In 6 years, have any healthy Alabama students died from Covid?
I’ve gone back through my Covid archives and want to make sure everyone remembers how ridiculous the school lockdowns were
By Bill Rice, Jr. | August 12, 2025
The late Will Fowler overcame serious disabilities to become an honor’s student and band member at Cullman High School. This young man was the only named K-12 student in Alabama I can find who reportedly died “from Covid.” The lone source is a Facebook post made by his cousin who said Will tested positive for Covid before his death in the second year of Covid.
I’m working on a story that will try to debunk a non-sensical and specious claim made by the Alabama Education Association that “sixty five” Alabama educators died from Covid in the fist 18 months of the pandemic.
While researching this story, I decided to take another stab at ascertainingwhat the real Covid mortality rate for Alabama students has been over the past six years.
***
According to Google AI, approximately 814,000 students attend K-12 public and private schools in my state every year.
Since approximately 374,000 students have graduated from K-12 schools in the last six years, this means approximately 1.2 million current and former Alabama students could have contracted and died from Covid in the past six years.
Regarding the Covid Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for Alabama students, I have found only two students who may have reportedly died from Covid in the past five-plus years.
If one assumes that 85 percent of students have now contracted the original Covid or its many variants, this would mean that approximately 1 million Alabama students have already had a “case” of Covid.
If only two students (allegedly or reportedly) died from this disease, this translates to a COVID IFR for Alabama students of approximately 1-in-500,000 (0.0002 percent).
Alabama’s only known Covid student death had serious co-morbid conditions …
I should note that I researched these two Covid deaths and was able to come up with the name of only one former student who passed away “from Covid.”
On August 17, 2021, Will Fowler, who was going to be a senior at Cullman High School, passed away and, in a Facebook post, his cousin said Will had “tested positive for Covid.”
Will seems to have been an inspiring young man as he battled severe, life-altering medical conditions his entire life. He suffered from Muscular Dystrophy and was confined to a wheel chair and also, like many children with severe disabilities, was extremely heavy.
Per logic, I also deduced that Will had not contracted Covid from classmates or from anyone at his school as he died (presumably in the hospital) only five days after school had started at Cullman High (and, one assumes, must have been ill and not at school in the days before his death).
I also found one other quote from the superintendent of Birmingham City Schools who said a student at Jackson Olin High School had “died from Covid” but I could find no name or article providing any details about this student’s death.
This is par for the course
Indeed, in five-plus years researching Covid cases and victims, I’m struck by the almost universal absence of key medical details about alleged victims of Covid.
For example, readers seeking important information might be interested in learning when a victim first developed Covid symptoms. What were these symptoms? What was the period of time from the appearance of first symptoms to death? When did the victim(s) test positive for Covid? What treatment protocols did medical staff administer (or fail to administer)?
Were family members of victims present during hospital or ICU stays or were they kept away from their loved one?
I assume, at some point, most alleged Covid victims did “test positive” for Covid, but was it really Covid that caused their deaths?
Needless to say, I’d also like to know who did and didn’t get a Covid vaccine and, also, how many victims might have gotten a flu shot before they developed “flu-like symptoms.”
A key ‘Covid death’ with virtually no important details provided
An example of this lack of details would be the circumstances of the death of Robert Thacker, Jr., the only crew member of the USS Teddy Roosevelt air craft carrier who reportedly “died from Covid” after an “outbreak” on that ship in March and April 2020.
(Note: Positive antibody tests in late April 2020, showed that at least 60 percent of the crew of 4,800 had previously had Covid. A U.S. destroyer and a French aircraft carrier also had outbreaks at the same time with similar positive rates and no fatalities. The Covid IFR on these three vessels was approximately 1-in-4,500, which is 4.5x lower than the flu IFR of 1-in-1,000.)
While I’ve performed a diligent search, all I’ve learned is that this ordnance specialist tested positive for Covid on March 30th, 2020 was placed in quarantine quarters in Guam and was later “found unresponsive” in a wellness check (a couple of days after he’d been to the local hospital, where he’d been discharged).
To this day, no member of the public knows the full and comprehensive details of this 41-year-old crew member’s medical crisis, which is common with the vast majority of “Covid victims.” For me at least, it seems like the only sailor who died after “outbreaks” on three large Naval vessels should have been the focus of copious media attention.
One great oddity of “Covid cases” is the public almost never learns such details as it’s apparently taboo to ask such common-sense questions.
Expressed differently, if evidence exists that someone, perhaps, didn’t really directly die from Covid, this evidence isnot going to be revealed by corporate journalists or pubic health officials.
Disparate lethality numbers among the young and older …
I should also note that, via an email query, I asked the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) media affairs spokesperson “how many Alabama students have died from Covid?” and was told this information was not available or the ADPH didn’t know – a non-answer which strikes me as extremely odd.
Maybe I imagined it, but I seem to recall a somewhat heated debate over whether school should be cancelled and how long schools should remain closed. It seems to me that a firm answer on the number of students who had died from Covid would be very important information for the public to know.
As it is, I’m left with the apparent conclusion that maybe just two Alabama K-12 students have died “from Covid” in the entire pandemic … although I’m not sure if Covid actually caused their deaths (because no reporter ever wrote an in-depth story on particulars of these cases).
Assuming these figures are correct and the deaths of these two students can only be explained by Covid, I still can ascertain the dramatic difference in Covid deaths among students and “educators.”
Approximately 65 educators allegedly died from Covid (out of 89,000 to 100,000 educators in our state). Only two students – out of 1.2 million – reportedly died from the same disease.
If educators were contracting Covid from students, they were contracting this disease from a virus that very possibly had a 0.0000 percent mortality rate for “healthy” students.
In Alabama, the simple mortality rate for “healthy” students seems to be 1-in-1.2 million (as Will Fowler had numerous life-altering medical conditions and could not have been considered a “healthy student.” For purposes of this illustration, I’m assuming the unknown other student might have been in perfect health before his/her death).
Context for a hypothetical ‘informed consent’ conversation …
Per Google AI, I learned that the probability a random citizen will be struck by lightning in a given five-year period is approximately 1-in-200,000
This would mean that “healthy” Alabama K-12 students were approximately five times more likely to be struck by lightning as they were to expire from Covid in the last five years.
This “context example” would seem to be very relevant in any “informed consent” conversation parents might have with doctors before getting their children vaccinated.
Doctor: “Mrs. Jones, I can tell you that your child has a 1-in-200,000 chance of being struck by lightning in the coming five years and an approximately 1-in-1-million chance of dying from Covid.
“Still, on advice of the American Pediatric Association, I strongly recommend your child get today’s shot and stay current with future boosters every year.”
Of course, it’s doubtful any APA dues-paying doctor will tell parents what their child’s chances of death from all causes will be in the next five years if they get this shot.
Or, even more likely, the chance a child might develop any serious adverse event(s) over the next five years if a child goes ahead and gets his “life-saving” injection.
As noted, in Alabama, I’m pretty sure I know the odds any healthy child will die from Covid is approximately 1-in-1-million.
The odds a vaccinated male child might develop myocarditis are maybe 1-in-17,000 to 1-in-34,000 (and this is just one life-threatening adverse event.)
As I’ve noted repeatedly, we now live in a “crazy world,” so my guess is that if many parents think they can reduce the odds their child might die from Covid from 1-in-1 million to 0-in-1-million, they are going to take their pediatrician’s advice and reduce those terrifying (sarc) odds.
Most parents will also never ask their doctor, “how many vaccinated people later died from Covid?”
If a bold parent did ask this question, the doctor would probably lie and reply “zero” and tell this inquisitive mother that the shots are “100-percent effective at preventing Covid deaths.”
Part 2 …
In my next story, I’m going to show that the vast majority of the 65 Alabama educators who allegedly died from Covid died in the fall of 2021 – well after most educators had already been vaccinated and, bizarrely, in the second year of this pandemic.
Also, I’ll show that all Alabama educators were wearing (mandatory) masks every day for seven hours, meaning most educators were allegedly double protected (mask and vaccines).
Part 2 of this story will also show that most of these educators clearly didn’t get Covid from their students.
In fact, I think almost all 65 probably died from a combination of iatrogenic hospital protocols, vaccine injuries and perhaps got sick and had to go to the “killing zones” (hospitals) after they’d gotten that year’s flu shot, which might explain many ILI and Covid symptoms.
I also think most teachers were NOT afraid of this virus. IMO, what clearly transpired was an orchestrated spin campaign originating from state and national teachers’ unions, which were key actors in a global Psy-Op designed to produce mass fear.
Students certainly faced no mortality risk from being in school. In fact, the only parents terrified of a virus that posed 0.000-percent mortality risk to their children must have been products of the intentionally dumbed-down education they’d once received in the same schools.
The good news is that some parents somehow got a quality education and could identify “Covid theater” fear-mongering when they saw it.
60% SAY NO TO FULL VACCINE SCHEDULE
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 21, 2025
A new JAMA study highlights declining confidence in America’s vaccine program, finding that only 40% of parents intend to follow the full childhood schedule. Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics has broken sharply from HHS guidance, now recommending the COVID vaccine for infants and children.
Why is America’s paediatric academy still pushing Covid vaccines for children?
The American Academy of Pediatrics has broken ranks with the CDC, issuing its own “evidence-based” immunisation schedule—but whose interests is the AAP really serving?
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | August 19, 2025
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has just urged that all children aged 6 – 23 months receive a Covid-19 vaccine, regardless of prior infection, and extended that recommendation to older children deemed high risk.
Their guidance directly conflicts with the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which recently withdrew broad recommendations to vaccinate healthy children and pregnant women in favour of “shared clinical decision-making.”
Now, for the first time, the AAP has broken ranks — issuing its own “evidence-based immunization schedule” that places it squarely alongside its biggest corporate donors, the very companies whose products it promotes.
The boycott
The rupture began in June 2025, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr dismissed the CDC’s old Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replaced it with a leaner panel.
The AAP, which had held a privileged liaison seat at ACIP for decades, responded by boycotting the meeting.
AAP president Dr Susan Kressly declared, “We won’t lend our name or our expertise to a system that is being politicised at the expense of children’s health,” branding the restructured ACIP “no longer a credible process.”
But credibility cuts both ways. At the June meeting, ACIP member Cody Meissner — himself an establishment veteran — rebuked the boycott.
“I think it’s somewhat childish for them not to appear,” he said. “It is dialogue that leads to the best recommendations for the use of vaccines.”
The AAP’s absence wasn’t about protecting children from politics. It was about rejecting a forum it could no longer control.
Following the money
The AAP insists its funding has no bearing on policy. But the Academy advertises its dependence on the very companies whose products it recommends for children.
On its own website, the Academy thanks its top corporate sponsors: Moderna, Merck, Sanofi and GSK. These companies produce nearly every vaccine on the childhood schedule — and now the AAP is demanding more of their products be given to babies.
Financial filings show corporate contributions make up a substantial slice of the Academy’s revenue. Even its flagship journal, Pediatrics, carries the fingerprints of industry support.
This isn’t independence, it’s entanglement. When an organisation funded by vaccine makers issues recommendations that boost those same companies’ sales, it is impossible to pretend this is solely about children’s health.
Parents have already rejected the shots
The problem for the AAP is that parents have already walked away. CDC data show that among toddlers, the rate is a mere 4.5%.
The public’s verdict could not be clearer: most families do not want these vaccines for their children.
The AAP knows this — yet it presses ahead regardless. Its recommendations are now performative, directed less at parents than at its corporate benefactors.
Kennedy strikes back
Kennedy seized on the contradiction.
Posting a screenshot of the AAP’s donor list, he wrote: “These four companies make virtually every vaccine on the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule,” after the Academy released its own list of “corporate-friendly vaccine recommendations.”
Kennedy accused the Academy of running a “pay-to-play scheme” on behalf of “Big Pharma benefactors” and demanded full disclosure of conflicts in its leadership and journal.
He warned that recommendations diverging from the CDC’s official list are not protected under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act. For now, Covid-19 products remain under a separate regime — the PREP Act and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which HHS has extended through to 2029.
Kennedy cast this as a red line for the future: if the AAP keeps inventing its own vaccine schedule, it risks dragging doctors and hospitals into legal jeopardy.
This is no longer about one product but about who dictates the rules of childhood vaccination — government regulators or an industry-backed lobby group.
The deeper problem
This dispute isn’t really about Covid vaccines because parents, even healthcare workers, have already rejected them in overwhelming numbers. It is about who controls the institutions that speak in the name of children’s health.
The AAP claimed it boycotted ACIP in June to resist politicisation. In reality, it walked away from a process no longer stacked with the industry-aligned figures it had long relied on. That was the real affront.
The deeper problem is that the AAP is not a neutral guardian of child health. It is a lobbying arm entangled with corporate sponsors, issuing pronouncements that align with donor interests while ignoring the families it claims to represent.
AAP says it represents 67,000 paediatricians, and by extension America’s children. But its actions tell a different story. It represents the companies that fund it.
Children’s health is jeopardised when those entrusted with protecting it are compromised. The AAP’s latest recommendations are not science-based safeguards. They are corporate advocacy in disguise.
It is not just disappointing — it is harmful.
AAP’s full vaccine schedule [LINK]
AAP Received Tens of Millions in Federal Funding to Push Vaccines and Combat ‘Misinformation’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |August 15, 2025
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is suing U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and has called for the end to religious exemptions, received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in a single year, according to public records.
AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.
Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, and highlight telehealth for children.
However, not all of the money could be tracked through public records.
The federal grants are in addition to financial contributions the AAP receives from several major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi.
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, said the joint funding that the AAP receives from taxpayers and Big Pharma “reflects a troubling alignment between its policy positions and the interests of its largest funders — both federal agencies and pharmaceutical corporations.”
He added:
“Federal grants tied to vaccination programs, pandemic preparedness and public health messaging create an inherent conflict of interest when the same organization actively lobbies against religious and personal exemptions, promotes universal uptake of COVID-19 shots in children and pregnant women, and funds or publishes research that omits clear stratification of outcomes by vaccination status.”
The AAP is also a lobbying organization. It spent between $748,000 and $1.18 million annually over the previous six years to advocate for its members, according to Open Secrets.
Last month, the AAP was one of six medical organizations that sued Kennedy and other public health officials and agencies over recent changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women.
Also last month, the AAP called for an end to religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in the U.S.
‘AAP has been on the wrong side of a number of child health issues’
Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said, “Historically, the AAP has hidden its funding sources” and “it has been impossible to learn exactly what the quid pro quo is — in other words, what that money earns.”
“All we know is that the AAP has been on the wrong side of a number of child health issues, with vaccine mandates in particular being a point of contention,” Nass said.
Journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former U.S. Senate investigator, said organizations like the AAP have “pervasive” ties to Big Pharma despite receiving taxpayer funds. He said:
“When I was working to pass the Physician Payments Sunshine Act that requires corporations to disclose payments to doctors, we were aware that many physician organizations and patient advocacy groups are wallowing in Pharma cash. We sent dozens of letters to physician groups to uncover their Pharma ties, and the money is pervasive.”
