Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Excess deaths 2025

Dr. John Campbell | May 28, 2025

Excess mortality: Deaths from all causes compared to average over previous years

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

1 January 2020 until 31 December 2022

47 countries of the Western World, 3, 098, 456

Excess mortality

2021, 42 countries

2022, 43 countries

Conclusions

Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years

This raises serious concerns.

Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.

2015–2019 compared to 2020–2024

Percentage difference between the reported weekly or monthly deaths in 2020–2024 and the average deaths in the same period in 2015–2019

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline

Correlation and causality

Smoking is correlated with lung cancer

Asbestos exposure is correlated with mesothelioma

Alcohol consumption is associated with liver cirrhosis

Obesity is correlated with high sugar intake

Radiation exposure is correlated with cancer

Dioxin exposure is correlated with cancer

Causality may be adjudicated by larger scale associations, consistent between countries, where other explanations are unlikely, where effect follows cause, where greater exposure causes more harm with a plausible biological mechanism with coherence between bench science and epidemiological data supported by (even limited) experimentation. By analogy to other causes of harm and sometimes by reversibility.

https://drjohncampbell.co.uk/

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , | Leave a comment

US makes sweeping changes to key vaccine group

RT | June 10, 2025

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has dismissed all the members of a key advisory panel that has helped shape national vaccination policy for decades. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Monday that the move was necessary to reestablish public trust and address longstanding concerns over conflicts of interest.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the mid-1960s. In an op-ed published on Monday in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy claimed that the panel has “a history of conflicts of interest, persecution of dissidents, a lack of curiosity, and skewed science.”

The secretary cited reports from a House committee in 2000 and the HHS inspector general in 2009 that detailed financial connections between ACIP members and pharmaceutical companies. He said his decision to replace all 17 current members was driven by the need for a “clean slate.”

“The problem isn’t necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt. Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it,” Kennedy wrote. “The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy.”

ACIP members are appointed to four-year terms, and eight of the most recent appointments were made in the final days of the administration of Joe Biden.

”It was very intentional,” a former senior HHS official told STAT News. “It was our goal to fill every vacancy on every [federal advisory committee] the department has, with particular focus on ones like ACIP where maintenance of our scientific expertise was critical.”

Mandy Cohen, who served as the CDC director under Biden, told NBC News the move “spreads confusion and casts doubt on transparent public health processes that protect Americans.” Richard Besser, who was acting CDC director under Barack Obama, said it “should erase any remaining doubt that he intends to impose his personal anti-vaccine agenda on the American people.”

Kennedy has long criticized aspects of US vaccine programs, arguing they are too closely aligned with industry interests and fail to prioritize public health. His detractors frequently label him an “anti-vaxxer.”

During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy pledged that his decisions would be science-driven. In his WSJ piece, he warned against attributing the American public’s “crisis of trust” solely to “misinformation or anti-science attitudes.”

June 10, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

APPROVE NOW, STUDY LATER: IS THIS SAFE?

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | June 5, 2025

As alarming new data reveals a spike in sudden heart attacks and strokes, the FDA has greenlit Moderna’s latest mRNA COVID shot—no placebo trials, no independent long-term safety data, and post-market studies delayed until 2029 and 2034. Once again, speed trumps caution. Is safety giving way to speed again, or are post-marketing placebo trials a step in the right direction?

June 9, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

Science Under Attack

The myths and realities

By John Ridgway | Cimate Scepticism | June 3, 2025

During the recent Covid-19 pandemic, Peter J. Hotez, professor of paediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine, wrote a Scientific American opinion piece that spoke of an emerging threat that he believed should concern us all:

Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

He paints a picture of a political right-wing engaging in a disinformation campaign, and of an interference with an otherwise scientifically sound programme – actions that he maintained would result in many dying unnecessarily:

Despite my best efforts to sound the alarm and call it out, the antiscience disinformation created mass havoc in the red states. During the summer of 2020, COVID-19 accelerated in states of the South as governors prematurely lifted restrictions to create a second and unnecessary wave of COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Given his strong views, and the bellicose manner in which he chose to express them, it is not surprising that Hotez recently teamed up with Professor Michael Mann to write of the triple threat of global warming, a “cadence of pandemic threats” and, most importantly:

… a well-organized, financed, politically motivated, and steadily globalizing campaign of disinformation and attacks against mainstream science that makes it extremely difficult to mount an effective global response to the climate and pandemic threats.

Of course, Hotez and Mann are not alone in promoting this narrative of a burgeoning threat to humanity. For example, in a recent PNAS article, Phillipp-Muller et al wrote:

From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, antiscience views are threatening humanity.

So confident are the authors in the reality of the phenomenon that they dedicate the whole paper to analysing causes and suggesting countermeasures:

Building on various emerging data and models that have explored the psychology of being antiscience, we specify four core bases of key principles driving antiscience attitudes. These principles are grounded in decades of research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and information processing. They apply across diverse domains of antiscience phenomena… Politics triggers or amplifies many principles across all four bases, making it a particularly potent force in antiscience attitudes.

But what exactly is antiscience? Is it well-organized? Does it primarily emanate from the right-wing? And is it an attitude that represents an existential threat to humanity on a par with nuclear war?

The authors of the PNAS paper seem to have no doubts regarding the basis for antiscience — it’s simply a case of pathological psychology:

Distinct clusters of basic mental processes can explain when and why people ignore, trivialize, deny, reject, or even hate scientific information—a variety of responses that might collectively be labeled as “being antiscience”.

Once one starts out with such a premise, it becomes remarkably easy to formulate ‘frameworks’ and ‘models’ to give the whole thing a scientific veneer. And since science is upheld as the epitome of the rational venture, any resistance to scientific findings can be readily dismissed as a retreat from reason.

Indeed, in their book, Science and the Retreat from Reason, John Gillot and Manjit Kumar present a thoughtful treatise explaining why, despite the obvious benefits of the scientific method and its resulting successes, society has nevertheless grown wary of the technocratic future that it offers. Yet nowhere within its 250 pages does the book use the term ‘antiscience’, or speak of it as a phenomenon resulting from politically inspired disinformation. Furthermore, perhaps because it was written back in 1995, it doesn’t see the retreat from reason as an existential threat requiring ‘new infrastructures’ to ‘mount a counteroffensive’. Instead, a lack of faith in science is seen as stemming from a post-war disillusionment. Basically, science had gained the reputation of being the handmaiden of a belligerent military, and it became very difficult to maintain high levels of trust in a sector of society that delivered the threat of atomic annihilation. Furthermore, developments such as genetically modified food and the various attempts to control and exploit the environment did little to endear those who buy in to the idea of a purity of nature. As such, it was the liberal left-wing that led the movement against science in its practical realities. The idea that antiscientific attitudes are the reserve of the right wing is a relatively modern invention.

Of course, none of this should be used as a reason to question the potency and integrity of the scientific method. However, I sincerely doubt that this is why anyone would come to ‘ignore, trivialize, deny, reject, or even hate scientific information’. It isn’t the scientific mind that some people distrust – it is the scientific community. It is the recognition that science is a social enterprise and, as such, is not immune to the problems that can emerge when humans interact and compete. Seen in this light, antiscience is not a pathology of thinking but the label invented by those who are comfortable with such issues in order to stigmatize those who are not.

It is easy to see where the comfortable position would come from. Scientists do know about phenomena such as groupthink. They are well aware that the structuring of academia is such that scientific enquiry is marshalled both by sources of funding and by influential figureheads (not to mention a growing tendency for prosocial censorship). And yet they can look around them and see a broadly uncorrupted society of individuals who are personally motivated only by the desire to understand how the world works and how best to further the interests of humanity. They are ideally placed to understand just how much effort has gone into validating a particular finding, and so must find it highly frustrating to see vociferous and vehement rejection emanating from those who enjoy no such advantage. When the challenge has a political foundation, their disquiet is bound to be all the more profound. They are the scientists and practitioners of the scientific method, so this challenge is, by definition, antiscientific to them. And if you have an ego like Michael Mann’s, combined as it is with a victim complex, you are going to imagine you are surrounded by an orc army.

There are certainly plenty of science communicators on the internet who are only too willing and eager to defend the comfortable position and to cruelly mock the ‘antiscientist’. See, for example, some of the output from Professor David James Farina, aka Professor Dave. As is often the case, he specialises in debunking easy targets such as Flat Earthers and proponents of Intelligent Design, but along with that comes a regrettably condescending and arrogantly dismissive attitude towards anyone who isn’t fully on board with the idea that only credentialed scientists are qualified to criticise other scientists. But this isn’t a debate that is going to be settled by lampooning your local crackpot. The issues are far too nuanced for that.

For example, let us return to the Covid-19 pandemic and reflect upon its use as an example of an explosion of the antiscience movement. There was indeed no shortage of opinion expressed on subjects such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the importance of masks, lockdown strategies, mobile phone masts, etc. Some of the advice given wasn’t particularly well thought through and there was no shortage of downright conspiracy and pseudoscience in the air. But throughout it all, politicians were anxious to maintain the mantra that they were only following the science, no matter how many twists and turns that entailed. The reality, however, was that there was never any single science but a plurality of sciences offering different perspectives. As Dr Elisabeth Paul et al point out:

“Anti-science” accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as “one science”. Epistemology recognizes that any “science” is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective.

The paper illustrates the point by tracing the history of claims made on behalf of the various vaccines employed, pointing out many inconsistencies and contradictions in the various narratives as the crisis unfolded. The paper finishes with some very wise words:

Rather than uncritically continuing to perpetuate the “follow the science” vs “anti-science” dichotomy, let us all look in the mirror and reflect what really constitutes science. If nothing else, this involves the curiosity of deliberating the multiple perspectives arising from the different lenses of inquiry. Being open-minded and critical does not immediately equate to being “anti-science”, as some medical and political thought leaders want us to believe.

The message given is that scientists are themselves very often to blame for the lack of trust they encounter within the public, and this is basically due to them adopting an overly dogmatic attitude:

To regain public trust in science, it is high time scientists acknowledge the limitations of their methods and of their results, and to provide decision-makers, populations and healthcare providers with appropriate tools to judge how to best apply particular research results to individuals and communities.

None of this is to accuse scientists of corruption or of engaging in a hoax. They are simply dealing with complexities that have to be honestly portrayed as such. As Dr Paul et al put it:

Here, understanding the dynamics of how knowledge is socially constructed and used is crucial. This is because health interventions, and what is determined to be science, can often be captured by combinations of favoured scientific practice, pathway-dependency, vested interests, politics, louder voices, or, regarding our immediate concern, by ideational hegemonies that prohibit wider dialogic knowledge production.

Very often, by being defensive about this, scientists become their own worst enemies. Too often, sceptics are accused of failing to understand the scientific method, but the reality is that they usually understand it all too well. They are just not that convinced that it is all that relevant when evaluating a scientist’s latest earnest statement.

There is a certain hubris to be detected within those who speak of existential threats from an organised antiscience movement, since it implies that there are those with dark motives who fear the spotlight of scientific truth being shone in their direction. No doubt there is much that is irrational in modern discourse and we would all do well to take whatever benefit there is to be had from listening to the scientific voice (that is why the Trump administration’s DOGE purge is so worrying). However, that is a long way from uncritically accepting all that has been said in the interests of ‘following the science’. I’m sure that those on both sides of the debate would argue that being legitimately open-minded and critical is not being ‘antiscience’. Unfortunately, however, we are still a long way from agreeing upon what constitutes legitimacy, and this is as true for the climate change debate as it is for any.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Australia quietly pivots on Covid-19 vaccine policy

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | June 3, 2025

It didn’t come with a press conference or a media blitz. In fact, there was no announcement at all.

But sometime around 2 May 2025, the Australian Department of Health quietly removed its recommendation for Covid-19 vaccination in healthy children and adolescents under 18.

The change was tucked into an online update to the Australian Immunisation Handbook—no headline, no ministerial statement, no media campaign to inform the public.

For the first time since the rollout began, Australian health authorities now say that unless a child has underlying medical conditions, they do not need the vaccine.

Australia now joins a growing list of countries backing away from the blanket approach to vaccinating low-risk populations.

In the US, health officials under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently removed routine recommendations for Covid-19 vaccination in healthy children and pregnant women.

The CDC now leaves it up to “shared decision-making”—a tacit acknowledgment that the previous universal approach may have overreached.

Denmark, meanwhile, was ahead of the curve.

It stopped recommending the vaccine for healthy children back in 2022, citing data showing that severe Covid in children was exceedingly rare and that the benefits of mass vaccination did not outweigh the harms.

Australia’s policy reversal might be late, but what makes it striking is how quietly it was done—and how much it implicitly concedes.

For years, anyone who questioned the need to vaccinate healthy children was dismissed as anti-science or dangerous. Now, the same authorities who widely promoted the shots are quietly walking it back.

And the adverse events that critics raised early on—myocarditis, pericarditis, and other post-vaccine complications—are no longer fringe concerns. They’re acknowledged in official risk assessments.

The shift also comes at a time when the legal and regulatory framework that enabled the rapid approval of mRNA vaccines is under growing scrutiny.

In Australia, a case brought by Dr Julian Fidge, a general practitioner and former pharmacist, challenged the legality of the vaccine approvals.

He argued that Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines should have been classified as “genetically modified organisms” under the Gene Technology Act 2000, and therefore required a licence from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) before being rolled out.

But the court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, ruling that Dr Fidge lacked standing to pursue it.

Still, the case drew attention to whether these products were channelled through the wrong regulatory pathway.

That question is now at the centre of a citizen petition in the US, filed with the FDA in January 2025, claiming the agency “wrongfully and illegally” approved the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines by treating them as conventional biologics, not gene therapies.

According to the FDA’s own definition, gene therapy products are those that use genetic material to alter cellular function for therapeutic use.

By that logic, mRNA vaccines clearly qualify – and should have faced far more rigorous safety testing, including environmental risk assessments and long-term follow-up studies.

As of June, the FDA has not responded to the petition—but the implications are enormous.

If regulators in Australia or the US misclassified these products during the emergency rush, it would expose a systemic failure to apply the appropriate safeguards to an entirely new class of biotechnology.

And it’s not just about legal definitions. The public mood is shifting.

The notion that healthy children and adolescents should have been part of a sweeping global experiment with novel gene-based technologies now looks reckless in hindsight. For the public, trust has been damaged—perhaps irreparably.

That shift in perception has consequences far beyond Covid.

Billions of dollars have been invested in mRNA platforms for other diseases—flu, RSV, and cancer. So what happens if confidence in the technology craters?

Already, the US FDA has announced it will require new randomised clinical trials for annual Covid-19 boosters in “healthy” people under 65—setting a higher threshold for evidence (than immunobridging data) that may make future approvals more challenging.

The industry might dismiss this as just a hiccup—but the truth is, mRNA vaccines were never subjected to the kind of long-term scrutiny typically required of products given to healthy people, especially children.

The argument that urgency justified shortcuts has worn thin.

The real emergency now is institutional—one of captured regulators, collapsing public trust, and a health system so entangled with the pharmaceutical industry it can no longer tell the difference between evidence and marketing.

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

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 | , , | Leave a comment

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 | , , , | Leave a comment

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »