Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Is the FDA a mutinous ship?

By Dr Clare Craig | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 3, 2025

They promised change. They promised transparency. They promised reform. But with the FDA’s latest approval of Moderna’s mNEXSPIKE® covid jab, it is clear the only thing that has changed is the branding.

This so-called “reformed” FDA has just authorised a new mRNA vaccine — without testing it against a placebo. Instead, the comparator was Moderna’s previous product, already associated with a range of known adverse effects.

And yet, somehow, we’re meant to believe this is progress.

Meanwhile, the leaders heading up MAHA, elected on a promise to end the regulatory theatre and restore public trust, appear to be captaining a vessel still drifting in the same dangerous waters. They are on a mutinous ship and are wrestling for the wheel.

While the FDA continues to greenlight successive iterations of mRNA vaccines, other major Western nations long since reduced their ambitions:

  • In the United Kingdom, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) now recommends boosters only for individuals aged 75 and over, residents of care homes, and those with specific clinical vulnerabilities.
  • France and Germany have similarly curtailed their booster programmes, focusing on high-risk populations and refraining from broad recommendations for younger, healthier demographics.

This more cautious approach is not justifiable either given the failure of these product and their safety profile. The “benefit” only ever was – and continues to be – a statistical illusion. No one should be being exposed to this unnecessary risk.

This divergence raises a critical question: How can the same body of evidence lead to such different public health policies?

Latest Inadequate Trials

The Phase 3 trial underpinning mNEXSPIKE’s approval enrolled approximately 11,400 participants aged 12 and older. While this number might seem substantial, it’s important to note that only about half received the mNEXSPIKE vaccine, while the remainder received an earlier Moderna product as a comparator. There was no placebo comparison.

This sample size is insufficient to detect rare but serious adverse events – even with a placebo. Without one you can only see differences between two sets of harm.

For context, previous studies have indicated that mRNA vaccines may be associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest, estimated at approximately 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated individuals. This is totally unacceptable for general use even in a product that has significant benefits.

Despite approval, critical safety studies are still pending. One study, assessing safety in pregnant women, is not due until 2032. Another, evaluating vaccine effectiveness for adults aged 50–64, is still in the planning stages.

Are the FDA still pretending there is an emergency to justify these rushed decisions?

A Hollow Reformation

The USA public deserves better from their officials. They are paying for this reckless approach. The question is, can those with a more precautionary, less ideological approach, wrestle the wheel of the ship and steer her to safety?

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Covid-19 vaccine reform is moving slower than many had hoped

Moderna’s latest mRNA vaccine approval stuns reform advocates—but real change demands persistence when science runs up against powerful interests

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | June 1, 2025

Just three weeks after Dr Vinay Prasad assumed oversight of vaccines at the FDA, Moderna’s latest Covid-19 vaccine, mNEXSPIKE®, received full approval.

For those who had hoped the mRNA platform would be shelved, the decision landed like a gut punch.

Approved on 31 May 2025, the next-generation shot is intended for adults over 65, as well as individuals aged 12 to 64 with at least one risk factor for severe illness.

And it came under the watch of a man who had spent years demanding greater scientific rigour from the agency.

Prasad had been among the FDA’s most outspoken critics during the pandemic, repeatedly condemning its reliance on surrogate endpoints—such as antibody levels—rather than hard clinical outcomes like reduced hospitalisation or death.

And he didn’t just say it once. He drove the point home, over and over.

“Showing boosters improve neutralizing antibodies or other laboratory measures is not what we need,” he posted on X in July 2022. “We need randomized control trials powered for clinical endpoints showing boosters improve outcomes that people care about.”

In January 2023, he co-signed a formal Citizen Petition to the FDA stating, “This immunobridging surrogate endpoint has not been validated to predict clinical efficacy.”

Then in March 2023, he made his position even clearer on Substack. “I don’t care about transient antibody titer levels,” he wrote.

But mNEXSPIKE® appears to have been approved primarily using exactly those kinds of data—measures of immune response, not measures of meaningful outcomes.

So how do we square that?

Technically, the approval aligns with the policy Prasad outlined in a recent New England Journal of Medicine article.

There, he proposed a two-track system — no further vaccine approvals for healthy adults without RCTs showing clinical benefit—but for older adults and at-risk individuals, immunobridging data could still be acceptable.

So yes, by that standard, mNEXSPIKE® fits the rules.

But it doesn’t erase the discomfort. Because for years, Prasad insisted those very shortcuts—approving Covid vaccines based on antibody levels instead of clinical outcomes—were scientifically flimsy.

Now, under his watch, those same shortcuts are back in play.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was appointed HHS Secretary, reform didn’t just seem likely—it felt imminent.

Many expected the mRNA shots would be pulled from the market, or at the very least, that new approvals would be frozen until stronger evidence emerged.

Instead, we’ve seen a flood of high-production videos and polished slogans about “restoring public trust.”

To many observers, it looks like transparency on the surface—but business as usual underneath.

Of course, no one said this would be easy.

Having worked in government as a political adviser, I know how hard it is to shift systems that are not only slow and bureaucratic, but deeply enmeshed with commercial interests. And no sector is more heavily invested in mRNA than biotech.

This isn’t just about Covid anymore. The pharmaceutical industry has poured billions into mRNA vaccines for RSV, flu, HIV, cancer, and more. Entire product pipelines are now staked on the assumption that the technology is here to stay.

Pulling the plug wouldn’t just alter public health policy—it would tank portfolios, gut R&D budgets, and unleash a political and financial firestorm from some of the most powerful corporate interests on earth.

That’s the kind of pressure Prasad is under now. That’s the reality Kennedy’s team has stepped into.

This is no longer science versus ideology. It’s science versus entrenched industry power.

And many are beginning to worry we’re watching the same playbook unfold—just with better branding.

That’s not what MAHA supporters or vaccine-injured families were hoping for. They’re not asking for tweaks. They want the shots gone. Not revised. Not updated—just gone.

But political reality rarely keeps pace with public demand. Even the most determined reformers can’t move faster than the machinery they’re trying to dismantle.

So where does that leave us?

Facing the hardest task of all—staying in the fight.

Progress may feel glacial, but it is underway.

The CDC has removed routine Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. Prasad’s new framework has halted low-risk approvals unless backed by RCTs.

Yes, the mRNA platform is still alive—and still fiercely protected—but reform was never going to be easy. And it was never going to come all at once.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

COVID Doubts Made You a ‘Violent Extremist’

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | June 2, 2025

Biden administration policymakers hated you more than you knew.

Four years ago, I warned at the Libertarian Institute:

“Libertarians are in the federal crosshairs… Many libertarians assume they have nothing to fear because they are not engaged in seeking to violently overthrow the government. But the feds will be able to find many other pretexts to target peaceful citizens with supposedly subversive ideas.”

Three years ago, I warned at the Institute that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was damning anyone who did not kowtow to the regime:

“’When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.’ That wacko definition of extremism designed to vilify anyone who doubts Biden will save America’s soul.”

In October 2023, I warned at the Institute:

“Federal bureaucrats heaved together a bunch of letters to contrive an ominous new acronym for the latest peril to domestic tranquility. The result: AGAAVE—’anti-government, anti-authority violent extremism’—which looks like a typo for a sugar substitute. The FBI vastly expanded the supposed AGAAVE peril by broadening suspicion from ‘furtherance of ideological agendas’ to ‘furtherance of political and/or social agendas.’ Anyone who has an agenda different from Team Biden’s could be AGAAVE’d for his own good.”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently declassified a December 13, 2021 report by the National Counterterrorism Center. Gabbard’s version had a more honest title than the original version: “Declassified Biden Administration Documents Labeling COVID Dissenters, Others as ‘Domestic Violent Extremists.’”

President Joe Biden’s Brain Trust sounded the alarm on criticisms such as “COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.” After government lockdowns had destroyed millions of jobs, only the paranoid would fear the government would ever violate their liberties or subvert their livelihoods.

Biden policymakers pretended that the surge in criticism of COVID policies was proof of the psychopathology of Biden’s opponents. But in September 2021, Biden dictated that one-hundred million Americans working for private companies must get the COVID vaccine. The official counterterrorism report stated that it anticipated that “the threat will continue at least into the winter, as many of the new COVID-19 mandates in the U.S….are implemented, including U.S. workplace vaccination policies that carry disciplinary or termination penalties.” The Supreme Court struck down most of that vaccine mandate as illegal in January 2022 but not before it had profoundly disrupted legions of lives and businesses—as well as American health care.

The other factor spurring the surge in COVID criticism was the failure of the COVID vaccines. In early 2022, the effectiveness of the COVID booster shot had fallen to 31%—too low to have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Though most American adults had gotten COVID vaccines, there were more than a million new COVID cases a day in January 2022. Most COVID fatalities were occurring among the fully vaxxed. Studies showed that people who received multiple boosters were actually more likely to be hit by COVID infections.

So obviously, the Biden administration had no choice but to demonize any and all COVID critics. A confidential 2022 Department of Homeland Security report detailed pending crackdowns on “inaccurate” information on “the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,” among other targets. A few months earlier, Jen Easterly, the chief of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, declared, “We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.” Plenty of Biden administration officials considered it “really dangerous” to permit people to assert that COVID vaccines were failing.

The National Counterterrorism Center report noted, “The availability of a vaccine for all school-age children might spur conspiracy theories and perceptions that schools will vaccinate children against parents’ will.” Like the same way that some states and many school systems have sought to enable children to change their gender without their parents’ knowledge or consent?

The report also warned that “new COVID-19 mitigation measures—particularly mandates or endorsements of vaccines for children—will probably spur plotting against the government.” The FDA knew that COVID vaccines sharply increased the risk of myocarditis—an inflamed heart—in young males but the Biden White House browbeat the agency into fully approving the COVID vaccine anyhow. New York Governor Kathy Hochul sought unsuccessfully to mandate vaccines for all schoolkids in the Empire State even though her State Department of Health reported in May 2022 that the Pfizer vaccine was only 12% effective for children during the Omicron surge. The Biden administration included COVID vaccines in the semi-mandatory regimen for young children despite the vaccine’s failure and perils.

The vilification of COVID doubts propelled the Biden crackdown on uppity parents. As governments shut down schools and issued mask mandates in failed responses to COVID, parents raised hell at school board meetings. The National School Board Association denounced such criticism as “a form of domestic terrorism” and urged Team Biden to deploy the FBI and the Patriot Act against protesting parents (an initial draft of the letter called for sending in the National Guard to protect school boards).

On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the FBI would speedily “convene meetings” in every state aimed at “addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” The Justice Department announced that its National Security Division would help determine “how federal enforcement tools can be used” to prosecute angry parents. The Biden administration effectively announced plans to drop legal nuclear bombs on school board critics. An FBI whistleblower revealed that FBI counterterrorism tools were being used to target angry parents. FBI agents across the nation began interrogating parents whose names were reported on a “tip line” set up for people to phone in accusations against anyone who complained about school closures, mask mandates, or other issues.

Portraying doubts on COVID policy as a warning sign of domestic violent extremism unleashed the FBI to target anybody who howled against mandatory injections or the near-total destruction of their freedom of movement. That December 13, 2021 National Counterterrorism Center report may be only the tip of the iceberg of federal mischief. We may soon learn of far more direct machinations to vilify, undercut, or other stifle COVID critics.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

How Lies and Hubris Caused an Awakening

By Pat Fidopiastis | Brownstone Institute | May 26, 2025

In March 2020, the phrase “Fifteen days to slow the spread” was transmitting faster than SARS-CoV-2. At the time, it seemed reasonable to want to buy our health care workers a few weeks to prepare. Contemporaneously, Dr. Anthony Fauci reasonably summarized decades of research in his 60 Minutes interview by saying that masks are not an effective way to block respiratory viruses.

In a Snapchat interview, Dr. Fauci reasonably interpreted timely data on Covid-19 outcomes to conclude that young people could decide for themselves if they wanted to meet strangers on a dating app during the pandemic. As Dr. Fauci put it: “Because that’s what’s called relative risk.”

Even the authors of the “proximal origin” opinion piece in Nature Medicine made reasonable points in support of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (despite revealing their cards by calling “lab leak” implausible): “… it is likely that SARS-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species” and “More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.” 

Five years later, thousands of animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences have been analyzed, and still there is nothing remotely close to a non-human adapted, animal version of SARS-CoV-2; back in 2003, using “stone tools” compared to today’s technology, they found the animal version of that SARS virus in a few months.

Unfortunately, the honeymoon of reason was brief. Overwhelming evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was not natural became a “destructive conspiracy,” and if you spoke about it, you were somehow racist.

Surgeon General Jerome Adams instructed us on how to make a life-saving mask from an old t-shirt. Dr. Fauci used the bizarre excuse that he lied in his 60 Minutes interview to explain why he abruptly reversed himself and began promoting the epidemiological theater of wearing several masks at once.