Taxpayer money helped AAP promote child vaccination in Madagascar
The AAP’s single audit report also showed that the organization received $257,607 in a pass-through grant for the Accessible Continuum of Care and Essential Services Sustained (ACCESS) Program in Madagascar — a program of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The ACCESS Program sought to integrate “nutrition, vaccination, and treatment of common illnesses into primary health care services” in Madagascar.
This included the promotion of childhood vaccination in the country. According to ACCESS, the program helped train vaccination teams and “improve accessibility through the establishment of vaccine sites and mobile clinics.”
As a result, “the coverage rate among infants for the pentavalent vaccine, which protects against five life-threatening diseases, increased from 75% to 83%,” according to ACCESS. The vaccine — intended to protect against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B or Hib infections — has been associated with infant deaths.
AAP used federal funds to create online guide warning of ‘misinformation’
The AAP received over $1.9 million in funding for the development of the AAP Center of Excellence, an online guide to promote “a healthy digital ecosystem for children and youth.”
A portion of this guide is devoted to identifying “sources of mis- and disinformation on social media”:
“While teens note coming across ‘fake news’ and health-focused mis/disinformation online, they described that they still trust some social media platforms because the convenience and accessibility of platforms make them appealing.”
The guide presents strategies to “become a critical consumer of health information online,” including identifying “fishy features that can help distinguish mis/disinformation from trustworthy health information online.”
Another section of the guide provides advice to patients on how to locate “trusted health information” online:
“We know that adolescents look online for health information for several reasons including ease of access, for privacy, or to find others with similar lived experience. … The health information that they find online and on social media may vary in quality and may contain misinformation or even disinformation which can be harmful to patients.”
The guide encouraged clinicians to “preemptively share health information resources from reputable sources” on specific health topics that teens may have questions about and direct patients toward “digital literacy resources to learn strategies to identify misinformation and disinformation.”
AAP received funds to promote telehealth for kids
The AAP also received grants of $537,578, $126,670 and $71,625 for the promotion of telehealth and telemedicine services for pediatric patients.
A pass-through grant from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, totaling $71,625, was for the promotion of the SPROUT-CTSA Collaborative Telehealth Research Network.
The SPROUT (Supporting Pediatric Research on Outcomes and Utilization of Telehealth) Collaborative is a group of institutions and pediatric providers operating within the AAP to focus on pediatric telehealth.
“The ultimate goal is to establish an infrastructure that removes barriers to efficient telehealth research across large geographic areas,” according to a National Institutes of Health news release.
The program was announced on March 17, 2020, just as COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns were being introduced in the U.S. and globally.
Despite its rising prevalence in pediatric care, some pediatricians are critical of offering health services to children via telehealth platforms.
In an interview with The Defender last month, pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro said, “Telehealth is valuable, but when pediatric care becomes dominated by virtual visits, we lose the subtle clinical observations that are crucial for accurate assessments and treatment.”
She added:
“The physical examination is a key component to the medical visit. These visits will morph into AI [artificial intelligence]-dominated healthcare.
“Children deserve thoughtful, hands-on care, not a profit-driven model where Big Pharma influences how and what we prescribe through a screen. We are modeling healthcare behaviors for children through the internet and normalizing online health visits.”
Taxpayer funds helped create ‘Pediatric Pandemic Network’
The AAP also received a grant of $134,653 in a pass-through from the University of Texas at Austin to develop the Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, administered through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
According to HRSA, this program aimed to “help children’s hospitals and their communities be ready to care for children during disasters and public health emergencies.”
The 10 children’s hospitals in the nationwide network were to “serve as hubs in their communities and regions to improve the overall management and care for children during emergencies.”
One of the program’s stated goals: “Advancing improvements in all phases of planning, response, and recovery; making sure hospitals and communities respond effectively during a global health threat to children and their families.”
Related articles in The Defender
- American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Shut Down Religious Vaccine Exemptions
- RFK Jr. Hit With Lawsuit Over Changes to COVID Vaccine Policies for Kids, Pregnant Women
- AAP, AMA Booted From CDC Vaccine Advisory Working Groups
- Telehealth Firms That Partner With Big Pharma Prescribe More Drugs, U.S. Senate Report Shows
- Long COVID in Kids and Teens: New Study Challenges Mainstream Narrative
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.
The Creation of New ICD-10 Codes for Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome
By Christopher Dreisbach | Brownstone Institute | August 15, 2025
“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.” ― Steve Jobs
Definitions matter. In almost any context, problems left undefined inevitably remain problems left unsolved.
For this reason, healthcare professionals worldwide rely upon the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), a standardized system used to categorize and code diseases, symptoms, and health conditions. In the United States, ICD-10 codes serve as the foundation for medical records, insurance billing, epidemiological research, and public health policy. Without specific ICD-10 codes, severe conditions may remain invisible in the healthcare data ecosystem—making it harder to track, study, or provide adequate care.
This is precisely the challenge facing thousands of Americans suffering from persistent severe adverse events after receiving a Covid vaccine—a condition recently defined as Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS). As one of those individuals, I know all too well how debilitating and life-altering this condition can be. Our symptoms include exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and dizziness. They develop shortly after vaccination, within a day or two, can become more severe in the days that follow, and persist over time.
At present, there are no dedicated ICD-10 codes for PCVS. This absence has significant consequences for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike.
Visibility in the Healthcare System
One of the primary functions of ICD-10 codes is to make a condition visible within the healthcare system. Without specific codes, PCVS is at best recorded under vague categories like “unspecified adverse effect of vaccine” or “other specified postvaccination complication.” Leery of contradicting the safe and effective narrative, many providers simply utilize codes for general symptoms such as “fatigue” or “paresthesia.” As a result, PCVS is effectively lost in a sea of unrelated data.
Dedicated codes would allow providers to document PCVS in a standardized way, ensuring it is recognized in patient records, insurance claims, and national health databases. This visibility is crucial for legitimizing PCVS in the eyes of both a conflicted medical community and a polarized public.
Facilitating Research and Data Collection
Medical research thrives on accurate, reliable data. Without discrete ICD-10 codes, it is extremely difficult to track how many of us are affected by PCVS, what our symptoms are, how long they last, and what treatments are effective.
Currently, researchers who want to study PCVS must sift through miscellaneous adverse event codes, searching for possible cases—a process that is slow, imprecise, and prone to undercounting. Specific codes would enable more precise epidemiological studies, making it easier to identify risk factors, compare outcomes, and develop evidence-based treatment guidelines.
Improving Public Health Response and Policy
Public health agencies use ICD-10 coding data to monitor trends, allocate resources, and shape policy decisions. The lack of codes for PCVS means that policymakers are operating without a complete picture of vaccine safety profiles and long-term outcomes.
By establishing dedicated codes, health officials could more accurately assess the frequency and severity of PCVS, helping them balance the benefits and risks of vaccination programs and design better safety monitoring systems in the future. This transparency would strengthen public confidence in vaccination campaigns by demonstrating that potential adverse events are being taken seriously and tracked systematically.
Reducing Stigma and Improving Clinical Recognition
Those of us suffering from PCVS often face intense skepticism, with our symptoms crudely dismissed as unrelated or psychosomatic. The absence of recognized diagnostic codes can inadvertently reinforce this stigma, making it harder for those suffering with PCVS to be taken seriously.
Specific ICD-10 codes would send a clear signal to clinicians that PCVS is a legitimate medical condition worthy of investigation, empathy, and appropriate care.
Ethical and Societal Responsibility
Healthcare systems have an ethical duty to acknowledge and address all medical conditions – especially those that may be rare or controversial. Creating specific ICD-10 codes for PCVS would demonstrate a commitment to transparency, patient welfare, and scientific inquiry.
This step would not undermine legitimate vaccination efforts; rather, it would enhance them by showing the public that adverse events are being tracked rigorously and addressed proactively. Public health trust depends not only on promoting the benefits of a medical intervention but also on an honest acknowledgment of its risks, however small.
