broke from the administration’s preferred policies, whether or not that speech was accurate. Real accounts of real injuries got flagged because they were inconvenient, not because they were false.
The censors were specific about their targets. Their tracking called out Bri Dressen by name. A woman reportedly injured in a vaccine trial, describing what happened to her own body, became something a federal effort wanted the public not to see.
None of that was enough for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which dismissed the case at the pleading stage. The plaintiffs had laid out a detailed factual account of a nationwide censorship conspiracy, and the court closed the door before discovery could begin.
NCLA’s brief says the district court got the law wrong in several ways. The judge set too narrow and exacting a bar on personal jurisdiction and used it to wave off the Stanford defendants and the individual government officials.
The court also misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri, which weighed whether a different set of NCLA clients had shown enough to win a preliminary injunction. No injunction is being sought here, so that higher standard does not govern this case.
The brief argues, the court made a further error on the civil-rights conspiracy claim. It tossed the plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S. Code Section 1985(3) on the theory that they had not alleged racial discrimination. The statute never mentions race. It protects “any person or class of persons” stripped of their rights through an invidiously discriminatory conspiracy, and the Supreme Court has said the provision can reach non-racial classes.
“To call what happened to our clients ‘troubling’ is a massive understatement. After suffering devastating medical injuries following Covid vaccination, they turned to social media as a lifeline for support and connection with others who understood. Rather than compassion or aid, the Government responded with relentless censorship, maligning them as liars and conspiracy theorists and cutting off the lifelines that they depended on.
“Their only offense was that their lived experiences, pain, and even private conversations in online support groups contradicted the Administration’s preferred Covid-vaccine narrative. The cruelty and injustice are difficult to overstate,” said Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The appeal also presses a point the district court skipped over. Censorship harms more than the person silenced.
“We are confident the Fifth Circuit will correct the District Court’s numerous errors in dismissing the complaint, which included taking an inappropriately narrow view of personal jurisdiction and ignoring that not just speakers, but also potential listeners, suffer harm resulting from unlawful government censorship,” said Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The stakes reach past these six plaintiffs. If courts keep reading Murthy as a wall against every censorship suit, the government gains a template for silencing people with almost no risk of accountability.
“Lower courts are misapplying the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri decision, and the ruling below here is a prime example. The Murthy decision set a high bar for standing in the context of a preliminary injunction to stop future censorship. But no PI was sought here, so the Murthy standard is not applicable. If Bri Dressen cannot satisfy standing—when the defendants called her out by name in their censorship tracking—then no one will,” said Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of NCLA.
According to NCLA, the campaign still burdens its clients’ ability to speak, to associate privately, and to exchange information with others in closed support groups.
The question in front of the Fifth Circuit is whether Americans silenced by their own government can even make their case to a jury, or whether the courthouse door stays shut before anyone looks at the evidence.
Doctor faces up to 50-year jail sentence — Is it because he promoted monoclonal antibodies instead of COVID vaccines?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 7, 2026
In 2021, Dr. Ron Elfenbein, a physician who operated FirstCall Medical Center in Maryland, went on Fox News to criticize the Biden administration’s policies limiting access to monoclonal antibodies. Speaking during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Elfenbein insisted that monoclonal antibodies were effective in treating COVID-19.
Four months later, the federal government indicted Elfenbein on five counts of fraudulent coding and billing at his clinics, alleging that Elfenbein “upcoded” by billing for a higher level of treatment than provided.
But Elfenbein said he believes the charges were motivated by his support for monoclonal antibodies — and a federal judge agreed.
In August 2023, a jury found Elfenbein guilty. But in response to Elfenbein’s motion for acquittal, U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar threw out the jury’s verdict and acquitted Elfenbein in December 2023.
In his 93-page ruling, Bredar said the government did not present enough evidence to convict Elfenbein, instead relying on “loose definitions” and an “imperfect” set of standards governing medical coding.