Not to be outdone, Dr. Deborah Birx summed up the futility of her leadership with this pearl: “We know that there are ways that you can even play tennis with marked balls so you’re not touching each other’s balls.” This sounded more like a punchline than worthwhile public health advice. Perhaps most egregious of all, we learned that “Two weeks to slow the spread” was not meant to be taken literally.

For me, a professor of microbiology for nearly 25 years, the moment of reason ended when I stepped into an elevator on my campus and saw a floor sticker telling me where to stand (Fig. 1). I simply could not keep quiet and pretend that this was sound public health advice.

Fig. 1

Before long, businesses were inundated with pandemic rules. I was hired by one of the lucky ones deemed “essential,” and therefore allowed to open, to assist with “safe” operation plans.

When I arrived to conduct my inspection, the business looked more like an Ebola field hospital than a furniture store (Fig. 2). Masked customers were herded in the parking lot by ropes and signs. One by one, they were greeted by an attendant, grateful to still have a job, standing behind Plexiglas, wearing a mask and face shield.

The friendly attendant was instructed to ask uncomfortable questions about symptoms like diarrhea. If a customer responded “yes” to any of the symptoms or refused to answer, they could not shop for furniture. If “no,” then their temperature was measured.

It was nearly 100 degrees that day so almost everyone had to be scanned multiple times. Inside the store was a maze of one-way arrows, warning signs, Plexiglas, hand sanitizer stations, and boxes of masks and disposable couch covers. They even had a video monitor reporting the number of customers per 400 square feet of store. Sadly, the epidemiological version of “over-medicating the patient” did not stop with onerous business rules.

Fig. 2

Drunk with power, public health officials in California felt ordained to protect the unwashed masses from Thanksgiving dinner. Unsurprisingly, these farcical dining rules did not apply to everyone.

Who actually believed “singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion” at a family dinner was too risky? Who decided that we needed to bulldoze a skate park to prevent kids from congregating? Why was it necessary to arrest a lone paddleboarder in Santa Monica Bay for “flouting coronavirus closures?”

In the LA Times article on the paddler’s arrest, a professor from the prestigious Scripps Institute of Oceanography opined, “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could enter coastal waters and transfer back into the air along the coast. I wouldn’t go in the water if you paid me $1 million right now.”

I tried laughing off the ridiculous, unenforceable Thanksgiving rules, those stickers in the elevators, and other nonsense that at the time was happening somewhere else. But I could not get past the frightening reality that so many of my highly educated peers actually believed nonsense like SARS-CoV-2 was leaping out of the ocean.

Anyone paying attention could compile government data on Covid-19 outcomes and assess risk for themselves (Table 1). The message was always the same – the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were people over 65 years old with severe comorbidities, especially obesity.

Table 1

By signing the Great Barrington Declaration and discussing its premise of “focused protection” in my advanced microbiology courses, I received an avalanche of vitriol.

Among the most shocking responses were accusations of “ageism” and “fat-shaming” for discussing hard facts about the pandemic.

Just like that, the “Science doesn’t care about your feelings” crowd started prioritizing their feelings. The university newspaper asked for an interview. I was warned not to accept, but I wanted to start a bigger conversation. I regret my decision because the article they wrote did not represent the views I articulated.

Instead, I was accused of promoting a “power imbalance” by supposedly forcing my “junk science” views on students. I used to think the cries of “fake news” were just a lazy argument by people that could not support their position, until I read that article about me.

Ironically, these same people who attacked me had completely accepted the made-up “six-feet rule,” which was the root of so much collateral damage. Heavily biased news sources like NPR defended this unscientific rule by stating, “distance still protects you.” However, if the cure is not even remotely feasible, despite the best efforts of authoritarians, then it’s not really a cure.

Apparently I crossed the line when I discussed in class how politicized the pandemic had become. How is it that President Trump’s rallies were spreading “coronavirus and death” but BLM protests had no effect on coronavirus cases? The sampling bias was baked in, given that contact tracers were being told not to ask people if they had been to a protest.

Why was it acceptable for CNN to use phrases such as “Wuhan virus” and “Chinese coronavirus,” but when President Trump did it, he was called “racist?” Was it actually “racist” to discuss the obvious signs of genetic manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome with my students in an Emerging Infectious Diseases class?

My campus newspaper and many of my colleagues thought so, as did an Asian American and Pacific Islander group calling for my resignation.  When the admonitions about masks became aggressive (Fig. 3), and draconian, unscientific outdoor mask fines were being implemented, I analyzed some data and conducted a few experiments to find out for myself if masks were worth all the anger.

Fig. 3

I looked at “cases” in places like New York City and pointed out when the mask mandate and fines were applied (Fig. 4). Notably, the NYC mandate was instituted after cases had already begun to fall, and coercive fines did not prevent the second wave, which was longer and reached a higher peak than the first wave.

Fig. 4

I had my allergy-prone daughter sneeze onto petri-plates with and without the CDC-approved masks we wore to enter locations that enforced the mask mandate (Fig. 5). The saliva spray patterns, illustrated by microbial growth on the plates, were virtually indistinguishable.

Fig. 5

In the 60 Minutes interview, Dr. Fauci stated that “… often there are unintended consequences…people keep fiddling with the mask and touching their face…” implying that germs collect on masks, making them a source of contagion rather than a barrier.

Indeed, after the sneeze experiment, I stamped the outside of my daughter’s mask onto a petri-plate. The resulting dense microbial growth supported Dr. Fauci’s argument against mask wearing – “fiddling with the mask” probably does spread microbes (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

At the time, I stated in the campus newspaper that “the science on masks was mixed at best.” However, the third-year journalism student apparently knew better and decided I was pushing “junk science.” Was I naïve to expect an apology after “the science” started catching up to what I was saying?

During the pandemic, my lab was responsible for measuring SARS-CoV-2 levels in wastewater (Fig. 7) to use this information as a means of tracking community transmission. We learned two important lessons from this approach.

First, peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater (orange line) provided a few weeks’ lead to when we could expect to see peak levels of people testing positive for the virus (i.e., “cases;” blue line). Second, we learned that the mask mandate (red line) did not stop the virus from doing what it wanted. Despite the mask mandate, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reached unprecedented highs.

Fig. 7

Taken together, my findings were supported by decades of research showing that masks are not effective against respiratory viruses, regardless of the quality. Still, the counterargument persisted that wearing an N95 mask suctioned to your face, and constantly replacing it, would have stopped the pandemic.

Again, if the cure is not feasible, then it’s not really a cure, is it? The reality is that there are no convincing data supporting mask mandates, none that even remotely support children being forced to wear saliva-soaked masks, and especially none that would justify people being choked and beaten for opposing them.

The “follow the science” crowd was honing their authoritarian skills in preparation for mandatory vaccinations. The motivation for these mandates was summed up perfectly: “During the Sars crisis in 2003 pharma companies answered the WHO’s call for vaccine research. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars, but then — when the outbreak died away — governments and charities lost interest.” According to epidemiologist Dr. Osterholm “The companies were left holding the bag.”

How could Big Pharma avoid “holding the bag” on a vaccine they hoped would stop a virus that had repeatedly ripped through the world’s population? Not surprisingly, their first order of business was to drop the concept of “natural immunity” into the memory hole, centuries of science be damned. The subtext was if regular people knew that natural immunity was real, they probably would not want the vaccine, especially if they already had Covid-19 a few times.

Leading up to the vaccine rollout, I tested myself regularly using PCR, antibody, and antigen assays. I eventually tested positive and had mild flu-like symptoms. While well-educated friends of mine had gone to such lengths as to move out of their homes to distance themselves from their children and wait for the vaccines, my family chose a different tack. Instead, we huddled, got mild infections (except for my wife, who seemed to be immune), shared some level of natural immunity to the latest version of the virus, and tracked our infections (Table 2).

Table 2

When I shared the “herd immunity” story with my small social media following, most appreciated hearing something other than doom and gloom. However, others showed a level of vindictiveness that should not have surprised me, given how acceptable it became to wish death on the unvaccinated.

A colleague attempted to shame me in the campus newspaper, while others wondered out loud whether Child Protective Services should be notified. How dare you give your children the sniffles! How dare you use this time of ridiculous “virtual learning” mandates to provide your children with some hands-on experience performing quantitative PCR!

Predictably, my SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were extremely high after over two weeks of PCR-positivity. While still overflowing with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, I was scheduled to receive mandatory shots in order to return to campus.

If the world had actually followed the science, my recent PCR positivity and elevated antibody titers should have been a reasonable exemption. Unfortunately, there was no such exemption. Having seen the terrible treatment of my colleague Dr. Kheriaty, I decided we would play the role of guinea pigs and take what would be an all-risk-and-no-reward shot, especially for my kids. That is, there was nothing in it for us except a few days of high fever and injection site swelling, but definite financial reward for everyone in the vaccine supply chain.

As a member of the “laptop class,” the “lockdowns” made my life easier in many ways. While small business owners struggled, I was getting full pay to upload instructional videos to my university students, and occasionally engage with them online. My wastewater epidemiology work was deemed “essential,” so I was permitted to go to my lab to perform those duties for additional compensation.

However, the ad hominem attacks and threats caused me to disengage from further attempts to start a discussion on pandemic policy, which no doubt was their goal. While the world was fighting over toilet paper and shaming each other for “killing grandma,” we tuned out for a while (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8

I was surrounded by so much anger that I truly believed I was alone in my heretical views on pandemic policy. However, I officially tuned back in when Dr. Scott Atlas invited me to join a small group called The Academy for Science and Freedom. 

Our meeting at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington, D.C. was the first time I had hope since the pandemic started. We were professors, medical doctors, publishers, and journalists, all united by a common belief that the people in charge abandoned a basic tenet of public health: voluntary instead of coercive measures would protect public trust and induce cooperation.

Despite all the great minds in the room, it was hard to imagine we would ever get to where we are right now. But here we are. Many of the people responsible for lockdowns, forced vaccinations, and covering up the unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2 are gone.

In their place, are Academy members such as Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Matt Memoli, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Marty Makary. All of whom were treated far worse than me. The overwhelming rejection of “The Fauci School” of public health policy is vindicating. However, recent headlines suggest there are holdouts refusing to accept that they were fooled: Dr. Høeg is a “vaccine skeptic,”  Dr. Memoli “is known for questioning vaccine mandates,” and Dr. Prasad is an “anti-science MAHA extremist.”

The people I trusted probably fooled me on a lot of things I voted for, like the benefits of a 20,000-page health care policy. Who has time to actually read that stuff? However, they were never going to succeed at fooling me about the science of the pandemic.

Their lies and hubris caused an awakening, reminiscent of the scene in The Matrix when Neo emerged from the virtual world to a brutal reality. I just hope the people I trust who are now running the major institutions will allocate all resources to programs that will actually improve human health. In doing so, they should have no problem convincing those holdouts not only that they had been fooled, but who fooled them.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

Biden Regime Labeled Opponents Of Covid Mandates As “Domestic Violent Extremists,” Newly Released Documents Show

The designation infringed on the First Amendment and opened the door to investigating Americans for vaccine mandate skepticism

By Michael Shellenberger | May 23, 2025

Former President Joe Biden announces Covid vaccine mandates on September 9, 2021, in Washington, DC. Three months later (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Biden Administration labeled Americans who opposed the COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as “Domestic Violent Extremists,” or DVEs, according to newly declassified intelligence records obtained by Public and Catherine Herridge Reports. The designation created an “articulable purpose” for FBI or other government agents to open an “assessment” of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation, said a former FBI agent.

The report, which the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has declassified, claims that “anti government or anti authority violent extremists,” specifically militias, “characterize COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as evidence of government overreach.” A sweeping range of COVID narratives, the report states, “have resonated” with DVEs “motivated by QAnon.”

The FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) coauthored the December 13, 2021 intelligence product whose title reads, “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”

The report cites criticism of mandates as “prominent narratives” related to violent extremism. These narratives “include the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.“

“It’s a way they could go to social media companies and say, ‘You don’t want to propagate domestic terrorism, so you should take down this content,’” said former FBI agent Steve Friend…

May 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Top FDA official admits she refused the Covid-19 vaccine while pregnant

A senior regulator’s admission reveals uncomfortable truths about silence, ethics and trust inside the FDA

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 22, 2025

One of the most powerful figures at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admitted she refused the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine while pregnant—even as her agency promoted it as “safe and effective” for all pregnant women.

Dr Sara Brenner’s explosive disclosure, made on 15 May 2025 at the MAHA Institute Round Table in Washington DC, is as revealing as it is troubling.

A preventive medicine physician, Brenner has worked at the FDA since 2019. As the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner—and briefly its Acting Commissioner—Brenner was at the centre of decision-making.

Dr Sara Brenner on 15 May 2025 at the MAHA Institute

Prior to that she was Chief Medical Officer for diagnostics and was detailed to the White House to support the Biden administration’s Covid-19 response. She didn’t just participate in the pandemic response, she helped shape it from within.

“Knowing what I knew—not only about nanotechnology, about medicine, about the medical countermeasures—but also having a very strong and firm grounding in bioethics… there were many things that were not right,” she told the audience.

That someone with her seniority and access to internal data privately rejected the vaccine, while her agency promoted it to millions of pregnant women, presents a profound ethical dilemma.

Brenner’s concerns about mRNA safety

Brenner explained that her decision was driven by a lack of safety data, particularly around the biodistribution of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)—the tiny fat particles used to deliver the mRNA into cells.

“It was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products were… That was my primary concern, and that exposure I was very concerned about,” said Brenner.

She had reason to be cautious.

As a nanomedicine expert who built an MD/PhD program in the field, Brenner had spent years researching the “biodistribution, excretion, metabolism and toxicities associated with engineered nanoparticles.”

“Materials that don’t exist in nature—there’s a lot of unknowns,” said Brenner.

She warned that unintended toxic effects—especially in vulnerable populations like pregnant women—could not be ignored.

“Regardless of the medical product or the intervention, there’s always going to be the need to evaluate both the intended outcomes… and the unintended consequences,” she cautioned.

Warnings ignored

Brenner’s concerns echoed those raised in 2021 by Canadian immunologist Dr Byram Bridle, who first exposed internal documents from Japan’s regulatory agency showing that LNPs didn’t remain at the injection site, but travelled throughout the body and accumulated in organs including the ovaries, liver, spleen and bone marrow.

At the time, Bridle’s warnings were aggressively dismissed. His reputation took a hit, and he faced institutional censure from the University of Guelph, where he was a professor, for speaking out against vaccine mandates.

Dr Byram Bridle, Canadian immunologist. Photo credit: Kenneth Armstrong

Now, Brenner’s comments confirm that these concerns were not only valid—they were quietly shared at the highest levels of the FDA.

During the event, Brenner also revealed that her worries extended to breastfeeding and potential exposure to her child after birth.

A 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics detected vaccine-derived mRNA in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers for at least 48 hours—the very scenario Brenner had feared.

Yet the FDA made little effort to publicly investigate or address the findings, dismissing them with the vague reassurance that there was “no evidence of harm.”

No mandate for Brenner?

It’s unclear how Brenner managed to avoid the vaccine mandate that applied to all federal employees at the time. She didn’t say. Perhaps she received a religious or medical exemption—but she left that part out.

What she did reveal was that she had concerns—deep enough not to take the vaccine during her pregnancy. Yet she said nothing publicly, while her agency told millions of other women it was safe.

For many, that silence is hard to accept and it has left many asking why she didn’t warn other women about a product with ‘zero’ clinical safety data in pregnancy.

No one but Brenner knows the full story. But the ethical contradiction is hard to ignore.

Silence inside the castle

Brenner acknowledged the immense pressure inside the FDA to stick to the official narrative.

“They don’t let you get very far out of the castle at FDA with your talking points,” she admitted nervously.

She described the period as a “dark night of the soul” for many civil servants, a time when even “very obvious things” took bravery to say.

She eventually found support through a group called Feds for Medical Freedom—federal workers advocating for informed consent, bodily autonomy, and pushing back against government overreach.

A culture change?

Today, under a new administration, Brenner says the culture inside the FDA is shifting. She praised Commissioner Dr Marty Makary and said transparency is finally becoming a priority.

“We’re moving very quickly to make it such that there will be more transparency… so that people can see and evaluate for themselves what the truths are.”

But Brenner’s remarks won’t undo what has already happened—especially to those who were vaccine injured or whose pregnancies were affected.

What her comments do offer is a rare glimpse into the internal dynamics of a government institution that issued sweeping public assurances while failing to acknowledge its own uncertainty.

“There was no acknowledgement of what was unknown. There were only statements and assertions that were really more like beliefs,” Brenner said of the FDA’s messaging during the pandemic.

That may be her most important admission.

This is more than a story about one woman’s personal decision. It is a story about institutional culture, regulatory failure, and the consequences of silence.

Those who spoke up were punished. Those who stayed silent kept their jobs and reputations. And those who were forced to comply were often left to deal with the collateral damage.

When asked whether she believed she had made the right decision in refusing the Covid-19 vaccine, Brenner replied simply, “I believe so.”

Now that she has spoken, the question remains — who else knew, and said nothing?

May 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

FERTILITY FALLOUT: MRNA VACCINES LINKED TO OVARIAN DAMAGE

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | May 15, 2025

Following last week’s spotlight on a preprint showing lower conception rates in vaccinated women, a new peer-reviewed rat study shows a 60% drop in ovarian egg reserves after mRNA vaccination. With FDA meetings looming, Del and Jefferey raise urgent questions about long-term reproductive risks, and why similar research still isn’t being done in women.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

‘There Is Overwhelming Evidence to Call for a Moratorium on mRNA COVID Jabs’: New MAHA Chief Medical Advisor

By Jon Fleetwood | May 15, 2025

British cardiologist and author Dr. Aseem Malhotra, the newly appointed Chief Medical Advisor to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, says there is “overwhelming evidence” to ban the COVID-19 mRNA shots.

Dr. Malhotra is a former U.K. government and long-time ally of MAHA leaders like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and NIH head Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

He’s campaigned for taxes on sugary drinks, worked to lower the amount of Brits taking statins unnecessarily, and worked with government leaders to remove ultraprocessed foods from hospitals and schools, per The Daily Mail.

Though Malhotra is not formally employed by the federal government, he will serve as a leading voice of the movement and work closely with grassroots groups to advance its policy agenda.

In a Wednesday Twitter/X post, the British best-selling author (@DrAseemMalhotra) left no question where he stands on the COVID jab.

“It’s what you’ve been waiting for,” he wrote. “There is OVERWHELMING evidence to call for a moratorium on the mRNA covid jabs & help the vaccine injured. Let it rip.”

On the same day, MAHA Action, an organization founded by former Team Kennedy leadership, announced Malhotra’s appointment:

We are honored to announce that Dr. Aseem Malhotra has joined MAHA as our Chief Medical Advisor.

Dr. Malhotra is an NHS-trained Consultant Cardiologist and an internationally renowned authority in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease.

He has served as Honorary Council Member at Stanford’s Metabolic Psychiatry Clinic and Visiting Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine. As Founding President of the Public Health Collaboration and a founding member of Action on Sugar, Dr. Malhotra has led national efforts to curb sugar intake and champion low-carb diets for type 2 diabetes.

He is the bestselling author of The Pioppi Diet, The 21 Day Immunity Plan, and A Statin-Free Life, and played a key advisory role for the UK government on the link between obesity and COVID-19. His publications have garnered an Altmetric score exceeding 10,000, one of the highest worldwide for a clinical doctor.

We are thrilled to welcome Dr. Malhotra to the MAHA team and look forward to the invaluable expertise and passion he brings to our mission of Making America Healthy Again.

Malhotra told Daily Mail, “It’s very clear to me that perhaps this is the most important issue that has galvanized MAHA and helped elect President Trump,” he said, referring to criticism of mRNA COVID injections.

“There is a pandemic of the vaccine injured. We can’t make America healthy again if we don’t address this.”

The doctor believes there are “hundreds of thousands” of vaccine injuries and wants states to pass legislation halting use of the drugs because they have shown “more harm than good and never should have been rolled out in the first place.”

CDC data show 38,541 deaths have been linked to the COVID jab since 2020, but if fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported—as a 2010 HHS-funded Harvard analysis suggests—the real number could exceed 3.8 million, compared to just 7,109 deaths that got propoxyphene pulled after nearly 30 years on the market.

Malhotra recently told Fox News that he began to doubt the safety of the COVID shot after his father died after suffering cardiac arrest.

Now leading America’s most unapologetic health freedom initiative, Malhotra is making one thing crystal clear: the COVID shot crisis isn’t over—it’s just finally being confronted.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Among Dozens Who Signed Oath to Conceal COVID Info That Could ‘Embarrass’ Trudeau Government

yourNEWS | May 9, 2025

Newly released records show Canada’s top doctor and federal managers signed confidentiality pledges during the COVID crisis to avoid disclosures that could damage government credibility.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, and nearly 30 senior federal health officials signed a confidential oath during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, pledging not to release information that could “embarrass” the Trudeau cabinet, according to internal records obtained through Access to Information requests.

The oath, revealed by Blacklock’s Reporter, was part of a broader secrecy policy within the Public Health Agency and other government departments including Health, Industry, Foreign Affairs, and National Defence. Internal communications from 2020 show that vaccine supply manager Alan Thom voiced concern about the widespread requirement for federal managers to sign non-disclosure agreements, noting, “at a certain point the Department of Public Works determined individual non-disclosure agreements were no longer needed… as we are all covered through our responsibilities as public servants.”

The confidentiality agreement emphasized that any “unauthorized disclosure of confidential information… may result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada and may jeopardize Canada’s supplier relations and procurement processes.” Managers acknowledged their ongoing obligations under the Values And Ethics Code For The Public Sector, according to the documents.

The oaths were signed shortly after the Trudeau administration secured billions in COVID-19 vaccine contracts with companies including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, and Sanofi. Dr. Tam, a longtime proponent of mass vaccination, oversaw public messaging during the rollout.

The first mRNA vaccine to be approved in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech shot, authorized on December 9, 2020, followed closely by Moderna’s vaccine. The approvals came after the Trudeau government granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity from liability for adverse effects. Parliamentarians requesting to review those contracts were denied access.

In response to growing reports of vaccine-related injuries, Canada launched its Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) in late 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, the program was created after legal protections were granted to pharmaceutical companies. A memo from Canada’s Department of Health now warns that VISP payouts are set to exceed the program’s original $75 million budget, prompting the federal government to allocate an additional $36 million.

Despite dwindling public demand, the government continues to purchase new doses, even as its own statistics show widespread rejection of booster injections by Canadians. Compounding concerns, an inhalable mRNA vaccine—developed using fetal cell lines and funded by Ottawa—has now entered Phase 2 clinical trials.

Data from Statistics Canada also indicates that post-vaccine rollout, deaths attributed to COVID-19 and “unspecified causes” significantly increased, raising further questions about the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine campaign.

LifeSiteNews has compiled an extensive archive of research linking COVID mRNA injections to adverse events such as myocarditis, blood clots, and fertility issues. Additional findings highlight risks in children, while all currently available COVID shots have ties to abortion-derived fetal cell lines.

With growing scrutiny over vaccine safety and government transparency, the revelation that Canada’s top public health officials signed agreements to avoid reputational harm to federal leadership adds another layer of controversy to the country’s pandemic response.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , | 1 Comment

EU queen Ursula preached transparency – then did backdoor deals with Big Pharma

By Rachel Marsden | RT | May 16, 2025

Well, this is awkward. How many times has Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president and unelected de facto ruler of the EU, delivered sermons about transparency like she’s the high priestess of some kind of parallel Brussels Vatican? And now the EU’s own top court has called her out in a ruling for neglecting to practice what she preaches.

Back in 2023, during her State of the European Union address, doing her finest impression of someone elected by the actual public, von der Leyen declared the need to douse any and all sketchiness in sunlight in order to “not allow any autocracy’s Trojan horses to attack our democracies from within.”

“Transparency should characterize the work of all the members of the Commission and of their cabinets,” she said as far back as 2019. “I have asked commissioners…to engage more and be more transparent,” she proclaimed in a speech to EU parliamentarians last year. Transparency and accountability also figured prominently in her bid for reappointment by the EU’s ruling elites last year.

Great news! She can now finally embark on this noble mission, and begin her journey with little more than a simple glance in the mirror. Because the European Court of Justice – the body that rules on whether EU institutions have actually crossed into illegality, not just occupying their usual territory of elite-grade idiocy – has just decided that Queen Ursula’s Commission can’t just wave away a pile of her own Covid-era text messages by going, “Whoops! They disappeared. Oh well, what do you do?” Which is basically what the Commission’s response was to the New York Times when it asked to see those messages.

And how did the Times know that these texts even existed? Because Ursula literally told them, bragging in an interview about how she scored so many vaxxes because she’s super tight with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. All this was for a piece spotlighting her Covid efforts, published in April 2021: “How Europe sealed a Pfizer vaccine deal with texts and calls.”

The article featured the same kind of glamour photography reminiscent of the good ol’ days when Ursula was Germany’s defense minister from 2013 to 2019, under former Chancellor Angela Merkel, and doing photo shoots in front of military hardware while accusations swirled that she had bungled the budget with shady defense contracts, even as the Bundeswehr was stuck using brooms for guns during a NATO exercise, as the Atlantic Council reported in 2015.

“For a month, Ms von der Leyen had been exchanging texts and calls with Bourla, the chief executive of Pfizer… Pfizer might have more doses it could offer the bloc – many more,” the NYT piece reads, referring to the “personal diplomacy” that “played a big role in a deal” for 1.8 billion Pfizer anti-Covid doses.

So the Times hears about these text messages and was like, “Oh, cool. Let’s see!”

Suddenly Queen Ursula became a lot less chatty. So the Times took the matter to the EU’s own top court to get the disclosure. And now this court has said, in legal terms, that Ursula can’t just ghost the Times – and the public by extension – without giving a real reason. That there has to be a “plausible explanation to justify the non possession” of the texts. And also, the court says that “the Commission has failed to explain in a plausible manner” why it thought that these messages were so trivial that they could be vaporized like they were just her Eurovision contest text voting and not a matter of public record which, by definition, should be maintained.

Out of these little chats came €71 billion in Covid jab contracts with Big Pharma’s Pfizer and AstraZeneca – 11 of them to be precise, totaling 4.6 billion doses, paid for with cash taken straight from EU taxpayers. Enough for ten doses for every EU citizen.

Turns out that freewheeling it may have resulted in some consequences that could have been avoided had a diverse group of minds been engaged on the issue, as protocol normally dictates, and not just Ursula’s. It’s not like there hasn’t been a costly fallout from all this. A big chunk of the EU, including Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, is shouting about surplus doses for which they’re on the hook, urging Brussels to renegotiate the contractual terms with Big Pharma. Germany alone has reportedly trashed 200 million of them. Tricky to negotiate, though, when no one’s even sure what the terms were, as the second-highest European court pointed out last year. “The Commission did not give the public sufficiently wide access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines… The Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings,” it ruled.

The details of these contracts – how they were made, what they say, and how anyone’s supposed to back out of them if citizens politely decline to max out their ten-jab punch card – remain a mystery.

Back in 2024, Brussels more or less shrugged and suggested that it could really only be as transparent as the courts forced it to be. So hey, what can you do? “In general, the Commission grants the widest possible public access to documents, in line with the principles of openness and transparency,” the EU said, underscoring that the lower court ruling “confirmed that the Commission was entitled to provide only partial access.”

Well, good news, guys! Your very own top court just ruled that you can now be a lot more transparent! So go crazy. Be the change that you keep saying you want to be in the world. Nothing is holding you back now. If transparency were a vaccine, this court just gave Ursula a booster. So we’ll see if it takes. I won’t hold my breath.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

EU court overturns Commission’s denial of access to von der Leyen-Pfizer text messages

(Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 14, 2025

The General Court of the European Union on Wednesday annulled the European Commission’s refusal to grant a New York Times journalist access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

According to a communication published on Wednesday, the judgment concluded that the Commission failed to provide a credible explanation for its claim that it no longer holds the requested messages, which were allegedly sent during Covid-19 vaccine procurement negotiations.

The ruling comes in response to a 2022 request by Matina Stevi, a Brussels-based journalist with The New York Times, who sought access to all text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022. The Commission denied the request, stating that it possessed no such documents. Stevi and The New York Times challenged that decision before the EU’s General Court.

The full transcript of the Court’s ruling was published on its website.

On May 11, 2022, Stevi submitted a formal request to the European Commission seeking access to the text messages. The request was registered by the Commission the following day, on May 12. When the Commission failed to respond within the time frame set by EU transparency rules, Stevi’s legal representative filed an initial confirmatory application on June 28, 2022, reiterating the request for access.

On July 20, 2022, the Commission responded to the initial application, stating that it did not possess any documents corresponding to the request. In response, Stevi’s representative submitted a second confirmatory application on Aug. 9, 2022, which was formally registered the same day. Later that month, on Aug. 31, the Commission notified Stevi that the deadline for its response would be extended by 15 working days, setting a new target date of Sept. 21.

On Sept. 21, the Commission informed Stevi that the assessment of her application had been completed but that the draft decision still required approval from its Legal Service. Nearly two months later, on Nov. 16, 2022, the Commission issued its final decision, reiterating that it did not hold any of the requested text messages and therefore could not grant access.

The Court found that the Commission’s justification was insufficient and that Stevi and The New York Times had provided “relevant and consistent evidence” showing that such messages had existed. The Commission, it said, failed to meet its obligations under the Access to Documents Regulation and the principle of good administration as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The judgment scrutinized the Commission’s procedural conduct, noting that it relied on assumptions and imprecise information throughout the request process. It also emphasized that public institutions must document and retain information related to their activities in a “non-arbitrary and predictable manner.”

In its decision, the Court stated that “despite those imprecisions, [the Commission] maintains that it does not possess the requested documents, with the result that it is for the applicants to produce relevant and consistent evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of non-possession of those documents.”

That presumption was indeed rebutted, the Court held, by a New York Times article and transcripts of interviews conducted by Stevi with both von der Leyen and Bourla in April 2021. The article reported that for a month during vaccine talks, von der Leyen and Bourla “had been exchanging texts and telephone calls.” In the interview transcript, Bourla said that “[the Commission President and I] exchanged text messages, if there was something that we needed to discuss,” and that von der Leyen had “sent me her phone [number].” These statements provided sufficient grounds for the Court to determine that the text messages likely existed at some point.

The Commission, by contrast, was found to have offered no credible detail about the searches it had conducted for the messages or about their fate. “It remains impossible to know with certainty,” the Court wrote, “whether the requested text messages still exist or whether they have been deleted and, if so, whether such a deletion took place deliberately or automatically.” The Commission also failed to clarify whether von der Leyen’s mobile phone had been replaced, and if so, what happened to the previous device and its data.

“The Commission did not provide in the contested decision any plausible explanation as to why it had not been able to find the requested documents,” the Court held.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the Commission’s argument that the messages did not constitute official documents because they were allegedly short-lived or lacked policy significance. Even if the messages were not registered in its document system, the Commission was still obligated to retain and account for them under EU transparency rules. “Institutions cannot deprive of all substance the right of access to documents which they hold by failing to register the documentation relating to their activities,” the Court held.

The Commission’s handling of the request, the Court concluded, “breached the principle of good administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter.”

As a result, it annulled the Commission’s decision and ordered the institution to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

The judgment has led to calls for greater transparency within EU institutions and among the bloc’s leaders.

Rob Roos, a former Dutch MEP who was vice-president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament during the now-dubbed “Pfizergate scandal,” wrote how his legal challenge against the Commission was dismissed at the time.

“My case as an MEP was ruled inadmissible, while a foreign newspaper was accepted. Transparency isn’t optional. Democracy demands it. Back to court,” he wrote on X.