Aligning with the Approach to Long Covid
The World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have already recognized the need for specific ICD-10 codes for post-acute sequelae of Covid, commonly known as Long Covid. These codes have helped researchers and clinicians better identify, study, and manage that condition.
The same logic applies to PCVS. Both prolonged conditions involve complex overlapping symptoms following an acute event (infection or vaccination) and require long-term monitoring.
For that reason, React19, a science-based 501(c) non-profit organization dedicated solely to supporting those suffering from long-term Covid vaccine adverse events, has submitted a formal proposal to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics to create ICD-10 codes for PCVS mirroring those for Long Covid.
PCVS Patients Deserve Action, not Argument
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” ― Ayn Rand
While opinions differ greatly to what extent – by all credible accounts the Covid vaccines simply did not perform as public health officials assured the American public they would. As to efficacy, they failed to stop transmission and infection. As to safety, in addition to the emergence of PCVS, the CDC has conceded that myocarditis and pericarditis are “linked to certain types of COVID-19 vaccinations.” And of course, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was pulled entirely from the market after multiple cases of fatal blood clotting after vaccinations.
Yale Medical School professor of cardiology Dr. Harlan Krumholtz well summarized, “It’s clear that some individuals are experiencing significant challenges after vaccination. Our responsibility as scientists and clinicians is to listen to their experiences, rigorously investigate the underlying causes, and seek ways to help.” Creating distinct ICD-10 codes for PCVS mirroring those currently utilized to identify Long Covid would be the logical first step to provide this much needed support.
Failure to create specific ICD-10 codes for PCVS would be to ignore the agonizing reality of the syndrome, leaving the sick and suffering to face the grim consequences of inaction – left adrift in a medical system unwilling to acknowledge our existence and desperate need for treatment. We must expect more of our public health agencies – those debilitated by PCVS deserve no less.
Christopher Dreisbach
Prior to his own life altering vaccine injury, Chris primarily practiced criminal defense throughout central Pennsylvania. His client base ranged from individuals facing minor offenses such as driving under the influence to those charged with serious offenses including homicide. In addition to his private clients, Chris served as court-appointed counsel representing incarcerated individuals under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act. In 2009, he was recognized as Advocate of the Year for his work on behalf of victims of violent crime. He is now Legal Affairs Director of React19, a science-based non-profit offering financial, physical, and emotional support for those suffering from longterm Covid-19 vaccine adverse events globally.
mRNA: GROUND ZERO FOR CANCER CRISIS?
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | August 7, 2025
As HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulls the plug on $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts and U.S. COVID shot uptake plummets to historic lows, a more alarming crisis is taking shape—a potential pandemic of cancer. Could the very technology once hailed as revolutionary now be triggering a silent epidemic? Explore the emerging science uncovering how mRNA vaccines may be reactivating dormant cancer cells and disrupting immune surveillance. This is a wake-up call the world can’t afford to ignore.
RFK Jr. Ends Financial Incentives for Hospitals That Report Staff Vaccination Rates
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 4, 2025
The federal government will no longer financially reward hospitals for reporting the vaccination rates of their staff, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Aug. 1. According to the press release, the incentive system was “coercive and denied informed consent.”
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said:
“Medical decisions should be made based on one thing: the wellbeing of the person — never on a financial bonus or a government mandate. … Doctors deserve the freedom to use their training, follow the science, and speak the truth — without fear of punishment.”
The move repeals a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient payment policy created during the Biden administration that tied hospital reimbursement to COVID-19 vaccination reporting.
Under the old policy, hospitals didn’t just collect the data and hold it internally. They published the data on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network — the “nation’s most widely used healthcare-associated infection tracking system,” where it was used “as a tool for public shaming, not public health,” the press release said.
CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz applauded the repeal.
“Doctors and other providers should have the same autonomy to choose what’s right for their own individual health care needs as the patients for whom they care,” Oz said. “Today’s announcement helps put that power back in their hands.”
HHS said the repeal is part of the agency’s broader efforts to “restore medical autonomy in federally funded programs and root out financial and regulatory pressures that incentivize physicians towards pre-scripted medical decisions rather than individualized, evidence-based care.”
CMS estimated that the annual burden of collecting the data across 3,050 hospitals was between $1,378,600 and $1,608,570.
Trial Site News noted that HHS’ press release didn’t cite evidence supporting the allegation that requiring hospitals to report vaccination data had been used to shame them, but said such evidence may exist.
According to Trial Site News :
“This policy rollback is more than bureaucratic housekeeping — it’s a reflection of a national reckoning. The American people grew weary of the top-down, one-size-fits-all vaccination regime advanced by HHS agencies like the FDA and CDC during the COVID-19 era.
“What was framed as public health became, in the eyes of many, a vehicle for coercion, censorship, and loss of personal agency. … The rise of RFK Jr. to lead HHS isn’t a fluke; it’s a clear mandate from the public demanding medical freedom, transparency, and an end to government overreach disguised as science.”
Jon Fleetwood wrote in a Substack post today that the change suggests HHS may be restructuring how it relates to the medical community. The agency “now favors decentralization and professional freedom over command-and-control enforcement,” he said.
Many hospital workers resisted COVID vaccine
The issue of COVID-19 vaccination mandates for hospital staff has been contentious.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas ruled that Saint Luke’s Health Systems improperly fired an employee when it rejected her request for a religious exemption from the hospital system’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
In 2021, over 100 hospital workers in Texas sued their employer for requiring them to get a COVID-19 shot, alleging the mandate forced them to “subject themselves to medical experimentation as a prerequisite to feeding their families.”
The same year, a New Jersey hospital system fired over 100 employees who refused to get a COVID-19 shot.
In 2023, CMS eliminated COVID-19 mandates for healthcare workers. Since then, healthcare worker COVID-19 vaccination rates have dropped.
Last fall, roughly 85% of healthcare workers declined a COVID-19 booster, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.
Will HHS eliminate vaccine incentives for pediatricians?
The HHS policy change didn’t reference an incentive program that rewards pediatricians who follow the CDC childhood immunization schedule. Kennedy raised the issue last month during an interview with Tucker Carlson.
But Polly Tommey, program director for Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) CHD.TV, brought it up during her testimony last month at a U.S. Senate hearing on vaccine injury.
“We need our pediatricians to stop getting bonuses for vaccinating our children,” said Tommey, whose son was injured by a childhood vaccine.
CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, who also has a vaccine-injured son and testified during the Senate hearing, said pediatricians can receive hundreds of dollars for each fully vaccinated child, depending on certain factors.
CHD CEO Mary Holland said in a recent interview with OAN News that vaccine incentives for pediatricians have “completely distorted” pediatric care.
“A pediatrician with a large practice of thousands of children in it can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, really serious money, by having a 90% or a 95% uptake rate,” Holland said.
AAP tells doctors it’s ok to drop patients if parents refuse to follow vaccine schedule
A recent investigation by The Defender found that high vaccination rates are key to a profitable pediatric practice, according to data from insurance incentive structures and an analysis of a pediatric practice’s income.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in a 2016 report on “Countering Vaccine Hesitancy,” told pediatricians that it was an “acceptable option” to dismiss families who refused to vaccinate their children.
The AAP receives funding from numerous vaccine makers, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Pfizer, according to data compiled by White Rose Intelligence.
Last month, the AAP sued Kennedy and other HHS officials over the decision to no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy kids and pregnant women.
On July 28, the AAP issued a policy statement urging states to eliminate all non-medical exemptions to vaccination requirements for school kids, including religious and conscience-based exemptions.
When The Defender asked HHS if it planned to eliminate financial pressure tied to pediatric vaccination reporting, an HHS spokesperson said the agency “continues to evaluate solutions that align with current public health priorities and the best available scientific evidence.”
Related articles in The Defender
- Court Rules Against Hospital That Fired Woman for Refusing COVID Vaccine
- Are Vaccines Big Money-Makers for Pediatricians? RFK Jr. Comment During Interview With Tucker Carlson Sparks New Debate
- ‘We Get Paid to Vaccinate Your Children’: Pediatrician Reveals Details of Big Pharma Payola Scheme
- Pediatricians Get Paid to Push Vaccines — and It’s No Small Amount of Cash
- CHD Funds Lawsuit Against CDC Over Program That Forces Pediatricians to Give COVID Vaccines to Kids on Medicaid
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.
California Hospital Concealed Evidence Linking ‘Catastrophic Surge’ in Stillbirths to COVID Vaccine, Lawsuit Alleges
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 4, 2025
A California hospital concealed data linking a “catastrophic surge” in stillbirths among women who received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a lawsuit filed last week in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County.
Michelle Spencer, a nurse at Community Medical Centers’ (CMC) Community Regional Medical Center, said the hospital “deliberately and selectively” concealed from staff, patients and regulators a spike in unborn baby deaths that began in spring 2021, and retaliated against her when she publicized the information.
The lawsuit also says the hospital concealed medical data related to the fetal deaths that showed a link to COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant mothers.
The data include hospital-wide medical records documenting the number of stillbirths and the vaccination histories of those babies’ mothers. One managing nurse at the hospital told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths occurred among vaccinated mothers.
According to the complaint, Spencer “witnessed firsthand the exponential increase in unborn baby deaths directly correlating with pregnant women who received a Covid vaccine and then would deliver a dead baby a close number of days or weeks following their injection.”
Spencer’s attorney, Greg Glaser, said:
“The essence of this case is that the truth shall set you free. The hospital possessed vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparison data. The numbers proved the vaccines were causing miscarriages and more in the vaccinated group.
“We know hospital management analyzed the data because they said so, and we see they concealed it from regulators because that file [requested by regulators] is empty.”
Children’s Health Defense is funding the lawsuit, which accuses the hospital of fraud, retaliation and unethical business practices.
Graphic email describes spike in ‘demise patients,’ or stillbirths
Spencer, who has been employed with the hospital since 2017, works in the antepartum, postpartum and labor and delivery units, all located on the hospital’s third floor. Before the COVID-19 vaccination rollouts, the hospital averaged one fetal death per month, she said in the lawsuit.
However, beginning in spring 2021, the number of stillbirths skyrocketed to about 20 per month, and remains at that level today, Spencer said. The number is an estimate because Spencer can’t access the hospital’s full medical records.
In September 2022, Julie Christopherson, a nurse manager specializing in perinatal care and bereavement, sent an email to the nursing and technical staff at the hospital describing the ongoing spike in stillborn babies, which she called “demise patients.”
“Well, it seems as though the increase of demise patients that we are seeing is going to continue,” Christopherson wrote. “There were 22 demises in August, which ties the record number of demises in July 2021, and so far in September there have been 7 and it’s only the 8th day of the month.”
She said the nurses hadn’t seen all of the deaths because the statistics included other units within the hospital, “but there have still been so many in our department.”
Christopherson said:
“It’s a lot of work for you as the bedside RN’s and it’s also a lot of work for me. Demises have taken a lot of my time away from the other groups of patients that I serve, so I hope this trend doesn’t continue indefinitely.
“I know of a few more that are scheduled to deliver in the week ahead, so unfortunately the process is going to be very familiar with all of you.”
According to the email, many parents requested autopsies of their babies. It also provided graphic details of the mishandling of a dead fetus, and reminded the staff of proper procedures for handling the babies’ remains and other associated biological material.
Hospital ‘aggressively’ promoted vaccines despite signs of risk, lawsuit alleges
The lawsuit alleges the spike in baby deaths began in spring 2021, as the hospital “was aggressively promoting Covid-19 vaccines to pregnant women, including requiring OBGYNs with hospital privileges (and their staff) to administer vaccines without knowing or disclosing risks or benefits.”
According to the lawsuit, Christopherson “expressed bias against unvaccinated children and their parents” and helped the hospital conceal data linking vaccines to the record-high number of stillbirths.
Nearly all of the deceased babies were born to mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, while the number of fetal deaths in mothers who didn’t get the vaccine remained at the pre-vaccine rollout level, averaging one per month, according to the lawsuit.
The hospital management ignored “multiple safety signals” for COVID-19 vaccine injuries among mothers and babies, according to the complaint, which states:
“Not only did the increase in unborn baby deaths occur, but mothers suddenly … began having more frequent and more significant health problems (i.e., vascular, clotting, hemorrhaging) that did not occur prior to Spring 2021 based on Plaintiff’s direct observations and conversations with colleagues. ….
“ … At the same time … the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on the fourth floor also experienced such dramatic spikes in injuries that the patient population nearly doubled. … From direct observation and conversations with colleagues after March 2021, Plaintiff learned of increasing numbers of babies being born at CMC with conditions such as missing fingers and toes, heart murmurs, and jaundice.”
The hospital benefited financially from promoting the vaccines, the lawsuit says, while pushing the cost of that policy on patients and healthcare professionals by refusing to investigate the COVID-19 shot as the possible cause of its increasing injury and death rates.
Hospital retaliated by withholding her bonus, Spencer said
Spencer kept a copy of Christopherson’s email, which she shared with multiple independent news sources. She also appealed to clinical supervisors to investigate whether the vaccines were linked to fetal deaths.
In response, Spencer “was gaslit by management who continued to make unsubstantiated excuses such as ‘pesticides’ as a more likely cause of the record high dead babies at CMC,” according to the lawsuit.
Spencer said she followed the standards of ethical whistleblowing and did not violate hospital rules. However, when the hospital learned she had shared the email with the media, it opened what Spencer called a “biased investigation” into her, in an attempt to silence her and other concerned colleagues.
Spencer said the hospital wasted its resources investigating her, instead of investigating the cause of the stillbirths.
She appealed to the California Department of Public Health to investigate the deaths. However, the hospital used its influence to prevent any investigation, provided false medical information to the agency regarding the number of fetal deaths, and stated COVID-19 vaccines played no role in the stillbirths, according to the lawsuit.
In December 2022, the hospital declined to pay Spencer a $5,000 retention bonus, claiming she was no longer in good standing because she was under investigation.
This sent a message to staff that “whistleblowers will be punished,” she said.
By intentionally concealing the vaccine-correlated data regarding baby deaths, the hospital prevented her from fulfilling her responsibility as a nurse to properly inform her patients of their health risks, Spencer said.
She continues working at the hospital and informs patients of the risks associated with vaccines, including the Hep B vaccine. However, she has been reprimanded for those actions.
Spencer is asking the court to compel the hospital to have a qualified third party investigate the deaths. She also seeks lost wages and punitive damages.
Spencer said she hopes her lawsuit will “expose the evil that’s going on in the hospital system,” and will “wake up parents and educate nurses.”
Glaser said:
“The hospital chose financial gain over people’s lives, and the hospital retaliated against Ms. Spencer as the nurse who blew the whistle on all of this. Our goal with the case is to give the evidence to a jury to set the truth free. Only then can we really begin to heal. And God knows we need it.”
Related articles in The Defender
- Study of 1.3 Million Women Links COVID Vaccines to Pregnancy Risk
- Study Finds 37 Safety Signals for COVID Vaccines During Pregnancy, CDC Still Urges Women to Get the Shots
- COVID Shots During Pregnancy Linked With Rise in Fetal Deaths, Leaked Emails Suggest
- Hep B Vaccines Come With High Risk, Little Benefit — Why Does CDC Recommend Them for Every Newborn?
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.
HHS Cancels mRNA Vaccine Development – ‘poses more risk than benefit’ says RFK Jr
By Jefferey Jaxen | August 5, 2025
A stunning announcement from HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has set the media ablaze.
“After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits than these respiratory viruses.”
The official HHS press release states:
“BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”
The announcement wipes out nearly $500 million worth of Covid mRNA vaccine development projects, “we’re moving beyond the limitations of mRNA and investing in better solutions” stated Kennedy in the HHS press release.
Kennedy’s announcement comes after months of outside pressure to wind down the Covid mRNA vaccine platform in the U.S.
In May 2025, RFK Jr. removed COVID-19 vaccines from the list of routine immunizations for healthy pregnant women and children.
HHS and America now have pressing work at hand to undue the damage of the rushed and forced mRNA vaccine platform.
World-leading cancer researcher Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong recently stated in an interview: “This non-infectious pandemic of cancer is sadly upon us” referring to how both the virus and the vaccine can awaken sleeping cancer cells in the body. A topic mainstream science is just now, after years of alternative researchers and journalists banging the drum, beginning to admit and study. The new study in the journal Nature chronicles how it is actually the immune system’s response to the lab created gain-of-function bioweapon (and the mRNA shot as we have pointed out) that down-regulates and allows for accelerated cancer progression.
Kennedy has signaled over the last month that he is now taking aim at the broken vaccine injury compensation in the United States.
America, and other countries that align with our mission, must now develop a Manhattan Project-level effort to reverse the many harms brought about by the lab-constructed virus and the shot we were falsely told would save us from it.
FDA stalls decision on petition to suspend mRNA injections, citing ‘other priorities’
US regulator quietly delays action despite evidence of regulatory failure, DNA contamination, and a surge in cancers among young people.
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | July 19, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has delayed its response to a formal petition demanding the suspension of the mRNA Covid-19 injections, citing “the existence of other FDA priorities.”
In a letter dated 17 July 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad—recently appointed Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)—acknowledged that the agency had “not yet reached resolution of the issues raised” in the petition.
Filed on 20 January 2025, the petition alleges that Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax were “unlawfully approved” in violation of federal regulatory requirements.
It calls for an immediate halt to the injections, independent testing of retained vials, and a full investigation into the approval process.
Fatal flaws in licensing mRNA products
Submitted by lawyer Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, and spearheaded by former barrister Julian Gillespie, the petition argues that the mRNA injections were misclassified from the outset.
Although the products meet the FDA’s own definition of gene therapy, they were not regulated as such—sidestepping the heightened oversight normally required for gene-based interventions.
Under U.S. law, gene therapies must undergo ‘Environmental Assessments,’ be reviewed by specialised advisory committees, and face a more rigorous public transparency process.
But by labelling the mRNA injections as conventional ‘vaccines,’ regulators were able to fast-track their approval through a separate, less stringent pathway—bypassing critical safeguards.
The petition also raises alarm over synthetic DNA fragments found in the final products. Independent testing by multiple laboratories—including the FDA’s own facility—revealed DNA contamination far exceeding the safety limits.
Because the DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, it can bypass normal immune defences, enter human cells, and in some cases integrate into the genome. The potential consequences, the petition warns, include genomic instability, cancer, and heritable genetic damage.
One of the most serious findings is the presence of SV40 promoter sequences in Pfizer’s injection—elements known to interfere with tumour-suppressing pathways such as p53.
The petition accuses Pfizer of withholding this information from the FDA in breach of disclosure laws.
Interim letter, no timeline
Under federal law, the FDA was required to respond to the petition within 180 days.
Just before the deadline, it issued a standard interim letter—acknowledging the petitioners’ main concerns but offering no timeline for a final decision.
Nor did the agency indicate that any investigation had begun. “We will respond to your petition as soon as we have reached a decision on your request,” wrote Prasad.
The agency’s delay is not uncommon—but critics say it reflects a deeper reluctance to confront the scientific and regulatory implications head-on.
Fully addressing the petition would require a sweeping and uncomfortable re-evaluation of how mRNA technologies were developed, approved, and marketed under the guise of conventional ‘vaccines.’
If the products were unlawfully licensed—mislabelled as vaccines to circumvent gene therapy regulations—the fallout would be unprecedented.
The admission alone could expose governments to extraordinary legal and financial liability—including product withdrawals, class actions, long-term health monitoring, injury compensation, and potential criminal investigations.
Petitioners speak out
Gillespie said the FDA is caught “between a rock and a hard place”—but that doesn’t excuse inaction. He believes the recent surge in cancers among young people demands urgent scrutiny.
“There’s been a tremendous and continuing rise in cancers across the United States commensurate with the rollout of these products,” he said. “Government officials have seen the data… and are refusing to address the elephant in the room.”
Analysis by Ethical Skeptic shows young cancers are up by 44%
Dr Jessica Rose, a computational biologist and co-author of the petition, said the public was never given accurate information about the nature of the products.
“The public was not told what they were being injected with,” she said. “And still to this day, they are not.”
She described the failure to distinguish gene-based therapies from traditional vaccines as “an existential crisis,” warning that “more and more people—including children and infants—are being exposed to the harms of foreign DNA.”
Dr David Speicher, a virologist and co-signatory on the petition, said the FDA’s letter amounts to bureaucratic minimisation.
“The number of vaccine-injured people continues to grow, and we do not all know the long-term harms caused by these genetic products,” he said. “Yet the FDA states that ‘other priorities’ are more important.”
He called for “an independent scientific team to examine the regulatory process, as well as to provide funding to researchers to explore biological mechanisms such as genomic integration.”
Pharmacy consultant and petitioner Maria Gutschi said the mRNA products represent a new therapeutic category “with no previous knowledge to leverage in assessing safety and efficacy.”
She argued that, given the novelty and risks, “the bar to suspend and/or mandate ‘black box’ warnings must be higher than for any previous therapeutic agent.” Gutschi urged the FDA to treat this as “THE priority” going forward.
A tale of two gene therapies
Critics say the FDA’s handling of mRNA harms stands in stark contrast to its swift response to safety concerns involving other gene therapies.
Yesterday, the agency announced a halt to clinical trials for Sarepta Therapeutics’ investigational gene therapy after the company reported another patient death—bringing the total to three deaths across two separate gene therapy products.
The treatment, developed for limb girdle muscular dystrophy, prompted immediate regulatory action.
“Today, we’ve shown that this FDA takes swift action when patient safety is at risk,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, declaring the agency is “not afraid to take immediate action when a serious safety signal emerges.”
In contrast, the FDA has remained inert on mRNA injections—which also deliver genetic material into human cells but were classified as “vaccines”—despite thousands of reported deaths and serious adverse events following administration.
According to the petitioners, the public was led to believe they were receiving a conventional vaccine—when in fact, they were being administered gene therapy.
By failing to recognise and regulate the products accordingly, the FDA violated public trust—bypassing transparency laws, concealing critical risks, and depriving individuals of the opportunity to make informed medical decisions.
Next steps
People don’t want agencies to stall. They don’t want bureaucratic evasions. They want answers—and they want accountability.
The FDA’s next move won’t simply test regulatory process.
It will test courage—whether anyone inside the system is willing to confront the fallout in what may be the most consequential medical misclassification in modern history.
Massie Proposes to Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Opening Door for Thousands of Lawsuits
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced legislation to repeal the “sweeping” liability shield that exempts COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers from responsibility for serious injuries or death caused by their products.
The liability protection amounts to “medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said in a press release.
The PREP Repeal Act (H.R.4388) would revoke the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, a law that provides legal immunity to “covered persons” who manufacture or administer countermeasures during a public health emergency.
“Covered persons” under the PREP Act include vaccine makers, manufacturers of masks and other personal protective equipment, and physicians, nurses and pharmacists who administer vaccines.
The Biden administration ended the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023. However, the public health emergency, declared in January 2020 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the PREP Act, remains in effect.
In December 2024, HHS extended the liability protections through 2029. It was the 12th extension since 2020.
Massie’s bill would strip away these protections, repealing the PREP Act’s liability shield and restoring civil remedy rights for people harmed by products covered under the act.
“Τhe ability of citizens to seek redress for injury or harm is a fundamental principle of justice and due process,” the bill states, adding that the PREP Act’s liability shield has “undermined public trust and accountability” and “enabled regulatory capture.”
“The 2005 PREP Act prevents people from holding corporations accountable for the pain and suffering they cause during Presidentially declared emergencies. Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products. The PREP Repeal Act will restore that right,” Massie said in the press release.
In an interview today on the “Brian Thomas Morning Show,” Massie said the bill would apply to all COVID-19-related countermeasures, not just vaccines.
“If somebody made a mask that had cancer particles on it, and you inhaled those … too bad, they’re covered by the PREP Act,” Massie said. “I don’t like lawsuits, but they do keep corporations sort of in check. There’s this incentive not to harm people if you’re going to have to pay for it, if it becomes unprofitable.”
Attorney Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense and an expert on the PREP Act, said:
“The ‘sweeping liability protections’ extend far beyond manufacturer shields to condone every conceivable medical atrocity. If Massie’s bill passes, the pandemic assembly line would be dismantled. It would be goodbye liability protections, goodbye mandates and goodbye mass-human experimentation.”
According to Flores, repeal of the PREP Act would also end other current public health emergencies, including mpox (monkeypox), pandemic influenza, anthrax and Zika.
Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said the bill “will stop another COVID vaccine fiasco and also stop the widespread use of unproven tests such as the COVID-19 PCR tests, which were also issued under emergency use authorizations (EUA).”
Wayne Rohde, author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said the bill contains “nonspecific language” and gaps that require attention. Rohde said this includes:
“How to wind down the Act, address all of the amendments added to the Act over the last 4 years, covered persons, how to handle the covered countermeasures such as medical devices, medications, drugs and personal protective equipment, and, of course, the elephant in the room, the vaccines used and their future legal liability.”
Legislation would open the door to thousands of lawsuits previously blocked by PREP Act
Massie’s proposed legislation would apply to all current and future lawsuits challenging the PREP Act, including pending appeals.
Attorney Rick Jaffe said the proposed legislation is retroactive to March 10, 2020, “reopening the courthouse doors to thousands of injured individuals whose claims were previously blocked by PREP’s sweeping liability shield.”
The legislation would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine makers directly, Jaffe said:
“The bill, if passed, allows people injured by the COVID shots to sue, presumably, the manufacturers as well as those who administered the shots, and that would be a big and much unwanted thing from the perspective of the manufacturers and pharmacy chains which administered the shots.”
Massie told Brian Thomas he believes the PREP Act is unconstitutional, as it preempts state medical malpractice laws.
“Here’s why I call the PREP Act medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said. “It’s a federal law that says none of the state laws apply, and I think it’s a violation of the 10th Amendment. There’s nowhere in the Constitution that lets the federal government say that all state laws dealing with liability are null and void.”
Most, but not all, courts have so far sided against vaccine injury lawsuits challenging the PREP Act’s liability shield.
In March, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable under the PREP Act.
The Maine ruling came one week after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s ruling in a similar lawsuit in Vermont. In that case, a school administered a COVID-19 vaccine to a 6-year-old boy despite his and his parents’ objections. Last year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the PREP Act shielded school officials from liability.
At least two recent lawsuits challenging the PREP Act have cleared initial judicial hurdles but remain pending.
In March, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that a lawsuit filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy given a COVID-19 vaccine at school without consent can proceed. The court ruled the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination.
In November 2024, a federal court ruled that a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine during a U.S. clinical trial can continue.
According to the complaint, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants promised enrollees medical treatment in the event of illness or injury suffered during the study. The court rejected the drugmaker’s claim that a federal liability shield protects it from breach-of-contract claims.
Bill would end ‘dismal’ PREP Act vaccine injury compensation program
Massie’s proposed bill also rescinds unused federal funds earmarked for injury claims under the PREP Act.
Such claims are heard by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a government-run COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation program established under the PREP Act.
CICP has faced criticism for its slow pace of resolving claims and the limited compensation it offers.
Jaffe said:
“The PREP Act created a legal black hole where traditional tort rights and due process protections disappeared, replaced by a virtually unreviewable administrative compensation program — the CICP — that has denied nearly every COVID-related claim. In effect, Americans injured by federally endorsed products were stripped of their constitutional right to seek redress. This bill restores that right.”
According to the most recent CICP data, of the 13,836 claims related to COVID-19 countermeasures filed to date, 75 were found eligible for compensation. As of June 1, 39 of those have been compensated. The overwhelming majority of claims were denied (4,338) or are “pending review or in review” (9,423).
Dr. Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon injured by COVID-19 vaccines and co-chair of React19, an organization advocating on behalf of vaccine-injury victims, said CICP strips claimants of their constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial.
“The CICP program was intended to be the safety net for those Americans injured by the emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots. However, the program is a dismal failure with over a 98% denial rate,” Wallskog said.
If the proposed legislation passes, Flores said, the most likely outcome would be attempting to move COVID-19 injuries into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers injuries from vaccines routinely administered to children and pregnant women.
However, such a move may face obstacles, including complications regarding how to handle claims pending before the CICP.
Rohde said:
“Money obligated for current operations would not be affected [but] how do you determine the monetary need for pending CICP petitions? How to handle the CICP petitions already received and what about the future claims? Do you move all the CICP vaccine petitions into the VICP? That creates all sorts of new problems.”
In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children. The CDC now recommends that parents of healthy children consult their pediatricians and together make decide whether to vaccinate against the virus.
According to Flores, “Now that these injections are not on the routine recommended schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, they wouldn’t qualify” for compensation from the VICP.
‘It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way’
Massie’s proposed legislation is similar to a bill introduced last year that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths, by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.
The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act (H.R.7551), has since languished in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Wallskog said Massie’s bill faces “an uphill battle to make it to the Congressional floor and get to a vote.”
Flores was less optimistic about the bill’s future because it would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers directly.
“The bill, in theory, is just what we need. However, implementing it would cause utter chaos,” Flores said. “Absent a miracle, the prospects [of passage] are slim to none.”
Nass said public awareness and support are crucial for the bill’s success.
“It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way,” Nass said.
Wallskog said if the legislation is passed, it would be more far-reaching than a declaration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removing COVID-19 countermeasures from the PREP Act.
“Executive orders can simply be reversed by the next HHS secretary. Legislative change is much more powerful with more staying power,” Wallskog said.
This has not occurred to date, which Flores said is “the greatest indication of the forces that Kennedy and Rep. Massie are up against.”
Related articles in The Defender
- COVID Vaccine Makers Get Another Free Pass as Biden Administration Extends Liability Shield Through 2029
- Exclusive: Public Health Emergency in U.S. Set to Expire May 11 — But EUA Vaccines, Liability Shields Aren’t Going Away Anytime Soon
- Nearly 10,000 Claims Pending as COVID Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Faces Possible Budget Cut
- New Law Would Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Deaths
- Liability-Free COVID Vaccine Makers Seek Additional ‘Free Pass’ From FDA
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.
Net Zero: The Mystery of the Falling Fertility
By Tomas Furst | Brownstone Institute | July 8, 2025
In January 2022, the number of children born in the Czech Republic suddenly decreased by about 10%. By the end of 2022, it had become clear that this was a signal: All the monthly numbers of newborns were mysteriously low.
In April 2023, I wrote a piece for a Czech investigative platform InFakta and suggested that this unexpected phenomenon might be connected to the aggressive vaccination campaign that had started approximately 9 months before the drop in natality. Denik N – a Czech equivalent of the New York Times – immediately came forward with a “devastating takedown” of my article, labeled me a liar and claimed that the pattern can be explained by demographics: There were fewer women in the population and they were getting older.
To compare fertility across countries (and time), the so-called Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is used. Roughly speaking, it is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime. TFR is independent of the number of women and of their age structure. Figure 1 below shows the evolution of TFR in several European countries between 2001 and 2023. I selected countries that experienced a similar drop in TFR in 2022 as the Czech Republic.
So, by the end of 2023, the following two points were clear:
- The drop in natality in the Czech Republic in 2022 could not be explained by demographic factors. Total fertility rate – which is independent of the number of women and their age structure – dropped sharply in 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. The data for 2024 show that the Czech TFR has decreased further to 1.37.
- Many other European countries experienced the same dramatic and unexpected decrease in fertility that started at the beginning of 2022. I have selected some of them for Figure 1 but there are more: The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. On the other hand, there are some countries that do not show a sudden drop in TFR, but rather a steady decline over a longer period (e.g. Belgium, France, UK, Greece, or Italy). Notable exceptions are Bulgaria, Spain, and Portugal where fertility has increased (albeit from very low numbers). The Human Fertility Project database has all the numbers.
This data pattern is so amazing and unexpected that even the mainstream media in Europe cannot avoid the problem completely. From time to time, talking heads with many academic titles appear and push one of the politically correct narratives: It’s Putin! (Spoiler alert: The war started in February 2022; however, children not born in 2022 were not conceived in 2021). It’s the inflation caused by Putin! (Sorry, that was even later). It’s the demographics! (Nope, see above, TFR is independent of the demographics).
Thus, the “v” word keeps creeping back into people’s minds and the Web’s Wild West is ripe with speculation. We decided not to speculate but to wrestle some more data from the Czech government. For many months, we were trying to acquire the number of newborns in each month, broken down by age and vaccination status of the mother. The post-socialist health-care system of our country is a double-edged sword: On one hand, the state collects much more data about citizens than an American would believe. On the other hand, we have an equivalent of the FOIA, and we are not afraid to use it. After many months of fruitless correspondence with the authorities, we turned to Jitka Chalankova – a Czech Ron Johnson in skirts – who finally managed to obtain an invaluable data sheet.
To my knowledge, the datasheet (now publicly available with an English translation here) is the only officially released dataset containing a breakdown of newborns by the Covid-19 vaccination status of the mother. We requested much more detailed data, but this is all we got. The data contains the number of births per month between January 2021 and December 2023 given by women (aged 18-39) who were vaccinated, i.e., had received at least one Covid vaccine dose by the date of delivery, and by women who were unvaccinated, i.e., had not received any dose of any Covid vaccine by the date of delivery.
Furthermore, the numbers of births per month by women vaccinated by one or more doses during pregnancy were provided. This enabled us to estimate the number of women who were vaccinated before conception. Then, we used open data on the Czech population structure by age, and open data on Covid vaccination by day, sex, and age.
Combining these three datasets, we were able to estimate the rates of successful conceptions (i.e., conceptions that led to births nine months later) by preconception vaccination status of the mother. Those interested in the technical details of the procedure may read Methods in the newly released paper. It is worth mentioning that the paper had been rejected without review in six high-ranking scientific journals. In Figure 2, we reprint the main finding of our analysis.
Figure 2 reveals several interesting patterns that I list here in order of importance:
- Vaccinated women conceived about a third fewer children than would be expected from their share of the population. Unvaccinated women conceived at about the same rate as all women before the pandemic. Thus, a strong association between Covid vaccination status and successful conceptions has been established.
- In the second half of 2021, there was a peak in the rate of conceptions of the unvaccinated (and a corresponding trough in the vaccinated). This points to rather intelligent behavior of Czech women, who – contrary to the official advice – probably avoided vaccination if they wanted to get pregnant. This concentrated the pregnancies in the unvaccinated group and produced the peak.
- In the first half of 2021, there was significant uncertainty in the estimates of the conception rates. The lower estimate of the conception rate in the vaccinated was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy were unvaccinated before conception. This was almost certainly true in the first half of 2021 because the vaccines were not available prior to 2021. The upper estimate was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy also received at least one dose before conception. This was probably closer to the truth in the second part of 2021. Thus, we think that the true conception rates for the vaccinated start close to the lower bound in early 2021 and end close to the upper bound in early 2022. Once again, we would like to be much more precise, but we have to work with what we have got.
Now that the association between Covid-19 vaccination and lower rates of conception has been established, the one important question looms: Is this association causal? In other words, did the Covid-19 vaccines really prevent women from getting pregnant?
The guardians of the official narrative brush off our findings and say that the difference is easily explained by confounding: The vaccinated tend to be older, more educated, city-dwelling, more climate change aware…you name it. That all may well be true, but in early 2022, the TFR of the whole population dropped sharply and has been decreasing ever since.
So, something must have happened in the spring of 2021. Had the population of women just spontaneously separated into two groups – rednecks who wanted kids and didn’t want the jab, and city slickers who didn’t want kids and wanted the jab – the fertility rate of the unvaccinated would indeed be much higher than that of the vaccinated. In that respect, such a selection bias could explain the observed pattern. However, had this been true, the total TFR of the whole population would have remained constant.
But this is not what happened. For some reason, the TFR of the whole population jumped down in January 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. And we have just shown that, for some reason, this decrease in fertility affected only the vaccinated. So, if you want to argue that a mysterious factor X is responsible for the drop in fertility, you will have to explain (1) why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination. That is a tall order. Mr. Occam and I both think that X = the vaccine is the simplest explanation.
What really puzzles me is the continuation of the trend. If the vaccines really prevented conception, shouldn’t the effect have been transient? It’s been more than three years since the mass vaccination event, but fertility rates still keep falling. If this trend continues for another five years, we may as well stop arguing about pensions, defense spending, healthcare reform, and education – because we are done.
We are in the middle of what may be the biggest fertility crisis in the history of mankind. The reason for the collapse in fertility is not known. The governments of many European countries have the data that would unlock the mystery. Yet, it seems that no one wants to know.
Featured Video
Guy Mettan: Russophobia Made War Inevitable
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
A Look Back At Israel’s Role In Selling The Iraq War
The Dissident | December 28, 2025
… As Netanyahu meets with Trump to push new lies to justify a new war in Iran, it is well worth remembering Israel’s previous role in pushing lies and pushing for the war in Iraq. – Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
Aletho News- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
- Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
- Netanyahu Aligned Think Tanker: Somaliland Offered To ‘Absorb’ One Million Palestinians
- The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
- The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
- Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Could Have Triggered a Nuclear War: Here’s Why
- Ukraine’s Escalation May Be Aimed at Prolonging Conflict as Talks Advance — Ex-Pentagon Analyst
- If Americans Knew
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Gaza health official says miscarriages surge as births fall by 40%
- Leahy Law Requires Ban on Aid to Israeli Police Unit for Killing Two Palestinians Who Surrendered
- Israel blocks entry of eye drops for blind people in Gaza
- I did not understand I grew up in a concentration camp until I left Gaza
- One excavator, 10,000 bodies, a sea of rubble: inside Gaza’s effort to retrieve and bury its dead
- Rights Group Warns Israel’s Genocide Isn’t Over in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
Aletho News 