“The evidence weighs so heavily in favor of the defendant that it would be unjust to enter judgment against him,” Bredar wrote.
“That kind of post-verdict acquittal is extraordinarily rare,” said Dr. Kirk Moore, a Utah plastic surgeon who last year was acquitted on federal charges that he issued falsified COVID-19 vaccination cards. “Judges almost never overturn juries. Bredar did it because the case was just that empty.”
Yet, in the final days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed. In July 2025, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the original jury had enough evidence to convict Elfenbein and sent the case back to the trial court.
“The government doesn’t get to lose, apparently,” Moore said. “They just get to keep swinging, bullying their way through a judicial system that is now built for this exact purpose.”
In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Elfenbein’s appeal.
In an interview with The Defender, Elfenbein said that his new trial is scheduled for January 2027. He believes he is unfairly being targeted as a “whistleblower” who was trying to help the public during a global pandemic and who was charged despite a lack of evidence against him.
He faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all five charges.
Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, said the case against Elfenbein is “inexplicable” and that there were no coding errors or any criminal intent.
“Nobody was harmed. No patient was harmed. No insurance company was harmed. The federal government was harmed,” Kirsch said — because promoting monoclonal antibodies undermined the government’s promotion of COVID-19 vaccines.
Government’s case ‘the height of bureaucratic arrogance’
According to Elfenbein, his network of clinics rapidly expanded operations early during the COVID-19 pandemic in response to “unprecedented” circumstances.
“No one really understood what to do. Everything was sort of ‘fly by the seat of your pants.’ So, we had to invent everything,” Elfenbein said. He cited the example of drive-up COVID-19 testing with provider evaluation, which he said his clinics were the first to offer in Maryland.
“At one point, we were seeing over 1,000 patients a day across six different or eight different sites. And we had to figure out how to accommodate that,” Elfenbein said.
Elfenbein said that at his drive-up testing sites and in his urgent care facilities, patients would communicate with practitioners virtually through a television screen and microphone. Their results would then be delivered electronically.
In 2021, Elfenbein began offering monoclonal antibodies to COVID-19 patients. At the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he set up a monoclonal antibody clinic at FedEx Field outside of Washington, D.C.
In an April interview with The MAHA Report, Elfenbein said the clinics performed 5,000 infusions.
Monoclonal antibodies are produced in labs and designed to replicate the immune system’s response to pathogens. Elfenbein said the treatments — and his test-and-treat model, where patients would be tested and treated at the same site — were successful and became “the model for the entire country moving forward.”
“It was like battlefield medicine, just trying to improvise and do as much as you can and as much good as you can in as little amount of time as possible,” Elfenbein said.
Elfenbein said that despite their success in treating COVID-19 patients, the Biden administration significantly curtailed the use of monoclonal antibodies in December 2021, making it much more difficult for practitioners in certain states to obtain the treatment.
That same month, Elfenbein told Fox News that people were “going to die” as a result of not having access to monoclonal antibodies. He made similar remarks in an interview with Newsmax during this period.
“It’s just the height of bureaucratic arrogance, and it’s … horrible,” Elfenbein told Fox News at the time.
The ‘government’s looking to put me in jail for 50 years … over $250’
Four months later, in April 2022, Elfenbein was out with his son when he received a phone call from his clinic, informing him that two federal agents wanted to speak with him. He later learned that the DOJ planned to indict him on healthcare fraud charges.
While the circumstances of his indictment were initially unclear, Elfenbein said he learned during the pre-trial discovery phase that undercover agents posing as patients had visited his testing facilities after his Fox News interview.
The DOJ alleged that, in the case of five patients who visited Elfenbein’s testing facilities, insurers were charged more than they should have been for the level of treatment provided, as a result of “upcoding.”
According to Elfenbein, there are “four different codes you can pick from when you’re doing evaluation and management” of a patient, ranging from level 2 to level 5. “Normally, in most cases, you should get a bell curve” among the different levels, Elfenbein said. But during the pandemic, this changed.
“There’s a pandemic going on. We’re not seeing ankle sprains. We’re not seeing elbow sprains. We’re not seeing lacerations. We’re seeing COVID and that was it.”
Most COVID-19 patients were coded as level-4 patients, which he said was the norm across medical facilities during that time.
According to Healthcare Law Insights, the codes are imprecise, which “makes for difficult federal prosecutions.”
“There is purpose in [the] codes’ imprecision in that it allows physicians flexibility to exercise their best judgment given the multitude of factors that go into medical decision-making,” Healthcare Law Insights reported.
In the case of Elfenbein, the initial judge found a lack of evidence that Elfenbein’s level-4 coding was “objectively false.”
In an amicus brief filed on Elfenbein’s behalf in October 2024, the American Medical Association (AMA) agreed, writing, “Clinicians must be able to exercise their judgment without fear of inadvertently facing allegations of wrongdoing.”
Elfenbein said this is significant because the AMA developed the ICD-10 medical coding system that’s currently in use.
Elfenbein said:
“The American Medical Association owns that. Everybody uses ICD-10. And, by the way, there are over 69,000 possible codes in ICD-10. And the government alleged we chose the wrong code out of 69,000, five charts out of over 100,000, in the timeframe of the indictment during a global pandemic.”
Elfenbein said prosecutors couldn’t identify which code should have been assigned to those five patients instead of level 4, but that the difference between level 4 and level 3 amounts to approximately $50.
“The government’s looking to put me in jail for 50 years, destroy my life, take away my livelihood, over $250,” Elfenbein said.
“The … definitions for level-4 evaluation and management codes are inherently subjective — they depend on ‘medical decision-making’ complexity, not a stopwatch,” Moore said. “If you’re going to charge a man with fraud for using the wrong code, you should probably be able to say what the right code is. They couldn’t, wouldn’t and ultimately, didn’t.”
‘This is a case of shoot first and ask questions later’
Elfenbein told The Defender that while he does not have hard evidence proving that the DOJ’s case against him is retaliatory, the timing of his indictment shortly after his Fox News and Newsmax interviews is likely not coincidental.
“Temporally, I went on Fox News, and I got indicted almost to the day, four months later. Putting the two things together, it seems to make sense in my mind that this is what set them off,” Elfenbein said.
He suggested that the government’s case against him appeared to have been hastily constructed, further suggesting that the DOJ was targeting him on retaliatory grounds rather than on the strength of the evidence.
“They indicted me before they had the [patients’] charts. They didn’t even know what was in the charts,” Elfenbein said. Federal investigators did not speak to his business partners, who were responsible for billing, and never cross-examined a professional medical coder.
According to Elfenbein, the government’s own witnesses also undermined the DOJ’s case during the first trial. While prosecutors alleged that the five visits in question were too quick for the number of procedures that were coded, a government witness testified that “time is irrelevant for coding” and that the tests were “medically necessary.”
“This was a case where even the chief judge said, ‘This is a case of shoot first and ask questions later.’ No real investigation had been done,” Elfenbein said. “That’s pretty telling, for a federal judge to say that to the prosecution.”
Promotion of a non-vaccine treatment ‘posed a huge threat’
Elfenbein said he believes his public statements about the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies threatened the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise.
The COVID-19 shots were issued under emergency use authorization, which is customarily revoked once other effective treatments are identified and licensed.
Elfenbein said his clinics had become the largest supplier of monoclonal antibodies in the mid-Atlantic region, which “posed a huge threat.”
“It was a direct threat to the emergency use authorization of the vaccine,” he said. “I think I was the easiest fall guy … I was out all the time beating the drum, answering phone calls, talking to people, answering Facebook messages, taking questions, anything I could do to help.”
Moore agreed. “The monoclonal antibody ban was transparently about clearing the field for the vaccines. If there’s an effective early treatment available, the urgency to get jabbed drops considerably.”
By making monoclonal antibodies available despite government efforts to curtail their use, and by subsequently criticizing the government on that front, Elfenbein said he, in effect, became a whistleblower.
“I went on Fox News and I said, ‘The government doesn’t know what it’s doing, and it is gonna kill people.’ If that’s not a whistleblower, I don’t know what is.”
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.
BMJ Probe Into Excess Mortality Study Drags On for Two Years With No Resolution
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 17, 2026
Controversy over a BMJ paper examining excess mortality trends during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unresolved more than two years after publication, Steve Kirsch reported on Substack.
Dutch researcher Saskia Mostert, M.D., Ph.D., led the study, which was published in BMJ Public Health in May 2024.
Mostert’s team analyzed excess mortality data from 47 Western countries and reported that elevated death rates persisted through 2022 and 2023 despite the end of pandemic restrictions and the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines.
The authors argued that the findings warranted further investigation into potential contributing factors, including pandemic-era policies, healthcare disruptions and mass vaccination programs.
The paper was attacked on PubPeer and Retraction Watch, two platforms that have become the driving force behind many recent retractions of peer-reviewed scientific papers whose findings challenge the mainstream narrative on vaccines, COVID-19 treatments and aluminum, among others.
Critics did not dispute the paper’s core findings that excess mortality was high and remained elevated in many Western countries during the study period. Instead, they criticized the paper’s discussion of the COVID-19 vaccines, saying it implied there was a causal link between the shots and excess death and encouraged readers to infer causation.
Several critics called for the paper to be retracted.
In response to these and other mainstream criticism of the paper, BMJ Public Health issued a statement saying that media reports had misrepresented the findings. However, in mid-June 2024, the journal stamped the article with an “expression of concern.”
The journal said its “integrity team and editors” were investigating issues “regarding the quality and messaging of this work.” It also said the Princess Máxima Center, where three of the four study authors were based, was investigating the study.
BMJ Public Health added that the study does not support the claim that vaccines are a major contributor to excess deaths.
The BMJ typically waits for the home institution’s findings before taking action, according to Kirsch. He said the Princess Máxima Center hasn’t yet sufficiently explained what was wrong with the study.
BMJ updated the expression of concern in January 2025, stating that it was awaiting the findings and that the institution had no update regarding when the information would be sent. The Princess Máxima’s website says the investigation is “complete but not yet finalized.”
“After more than two years, the ‘issues’ with the paper have not been revealed,” Kirsch wrote. He said that the center’s investigation revealed that the data and methodology are real and the authors committed no fraud.
“The institution just didn’t like the political implications of being associated with a paper that called the safety of the COVID vaccine into question.”
Princess Maxima Center did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Study used proper methods, reported valid findings
All-cause mortality expert Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., told The Defender that the authors conducted their analysis, “using a correct method and without error.”
“Those results are robust and are corroborated and expanded upon by others,” Rancourt said. All-cause mortality is an important metric that is valid regardless of different opinions about what drives that mortality, he added.
Rancourt said the researchers discussed their results in relation to a broad range of published studies.
The push for retraction was based on how the media and social media commenters interpreted the discussion — not based on what the authors actually did in the paper.
“This is a regressive reason to start unpublishing papers,” he said, adding:
“The large industry of unpublishing shows that our society has moved away from independent thought (intellectual literacy) and towards excessive reliance on the pronouncements from high-status sources. I include scientists themselves in the said society.”
All-cause mortality identified in the paper ‘unprecedented and raises serious concerns’
The original paper showed that excess mortality in 2020 was documented in 41 of the 47 countries the authors analyzed. Over the next two years, that number increased to 42 and 43 countries in 2021 and 2022, respectively.
Overall, there were 3,098,456 excess deaths from Jan. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2022, with just over 1 million of those occurring in 2020.
“This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns,” said researchers, who analyzed all-cause mortality reported in the Our World in Data database.
“In 2021,” they wrote, “the year in which both containment [i.e., lockdown] measures and COVID-19 vaccines were used to address virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was reported: 1,256,942 excess deaths.”
They reported that in 2022 — “the year in which most containment measures were lifted and COVID-19 vaccines were continued” — there were 808,392 excess deaths.
The authors pointed out that during the pandemic, politicians and the media emphasized: “on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.”
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply,” the authors said. “Every death needs to be acknowledged and accounted for, irrespective of its origin.”
The authors called for government transparency in cause-of-death data so researchers can do “direct and robust analyses to determine the underlying contributors.”
This also means that autopsies need to be done to determine the exact reason for death, they added.
The authors noted that the data they analyzed may not have recorded all actual deaths because “countries may lack the infrastructure and capacity to document and account for all deaths.”
Record-keeping mishaps or delays may also cause deaths to go unrecorded.
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.
CDC Awards Pfizer $1.24 Billion for COVID Vaccines for Kids and Adults
By Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW | The Defender | June 12, 2026
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recent decision to award Pfizer $1.24 billion for COVID-19 vaccines has renewed debate over the government’s continued investment in mRNA technology.
The contracts, awarded on June 1, include about $735.7 million for pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and nearly $505.3 million for adult doses for fiscal year 2026-2027.
Critics say the funding reflects a continued commitment to vaccines associated with high rates of serious injuries and deaths, and a lack of adequate safety testing and monitoring.
Public health experts argue the investment is necessary to protect vulnerable populations and prepare for future outbreaks.
The latest contracts come as mRNA technology expands beyond COVID-19.
A recent review in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics found that mRNA-based therapeutics were identified in more than 550 registered clinical trials. The authors reported that more than 90% of the projects involved mRNA vaccines and that most products remain in early-stage testing before broader adoption.
‘Unnecessary and often harmful injections’
The procurement of monetary resources signals that federal officials intend to continue investing heavily in mRNA technology despite declining public demand and ongoing controversy over vaccine safety monitoring, critics say.
Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender there was “no scientific justification” or “market demand” for the latest mRNA vaccine funding.
“This raises a serious question concerning how these captured agencies really work,” Tucker said. “We are talking about vast amounts of tax dollars flowing to support unnecessary and often harmful injections.”
“This is $1.24 billion for what is essentially a cold in minor children,” said Children’s Health Defense Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker.
Daniel O’Connor, publisher of TrialSite News, which covers global biomedical and clinical research, told The Defender Americans “better start asking the hard questions.”
“If demand is falling, safety questions remain contested and many reporting vaccine injuries say they’ve been left behind, why is Washington committing another $1.24 billion to vaccine procurement instead of first providing a transparent accounting of need, benefit, risk, and responsibility?”
‘COVID-19 has not disappeared’
Public health experts disagreed, saying their support of vaccinations is supporting the prevention of future pandemics.
Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, told The Defender that the monetary installments will help stave off another public health crisis because “COVID-19 has not disappeared.”
“While the emergency phase of the pandemic is over, the virus continues to cause significant illness, hospitalizations and deaths each year,” she said. “This investment reflects the reality that vaccines remain one of our most effective tools for preventing severe disease, particularly among those at highest risk. Maintaining access to updated vaccines is an important part of ensuring the country remains prepared for future COVID-19 surges.”
Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist and professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said the contracts will ensure “continuing availability of safe and effective COVID vaccines through the next two years.”
“COVID vaccines have repeatedly been demonstrated to provide protection against the most severe manifestations of COVID infection: hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and death,” Schaffner said. “This is particularly applicable to those persons at increased risk of becoming seriously ill: persons age 65 and older, anyone with a chronic medical condition, persons who are immunocompromised and persons who are pregnant.”
However, some studies suggest claims that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives are based on flawed models and incorrect calculations.
Legality of funding in question
The contracts also raise questions about federal vaccine spending.
Under the CDC’s Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, the federal government agrees to buy and provide free vaccines through negotiated contracts for eligible children.
Current CDC price schedules list Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines at roughly $69 to $91 per dose, depending on the formula, while Moderna doses range from about $78 to $83.
Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer and expert in mRNA vaccines, however, questioned the legal authority to use federal funding for the Pfizer contracts because the purchase wasn’t approved by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
“Use of VFC funds requires ACIP authorization,” he said. “But there is no ACIP.”
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an injunction blocking many of the recent ACIP appointments made under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) against Kennedy and the U.S, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The AAP accused Kennedy of violating procedures when he fired previous ACIP members and replaced them.
The ruling effectively paralysed ACIP and cast doubt on the legitimacy of its membership structure.
Requests for comment from ACIP went unanswered.
‘We are a long way from reckoning’
The CDC has maintained that authorized COVID-19 vaccines underwent extensive safety review and that the benefits outweigh known risks.
However, during a Capitol Hill meeting this week, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) referred to reported COVID-19 vaccine injuries as the “biggest government scandal in my lifetime.”
“What about all the injection-injured?” he said. “Until this government and this administration acknowledge those injuries, acknowledge the harm caused by these injections, and I would say federal health agencies also acknowledge the harm done by childhood vaccines, we are a long way from reckoning.”
In April, Johnson released a report revealing that Biden-era health officials rejected a state-of-the-art statistical tool for detecting COVID-19 vaccine safety signals — and instead deliberately continued using a broken method because they didn’t want to “feed in to [sic] anti-vaccination rhetoric.”
During an April 29 hearing, Johnson revealed that a longtime U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical officer, Ana Szarfman, M.D., Ph.D., repeatedly warned colleagues that the agency’s approach to safety monitoring could miss serious safety signals due to a problem known as “masking.” Masking occurs when other vaccines obscure risks tied to a specific product.
Johnson said FDA officials brushed aside Szarfman’s warnings.
The CDC, HHS and Pfizer did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the contracts.
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.
EU court adviser delivers another ‘Pfizergate’ blow to von der Leyen

RT | June 11, 2026
The European Commission should have revealed the details of its Covid-19 vaccine contracts with drugmakers to the public, an adviser to the EU’s highest court has declared. Among the contracts was a deal with Pfizer that commission President Ursula von der Leyen negotiated via text message.
In an opinion published on Thursday, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos argued that the commission’s insistence on secrecy made it impossible to know whether its vaccine negotiators had any conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies that they procured the shots from.
The commission signed six advance purchase agreements with pharmaceutical companies – including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna – between 2020 and 2021. The contracts were worth a combined €71 billion ($82 billion).
When Green MEPs and more than 3,000 members of the public demanded information about the negotiation process, the commission redacted the names of all of its negotiators and many of the contract clauses. The commission’s lawyers have argued that these redactions were made to protect the negotiators from “conspiracy theorists.”
The commission lost a legal battle to keep these details secret in 2024, but appealed the decision up to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Rantos’ opinion is not legally binding, but will inform the court’s final ruling.
Last year, the court ruled against von der Leyen in the ‘Pfizergate’ case, which centered around her negotiations with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. In 2021, von der Leyen told the New York Times that she had been negotiating a €35 billion deal for 900 million Covid vaccine doses with Bourla via sms messages.
The newspaper sued for access to the messages, arguing that von der Leyen could have used sms messaging to bypass EU transparency laws. The commission claimed that the messages had been lost, but the court ruled last May that the EU’s executive body failed to provide “credible explanations enabling the public and the Court to understand why those documents cannot be found.”
Von der Leyen survived a no-confidence vote initiated by right-wing parties in the European Parliament over the scandal last July.