Hungarian MEP András László slammed the corruption scandals at the highest level in Brussels, which he claimed keep piling up. “Europeans want change in Brussels. We deserve better leadership! Qatargate, Pfizergate, Hololei, Reynders and money laundering, Green Deal and Timmermans, fake NGOs… The interests of Europeans are being sold out. Enough is enough!”

Several other European lawmakers demanded that the text messages now finally be released to see what agreements were reached over Covid-19 vaccines between von der Leyen and Bourla.

“She should have made her text messages in the Pfizergate affair public,” said Dutch MEP Marieke Ehlers. “This proves the need for the parliamentary commission of inquiry into transparency proposed by the Patriots for Europe [parliamentary group].”

Anna Bryłka, Polish MEP for the right-wing Confederation, and Spanish MEP Hermann Tertsch of Vox, went further, calling on von der Leyen to resign following the judgment.

The European Commission is yet to formally respond to the judgment.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

The Deep State Goes Viral: Foreword

By Jeffrey A Tucker | Brownstone Institute | May 12, 2025

The following is Jeffrey Tucker’s Foreword introduction to Debbie Lerman’s new book, The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup.

It was about a month into lockdowns, April 2020, and my phone rang with an unusual number. I picked up and the caller identified himself as Rajeev Venkayya, a name I knew from my writings on the 2005 pandemic scare. Now the head of a vaccine company, he once served as Special Assistant to the President for Biodefense, and claimed to be the inventor of pandemic planning.

Venkayya was a primary author of “A National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza” as issued by the George W. Bush administration in 2005. It was the first document that mapped out a nascent version of lockdowns, designed for global deployment. “A flu pandemic would have global consequences,” said Bush, “so no nation can afford to ignore this threat, and every nation has responsibilities to detect and stop its spread.”

It was always a strange document because it stood in constant contradiction to public health orthodoxies dating back decades and even a century. With it, there were two alternative paths in place in the event of a new virus: the normal path that everyone is taught in medical school (therapeutics for the sick, caution with social disturbances, calm and reason, quarantines only in extreme cases) and a biosecurity path that invoked totalitarian measures.

Those two paths existed side-by-side for a decade and a half before the lockdowns.

Now I found myself speaking with the guy who claims credit for having mapped out the biosecurity approach, which contradicted all public health wisdom and experience. His plan was finally being implemented. Not too many voices dissented, partially due to fear but also due to censorship, which was already very tight. He told me to stop objecting to the lockdowns because they have everything under control.

I asked a basic question. Let’s say we all hunker down, hide under the sofa, eschew physical meetings with family and friends, stop all gatherings of all kinds, and keep businesses and schools closed. What, I asked, happens to the virus itself? Does it jump in a hole in the ground or head to Mars for fear of another press conference by Andrew Cuomo or Anthony Fauci?

After some fallacy-filled banter about the R-naught, I could tell he was getting exasperated with me, and finally, with some hesitation, he told me the plan. There would be a vaccine. I balked and said that no vaccine can sterilize against a fast-mutating respiratory pathogen with a zoonotic reservoir. Even if such a thing did appear, it would take 10 years of trials and testing before it was safe to release to the general population. Are we going to stay locked down for a decade?

“It will come much faster,” he said. “You watch. You will be surprised.”

Hanging up, I recall dismissing him as a crank, a has-been with nothing better to do than call up poor writers and bug them.

I had entirely misread the meaning, simply because I was not prepared to understand the sheer depth and vastness of the operation now in play. All that was taking place struck me as obviously destructive and fundamentally flawed but rooted in a kind of intellectual error: a loss of understanding of virology basics.

Around the same time, the New York Times posted without fanfare a new document called PanCAP-A: Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted. It was Venkayya’s plan, only intensified, as released on March 13, 2020, three days before President Trump’s press conference announcing the lockdowns. I read through it, reposted it, but had no idea what it meant. I hoped someone could come along to explain it, interpret it, and tease out its implications, all in the interest of getting to the bottom of the who, what, and why of this fundamental attack on civilization itself.

That person did come along. She is Debbie Lerman, intrepid author of this wonderful book that so beautifully presents the best thoughts on all the questions that had eluded me. She took the document apart and discovered a fundamental truth therein. The rule-making authority for the pandemic response was not vested in public-health agencies but the National Security Council.

This was stated as plain as day in the document; I had somehow missed that. This was not public health. It was national security. The antidote under development with the label vaccine was really a military countermeasure. In other words, this was Venkayya’s plan times ten, and the idea was precisely to override all tradition and public health concerns and replace them with national security measures.

Realizing this fundamentally changes the structure of the story of the last five years. This is not a story of a world that mysteriously forgot about natural immunity and made some intellectual error in thinking that governments could shut down economies and turn them back on again, scaring a pathogen back to where it came from. What we experienced in a very real sense was quasi-martial law, a deep-state coup not only on a national but on an international level.

These are terrifying thoughts and hardly anyone is prepared to discuss them, which is why Lerman’s book is so crucial. In terms of public debate about what happened to us, we are barely at the beginning. There is now a willingness to admit that the lockdowns did more overall harm than good. Even the legacy media has started venturing out to grant permission for such thoughts. But the role of the pharmaceuticals in driving the policy and the role of the national-security state in backing this grand industrial project is still taboo.

In 21st-century journalism and advocacy designed to influence the public mind, the overwhelming concern of all writers and institutions is professional survival. That means fitting into an approved ethos or paradigm regardless of the facts. This is why Lerman’s thesis is not debated; it is hardly spoken of at all in polite society. That said, my work at Brownstone Institute has put me in close contact with many thinkers in high places. This much I can say: what Lerman has written in this book is not disputed but admitted in private.

Strange isn’t it? We saw during the Covid years how professional aspiration incentivized silence even in the face of egregious violations of human rights, including mandatory school closures that robbed children of education, followed by face-covering requirements and forced injections for the whole population. The near-silence was deafening even if anyone with a brain and a conscience knew that all of this was wrong. Not even the excuse that “We didn’t know” works anymore because we did know.

This same dynamic of social and cultural control is fully in operation now that we are through that stage and onto another one, which is precisely why Lerman’s findings have not yet made their way to polite society, to say nothing of mainstream media. Will we get there? Maybe. This book can help; at least it is now available for everyone brave enough to confront the facts. You will find herein the most well-documented and coherent presentation of answers to the core questions (what, how, why) that all of us have been asking since this hell was first visited upon us.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »