https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1854781830693581049
NIH Shuts Down Research Center Founded by Fauci, as DOJ Scrutinizes Key Researchers
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 5, 2025
Officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan to shut down a research center established by Dr. Anthony Fauci that issued grants to embattled researchers who promoted the “zoonotic origin” theory that COVID-19 emerged from wildlife, The Disinformation Chronicle reported today.
Fauci established the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) in 2020 to conduct “investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spill over to cause disease in people.”
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, when CREID launched, it issued 11 grants worth $17 million, with an additional $82 million in expected funding over five years. It’s unclear how much of the money has already been spent.
Two CREID grantees have been the focus of intense scrutiny: Peter Daszak, Ph.D., of the EcoHealth Alliance and Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., of Scripps Research Institute. Both played key roles in publicly promoting the theory that SARS-CoV-2, which led to the COVID-19 pandemic, originated in wildlife.
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched “initial inquiries” into one of the CREID grants Anderson received. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all government funding for EcoHealth Alliance.
The Disinformation Chronicle quoted an NIH spokesperson, who confirmed the agency has terminated all outstanding CREID grants.
“Strengthening overall health through proactive disease prevention offers a more resilient foundation for responding to future health threats — beyond reliance on vaccines or treatments for yet-unknown pathogens,” the spokesperson said.
Andersen received a CREID grant after co-authoring zoonotic origin paper
In March 2020, Andersen co-authored “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in Nature Medicine. The paper — widely known as the “Proximal Origin” paper — concluded that COVID-19 had a zoonotic origin. It became one of that year’s most-cited papers, accessed over 6 million times.
Government officials, including Fauci, and mainstream media outlets later cited the paper as part of efforts to discredit proponents of the theory that COVID-19 originated in and escaped from a lab.
The Trump administration is investigating whether the authors and publisher of “Proximal Origin” allowed Fauci and other key public health officials to influence the paper’s conclusions in exchange for funding — a possible quid pro quo.
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, two months after “Proximal Origin” was published, Andersen received a CREID grant.
In testimony to Congress in July 2023, Andersen said, “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origin of the pandemic.” Later that month, The Intercept published documents showing that Andersen “knew that was false.”
Andersen and other virologists were initially skeptical about dismissing the lab-leak theory. But emails and documents revealed through a congressional investigation and some media outlets revealed that, under pressure from Fauci and other public health officials, Andersen endorsed the zoonotic theory in “Proximal Origin.”
During a Feb. 1, 2020, email and call between Fauci and several virologists, including Andersen, the participants expressed concern that COVID-19 might have been manipulated instead of originating in nature.
Transcripts revealed by The Nation in July 2023 showed that, in a February 2020 Slack thread, Andersen wrote to other virologists that “the main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory.”
And on April 16, 2020, Andersen sent a Slack message to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors, stating, “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved. We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”
Andersen may have misled intelligence agencies on COVID’s origins
Andersen privately questioned the true origins of COVID-19. However, in March 2020 — one week after “Proximal Origin” was published — he participated in a U.S. Department of State briefing with other non-government scientists, where he dismissed the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the briefing led the State Department to issue a report concluding there was no evidence that COVID-19 was developed in a lab. In 2023, Andersen testified during a sworn congressional deposition that he also briefed the CIA and FBI regarding COVID-19’s origins.
The DOJ is now likely to examine Andersen’s role in misleading U.S. intelligence agencies, The Disinformation Chronicle reported, quoting a State Department official, who said, “I don’t see how this not a criminal misleading and counterintelligence matter. This is way beyond the threshold needed for a grand jury.”
In April, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan lab. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.
Daszak has also been under scrutiny for possible improprieties involving his research. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, Daszak was found to have undisclosed ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — including issuing a subaward to a researcher at that laboratory, Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., widely known as the “Bat Lady.”
In issuing its decision to bar Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance from receiving further federal funds, HHS cited the organization’s lack of response “to NIH’s multiple safety-related requests” relating to research performed at the Wuhan lab.
Journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former U.S. Senate investigator and publisher of The Disinformation Chronicle, said that congressional investigations involving Andersen and others have been problematic.
“The congressional investigations into these matters were not well managed. A lot of people are still shocked at how little got done,” Thacker said.
Last month, the NIH introduced a new policy prohibiting NIH grantees from outsourcing parts of their research to foreign entities through subawards.
Facing investigation, is Andersen looking to flee the U.S.?
Andersen, a Danish citizen, is now looking to leave the U.S. “as the noose continues to tighten,” The Disinformation Chronicle reported. He is said to be considering a position at the University of Oslo in Norway.
Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist and senior adviser at Norway’s Langsikt Policy Centre, told The Disinformation Chronicle that “there is an ongoing effort from a group of scientists at the University of Oslo to recruit Andersen, and that this might be finalized in the near future.”
In October 2024, Andersen delivered a lecture at the University of Oslo on the “facts and the fiction” of the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that critiques of his research were political attacks spread by conspiracy theorists.
The Norwegian Society for Immunology, which sponsored the lecture, later issued an apology. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the apology stated, “In retrospect, unfortunately, it seems the purpose of his lecture was just as much about stopping the free debate in Norway on this topic.”
Thacker said that Andersen’s possible move to Norway is part of a broader trend where many scientists are expressing public dissent at the Trump administration’s policies.
“The majority of scientists I see complaining are all entrenched in liberal politics. Pretty much every one of them has a large account on [social media platform] Bluesky where allied reporters hang out to find quotes,” Thacker said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Trump bans federal funding of “dangerous” gain-of-function research
The executive order targets high-risk bioengineering, calling time on a scientific gamble that is likely to have sparked a global catastrophe.
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 5, 2025
In a major policy shift, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order halting federal funding for “dangerous” gain-of-function (GoF) research.
The order defines such work as “scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility.”
Sitting behind the Resolute desk, flanked by key health officials, Trump signed the order with his trademark black Sharpie.
“It’s a big deal,” he said in a subdued tone. “Could have been that we wouldn’t have had the problems we had… if we had this done earlier.”
The directive compels federal agencies to suspend funding for any project “reasonably determined to be dangerous.” It applies not only to domestic institutions, but also to research conducted in “countries of concern” such as China and Iran.
A reckoning led by dissenters
The announcement marked not only a change in policy, but a striking reversal in scientific leadership.
Standing beside Trump were three officials once ridiculed as outliers during the pandemic – Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.
Now elevated to senior roles, each has been outspoken in challenging the dominant narrative around Covid-19, including the origins of the virus and the ethics of risky research.
“It’s unbelievable to think the entire nightmare of Covid was totally preventable,” said Makary, referring to the mounting evidence of a lab origin and the suppression of early warnings.
“It’s crazy to think this entire nightmare was probably the result of some scientists messing with mother nature—with technology exported from the United States—that is, inserting a furin cleavage site,” said Makary. “So I hope this does some good in the world.”
Kennedy, long critical of gain-of-function research, was more blunt. “In all of the history of gain-of-function research, we cannot point to a single good thing that has come of it,” he said.
Speaking to reporters, Kennedy added, “We can’t allow this reckless experimentation to continue, especially when it’s been linked to catastrophic outcomes with no discernible benefit.”
For Kennedy, the NIH’s support of EcoHealth Alliance’s work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology wasn’t an isolated failure—it reflected a broader pattern of merging national security interests with poorly regulated academic ambition, which he wrote about in his latest book, The Wuhan Cover-Up.
Bhattacharya called the order a long-overdue correction.
“This is a historic day,” he said. “The conduct of this research does not protect us against pandemics, as some people might say. It doesn’t protect us against other nations.”
Bhattacharya warned that even well-intentioned experiments carry immense risk.
“There’s always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out, just by accident even, and cause a pandemic. Any nation that engages in this research endangers their own population, as well as the world,” he warned.
Bhattacharya emphasised that most scientific work would continue unaffected. “The vast majority of science will go on under this as normal,” he explained, “but the fraction of this research that has the risk of causing a pandemic… we’re going to put in place a framework to make sure that the public has a say.”
“I’m really proud to be here with President Trump, who signed this order ending this research and for the first time, putting in place a real regulatory framework to make it go away forever,” Bhattacharya added.
Suppression of lab-leak evidence
The executive order also represents a deeper reckoning with how early concerns about a lab origin were dismissed.
Early in the pandemic, Trump publicly raised the possibility that Covid-19 may have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, reportedly based on intelligence assessments.
But his suggestion was swiftly undermined—particularly by those within his own administration. Dr Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was quietly working to promote the natural origin theory.
Fauci held enormous influence over public health messaging, the media, and scientific institutions. His behind-the-scenes efforts to discredit the lab-leak hypothesis and favour a zoonotic explanation triggered a near-immediate shift in the White House’s public stance.
The campaign to suppress alternative explanations also became visible in leading scientific journals.
In February 2020, The Lancet published a letter organised by Fauci-linked researchers, which labelled lab-origin theories as “conspiracy.” The intent was not to encourage scientific debate, but to squash it.
Weeks later, Nature Medicine released the now-infamous “Proximal Origin” paper, which declared the virus was “not a laboratory construct.” Private emails later revealed that the authors actually had serious doubts and suspected the virus looked engineered.
Together, the two papers helped shut down legitimate scrutiny and created a scientific firewall protecting US-funded research.
Fauci retired in 2022 and, in early 2025, was granted a sweeping pardon by President Biden.
In April this year, the Trump administration launched an official White House website.
It states rather unequivocally: “COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a lab controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), likely leaked the virus that caused the deadliest pandemic in human history.”
The site also alleges that top scientists and government officials in the US helped cover it up.
A turning point
This executive order signals a broader shift in how Trump’s government intends to confront the scientific and political failures of the pandemic era.
For years, unelected bureaucrats silenced dissent, buried contradictory evidence, and steered decisions behind closed doors. Questions about the virus’ origins were dismissed as conspiracy.
Whistleblowers were marginalised and dangerous research continued, shielded from oversight.
Now, with this order, the Trump administration is drawing a line.
By cutting off federal funding for high-risk virus manipulation and imposing new oversight, the order delivers what’s been missing from pandemic policy – that is, the political will to confront uncomfortable truths and a serious effort to prevent a future man-made pandemic.
NIH Pulls Plug on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ Research — Will mRNA Products Be Next?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 11, 2025
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will no longer fund research on “vaccine hesitancy” and strategies for increasing vaccine uptake, The Washington Post reported Monday.
According to Science, the NIH sent notices canceling or reducing grants to the affected researchers, stating:
“It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focus on gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”
NIH will terminate at least 33 vaccine hesitancy grants, Science reported. Nine other grants will be modified or reduced.
The terminations came after NIH, on behalf of interim director Matthew Memoli, asked each of its institutes to develop a list of ongoing and future vaccine hesitancy grants.
Science reported that the agency is considering taking similar action for research related to mRNA products.
Of the terminated grants, 14 were funded by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases — the agency formerly led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — and focused on vaccines for COVID-19, chickenpox, mpox (formerly monkeypox), HPV and a hypothetical gonorrhea vaccine.
“The project appeared on the list because one of its aims ‘is to evaluate health care worker’s [sic] and potential patient’s attitudes towards acceptance of a gonorrhea vaccine if one is developed,’” Science reported.
Other canceled grants targeted modeling of disease outbreaks or “promoting vaccine uptake among racial minority groups or understanding why some parents are reluctant to accept childhood and adolescent vaccines.”
Memoli is temporarily leading the NIH pending the confirmation of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor of health policy, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration and President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead NIH.
NIH did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Grants targeted ‘vaccine-hesitant’ minority and conservative communities
The Defender previously reported on multiple taxpayer-funded grants, including some awarded by the NIH, that funded research on decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing HPV vaccine uptake.
The Defender obtained the grant information through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in 2023 and 2024
One set of documents, obtained in 2023, revealed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a $4.7 million grant to a scientist — and paid consultant for Merck — to conduct research on how to increase teen uptake of the HPV vaccine. Merck manufactures Gardasil, the only HPV vaccine available in the U.S.
In 2024, the grant’s principal investigator, Noel Brewer, Ph.D., a psychologist and professor in the Department of Health Behavior at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations.
FOIA documents Children’s Health Defense (CHD) received in 2024 revealed that HHS issued $4 million to fund the development of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to “inoculate” social media users against HPV vaccine “misinformation” posted on social media.
Other documents CHD received in 2023 revealed that HHS granted $600,000 for research on how to increase HPV vaccine uptake among Black teens, and that NIH granted $519,399 for a four-year study on a smartphone tool to increase HPV vaccine uptake among adolescents whose parents are “vaccine-hesitant.”
The NIH also funded such studies overseas. FOIA documents CHD received in 2024 showed that NIH awarded $340,000 to test psychological tactics aimed at persuading South African fifth-graders and parents to accept the HPV vaccine.
In 2023, documents showed that the CDC had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in grants since 2021 for the development of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for the training of “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in each U.S. state.
The CDC also funded “Chair Care,” a New Mexico program that trained and paid hairstylists as “trusted messengers” that would target the state’s Hispanic, Black, Native American and conservative populations, who were shown to have the lowest vaccine uptake and highest “vaccine hesitancy.”
‘Vaccine hesitancy’ research targeted personal choice not to vaccinate
Toby Rogers, Ph.D., a fellow at the Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research, welcomed the NIH decision to stop such studies. He questioned the premise of the “vaccine hesitancy” research — and the concept of “vaccine hesitancy” itself.
“There’s no such thing as ‘vaccine hesitancy,’” Rogers said. “The term itself is completely Orwellian. It was likely coined by an expensive Big Pharma PR firm. The purpose of the term is to cast aspersions on parents who do proper research on the risks of medical interventions,” Rogers said.
According to Rogers, studies like those being discontinued were likely backed by pharmaceutical companies to ascertain how to increase vaccine demand.
“Studies on so-called ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘overcoming vaccine hesitancy’ are thinly disguised marketing studies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry,” Rogers said. “Big Pharma makes plenty of money. American taxpayers should not be paying for marketing studies on behalf of one of the most vile industries on Earth.”
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher said it is inappropriate for the NIH to allocate resources to study people’s personal health choices.
“The purpose of studying vaccine hesitancy is to find ways to increase vaccine uptake in individuals that have made the personal choice to not vaccinate with a particular product,” Hulscher said. “The federal government should simply respect their choice and not waste valuable resources and taxpayer money on trying to change their minds.”
Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said that during the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to address “vaccine hesitancy” resulted in gimmicks intended to increase uptake of the COVID-19 shots — and punish those who declined vaccination.
“During COVID, we had health officials combating ‘vaccine hesitancy’ with bribes of lottery tickets, donuts, even free beer, and meting out punishments such as being fired from one’s job. Medical practice surrounding vaccines descended to a disgracefully unethical state during COVID,” Baker said.
mRNA research grants next on NIH’s chopping block?
According to Science, the NIH may also curtail grants for mRNA vaccine research.
Citing an internal NIH memo sent March 6, Science reported that Memoli “has requested information on NIH’s investment in mRNA vaccines research,” including ongoing or planned grants and contracts, and collaborations with outside partners.
NIH institutes and programs were asked to respond by this week.
Hulscher drew parallels between mRNA research and “vaccine hesitancy” research.
“Vaccine hesitancy will remain high as a result of the federal government authorizing and mandating experimental modified mRNA injections that are suspected to have killed, injured or permanently disabled over a million Americans. The longer this disaster remains unacknowledged, the harder it will be to regain the trust of Americans,” Hulscher said.
According to the Post, it is “unclear” whether HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “had a role, directly or indirectly, in the move to cancel these grants.”
HHS oversees federal health agencies, including NIH and the CDC.
‘Vaccine hesitancy’ grants funded ‘psychological manipulation programs’
Scientists and doctors quoted by the Post expressed concern over the NIH’s planned cuts of “vaccine hesitancy” research.
Manoj Sharma, Ph.D., a professor of social and behavioral health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who received a previous CDC grant for vaccine hesitancy research, told the Post, “There is an urgent need to enhance vaccine acceptance behavior, especially due to the potential resurgence of measles and COVID-19 still looming.”
But for Baker, “This statement exemplifies the real goal of these studies, which is not to study behaviors, but to drive behaviors in a predetermined direction.” He added:
“‘Vaccine hesitancy’ grants do not fund scientific inquiry so much as psychological manipulation programs. They reject freedom of choice in favor of a predetermined behavior. It is a form of coercion. Coercion, be it subtle or obvious, is the opposite of informed consent.
“Informed consent is absolutely central to the ethical practice of medicine. NIH should not fund research that undermines the ethical practice of medicine.”
Hulscher suggested that NIH resources previously earmarked for “vaccine hesitancy” studies “should be allocated to proper safety testing of the entire childhood vaccine schedule, where there are currently no products licensed based on long-term placebo-controlled trials.”
Other experts suggested that these resources could be used to rectify harms related to the promotion — or mandate — of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.
“The money saved from cancelling these studies should instead be paid to independent researchers who are documenting the experiences of the millions of Americans injured by vaccines,” Rogers said.
“The grant money would be better used to produce a historical document of the abuses of informed consent during COVID, than to continue these psychological manipulation programs disguised as scientific inquiry,” Baker said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Covid vaccine injured – Silent no More
A book review
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 3, 2025
Was taking the Covid vaccine Worth a Shot? A new book by Caroline Pover, written on behalf of Brianne Dressen who lives in the USA, chronicles the horrific story of how she was severely injured by the Covid vaccine after enrolling on the AstraZeneca trial in November 2020. Caroline sensitively and professionally tells the heart wrenching, eye-opening account of how Brianne Dressen’s life was turned upside down and irreversibly changed forever the day she chose to volunteer to enroll on the UK-led AstraZeneca clinical trial. This book takes the reader along the rollercoaster ride of the devastating injuries caused by the vaccine and the blatant abuse of power by the healthcare system to denigrate, ignore, and cover up her injuries – along with many others labelled – as ‘misinformation’ spreaders by the medical-industrial-military complex. Every person on the planet was misled by governments, NGOs, regulatory agencies, corporations, Big Pharma, healthcare professionals, along with social and mainstream media. From how clinical trials are conducted to the lack of injury compensation, wide scale censorship, corruption and abuse of power, this book shows the myriad ways Brianne fought and continues to fight for truth and justice for the Covid-vaccine injured, who have been completely abandoned and often maligned by society.
The AstraZeneca Clinical Trial
In the introduction, Caroline Pover describes how she had been medically diagnosed with an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine and was led to believe Brianne Dressen did not exist. It was only when she started posting on social media and heard about another woman who was dropped from a clinical trial because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, that their paths crossed. Worth a Shot is a book based on real events that impacted on real people and is a narrative account of Brianne’s (Bri’s) story containing brutally honest struggles with how her life has changed irreversibly after the covid vaccine, including her plans to contemplate suicide. Bri had the perfect life: she was a fit, active lady who always pushed herself physically and mentally. She had a wonderful family life, married with two children with a dream house in the mountains. After having children, Bri set up her own preschool to help children who struggled in a typical educational environment. Then in 2020, Covid hit!
When the lockdowns happened and the talk of vaccine trials began, Bri wanted to help in any way possible with contributing to scientific advancements; once “Operation Warp Speed” was being regularly reported in the media, coupled with her husband’s scientific background, Bri felt excited to enrol in the new Covid vaccine trial set up by Oxford University in conjunction with AstraZeneca, which was recruiting in UK, Brazil, South Africa, and the USA. The opening in the USA was in Salt Lake City – just 40 minutes drive from Bri’s home. She had a phone interview with a trial representative for several hours to capture her medical history and was considered an excellent candidate for the trial. Things then went quiet, but out of the blue on 4th November 2020 – the day after the election – she was called into the trial. The consent form she signed was very thorough. It went through all the expectations and explained it was a double-blinded study and that so far 5,000 individuals had received at least one dose, and the side effects were mild to moderate but transient in nature. It also stated that if anyone did experience an adverse reaction they might be withdrawn from the study, but any medical treatment needed for reactions would be covered by AstraZeneca’s insurance policy. Bri took the vaccine, but tingling started within an hour of the injection.
Adverse Reaction
Bri’s reaction was severe. Tingling spread from below her right elbow all the way up her arm and shoulder, then to the other arm. The tingling got progressively worse and her eyes started to blur, and she saw double. Her hearing started to go muffled, but she assumed the symptoms would be gone by the next morning. However, her symptoms intensified, and now both legs were becoming weaker. She called the number on the consent form to report her reactions, but no one answered her call. Within days, she was confined to her bedroom, with drapes covering the window to shut out the light. Within weeks, her condition worsened so she saw a neurologist and visited an out-of-hours emergency clinic. Nausea, vision disturbances, tingling, extreme sensitivity to sound, limb weaknesses, as well as excruciating pain developed all over the body, including her teeth, stomach, bones, joints, legs and arms. She could not eat and lost 20 lbs within weeks. Her body seemed to vibrate and buzz from within constantly, and she could not bear anyone touching her, with extreme sensitivity to sound, light, and food. She spent weeks then months confined to her bed. She lost control of her bladder and her blood pressure was erratic. None of the pain medications helped.
Her husband and other family members and close friends helped with looking after the children and caring for her. Yet Bri and her husband did not want to broadcast these issues publicly when so many were struggling with Covid itself. Weekly and even sometimes daily visits to the hospitals baffled the doctors. Friends visited her but the visible transformation of her appearance shocked them, and she had to wear earplugs and sunglasses. Attempts at exercise were futile, as the pain was too unbearable. She visited multiple experts but to no avail. The principal investigator of the clinical trial suggested she might have multiple sclerosis (MS), but the trial clinic did not recommend any other specialists. Local neurologists recommended she visit the ER. The clinic staff told Bri that the ramifications were serious if she thought there was any possibility the vaccine had caused these symptoms. When she said her reactions were from the vaccine as she was a trial participant, most professionals were not interested and dismissed the symptoms as Covid. She had MRI scans but found nothing significant; there was nothing they could do. Bri was to report back to the trial clinic, which she did. They told her not to worry because AstraZeneca would reimburse all her medical costs – and they would be in touch soon. But no one contacted her.
No Diagnosis
She continued to go through the proper channels and medical experts to get answers. After a series of tests that ruled out MS and other neurological conditions, she was no closer to a diagnosis. By ploughing through scientific papers and doing their own research, Bri discovered post-vaccination transverse myelitis (TM), Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Both TM and ADEM are conditions relating to inflammation of the spinal cord or central nervous system, which can lead to permanent damage. Despite Bri reporting this to the trial clinic, the trial was not put on hold. She was told to report everything back to AstraZeneca, which she did, but despite all the assurances, no one contacted her. Bri’s multiple trips to the hospital caused by the vaccine meant she was a burden to the healthcare system. Many physicians shrugged off her symptoms as psychiatric because none of the tests produced any explanation. She was put on antidepressants and gabapentin for neurological pain. Nothing had been put in place to deal with anyone who had an unexpected reaction to the vaccine.
On the next visit to her clinic, Bri hoped someone would be able to help her with her condition but was told no one could see her unless she signed a new consent form. She asked what was different about this form but they insisted they could not help her unless she signed it. Bri’s vision was so impaired that she could not read the form. She felt she had no choice but to sign it. Once she signed the form, two nasal swabs were taken and a blood test to confirm she did not have Covid, and she was discharged. Bri reached out to the CDC, and her husband filled out a VAERS report, but no one responded. Bri’s health deteriorated and the medical costs were mounting up, with assurances AstraZeneca would reimburse. After weeks of scouring the internet they discovered that IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) might be a possible treatment. When they showed this to the doctors and other experts, they were ignored and refused this treatment. The only interaction from AstraZeneca (via a third party) was that Bri was ‘unblinded’ from the trial at her request as she wanted to know if she had received the vaccine, which was later confirmed. The trial sponsor agreed she would not receive a second dose, but they offered no help or support about her continued deteriorating health.
Losing Hope
Exhausted and losing hope, Bri and her husband reached out to the NIH. They were surprised when a specialist neuroimmunologist, Dr Avinthra Nath, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the NIH, and a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who worked directly under Dr Anthony Fauci, responded with interest to learn more about Bri’s condition. An appointment was arranged and he seemed very sympathetic and gave the impression he was keen to help. Bri then learned the shocking news that the AstraZeneca vaccine was authorized for use throughout the UK. Publicly the trials were being celebrated as hugely successful, but Bri knew otherwise. She felt suicidal – she was a climber, skier, and dancer who was now a completely non-functioning member of the family barely able to leave her bedroom. Bri’s circle of friends started to diminish. Their savings were also being rapidly depleted because of the skyrocketing medical costs. What about all the assurances on the consent form? What happened to all the promises of the costs being reimbursed? Bri began to lose hope. A trip into nature with her sister that aimed to be a temporary distraction for her resulted in a candid but dark exchange. Her sister asked her to promise her not to kill herself. Bri replied “I cannot promise you that”. The chapter describes how she planned to take her own life, so she was less of a burden to her family. Mercifully, she changed her mind and instead directed her focus on finding and helping others who might be injured and experiencing the same nightmare she was going through.
The Many Injured
It didn’t take long before Bri joined support groups online. After some time she saw a posting from another lady who was also injured in the AstraZeneca trial. Finally, she could talk to someone who knew exactly what she was going through! Within a few days she found another clinical trial participant (Moderna trial) who also experienced similar debilitating reactions. In this patient’s case, she had her left lymph nodes removed as they were so swollen but she became bedridden owing to complications of the surgery. Bri befriended Dr Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist who had developed Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) following the Pfizer jab and was suffering ongoing allergic-type reactions including tinnitus, chest pains, and severe nerve damage to her face. Danice increased the number of patients referred to the NIH and Dr Nath for his study. Soon she was inundated with emails from others who had experienced adverse effects from covid vaccines. Sheryl Reutters was harmed by the Moderna jab, experiencing a severe neurological reaction, and soon became a close friend of Bri. Mary Johnson a front-line ER and critical care physician who was injured by the vaccine, and was driven out of her job and confined to her home. Kristi Dobbs and Candace Hayden were also damaged by the vaccine. Bri trusted the NIH to take care of all these injured and would talk to them each week to learn about their stories.
The number of people with vaccine injuries kept mounting and they were all being ignored by doctors and the drug companies. So, the group decided to create a Covid vaccine injury support group on Facebook. However, anyone publicly criticising the vaccines soon became labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and more prominent healthcare workers with dissenting voices became known as the “Disinformation Dozen”. After taking a default position of always giving the benefit of the doubt, Bri was now beginning to realise they had been strung along for months. Her own children were starting to struggle at school, and were developing anxiety, and her son was afraid of leaving the house. Then Bri discovered Maddie, a 12-year-old girl who was completely healthy before receiving the Pfizer vaccine, who was left unable to walk or eat, incontinent, and with seizures and fainting episodes. Bri and the core group of vaccine injured decided enough was enough – they had to go public!
Going Public
They started to post their testimonies and videos about their experiences on the website; some of the stories were harrowing. The videos found their way onto TikTok and were receiving millions of views, as traffic to their website exploded, with over 300,000 views per week. More and more stories poured in from around the world. Facebook seemed to be where many of the support group interactions were residing. By early 2021, although Bri had yet to find anyone else injured by the AstraZeneca jab, in the UK reports of blood clots were flooding in. Slowly news reporters began contacting them and they promised to cover the stories of the vaccine injured along with statements from governments and drug companies. The group reached out to the CDC, FDA, and VAERS but no one received a significant response. How many others were out there with the same relentless pain, alone and with overpowering thoughts? Petitions were submitted to the FDA, CDC, VAERS, and the White House, after one lady who was part of the injured group took her own life. They went to the top, and contacted Dr Peter Marks, Director of the Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Word was now spreading among the vaccine-injured community that the NIH had been contacted about hundreds of people with adverse reactions.
Bri and her newfound friends detected a distinct unease among most doctors and nurses whom they engaged with during their multiple visits to the hospital. Bri spent a week at the NIH having multiple tests, which confirmed she had nerve damage in her legs and autonomic nervous system issues. She was diagnosed with “post-vaccine neuropathy”, and recommended IVIG therapy – the very treatment Bri had pleaded with the doctors to try but were ignored. One of Bri’s friend’s, Casey, was an NIH employee who had suffered severe neurological complications as a result of the vaccine. Casey met with Dr Nath, who had previously reassured them that they were documenting and researching all the injuries. When Casey then confronted Dr Nath about his research he flatly denied any such research was underway even though Bri had spent a week at the NIH having tests and being placed on the IVIG protocol. They had no choice but to get political, so they arranged a call with Wisconsin’s Senator Johnson who had been outspoken about the harms caused by the covid vaccines and the censorship, and had been critical of the lockdown policies. Bri was cautious of accepting Senator Johnson’s help because of how he had been portrayed, but on meeting him found he was full of kindness and willing to expose himself to attack on their behalf.
Senator Johnson agreed to hold a press conference. The vaccine injured community felt the politicisation of their health and ‘vaccine stance’ was very draining. One of the support groups that came together with Bri’s group was named “A Wee Sprinkle of Hope” to reflect the culture of compassion. The real objective of the vaccine injured movement was to help people who were suffering. No headline news from the press conference was on the mainstream media, it was mentioned as an aside before going to the next item. Every vaccine injury was not misinformation and their abandonment by the manufacturers was not misinformation. Instead, the news reporters centred the stories not around the vaccine injuries, but around the fact it was led by what they claimed was a crazy, right-wing ‘conspiracy theorist’: Senator Johnston.
Censorship
Then the censorship started. Within 24 hours of the press conference, Facebook began shutting down the support groups. The injured gathered together and then joined with A Wee Sprinkle of Hope. Thousands had joined, and the group was getting larger by the day. Then 5 days after the press conference, and without warning, Facebook shut down the largest Covid vaccine injury support group in the world. Now the injured could not even talk to each other! The social media platform was actively restricting people suffering from extreme physical and emotional pain from communicating with each other. Soon the group decided to develop code words so they could still communicate under new names. Then a mainstream news article exposed one of the code words, and a new group of 30,000 members was shut down too! Warnings appeared beneath people’s posts on their own pages urging viewers to go to Facebook’s Community Guidelines on ‘accurate’ information about vaccines. The warnings also deterred other Facebook users, suggesting they should not interact with ‘repeat offenders’ posting misinformation about vaccines. People’s posts were also being ‘shadowbanned’ or hidden by Facebook algorithms.
Bri was eventually paid a measly $590.20 from AstraZeneca, which coincided with her learning of other injured people in the UK in early 2021. The injured were getting mixed messages from the NIH. On the one hand, they were paying for people’s tests and diagnosis, but then they denied any research was being done. Eventually Dr Nath stopped responding to emails and the FDA stopped communicating with Danice. The NIH then shut down the entire study of the covid vaccine injured and cancelled Bri’s upcoming trip to the NIH. Some of the “Disinformation Dozen” also had their social media accounts shut down or restricted. By now, authors, doctors, patients, activists and even celebrities were being censored. Bri’s husband studied all the clinical trial study reports that had come out, matching the injured participants they knew of to the recorded reactions and found most had been downplayed or even omitted.
It was becoming clear that the institutions they had previously trusted, such as the media, science, pharmaceutical companies, and the government were hiding the truth or outright lying about Covid vaccine adverse reactions. They were being silenced. Free speech was officially over. But another threat was looming: vaccine mandates! The idea of mandating Covid vaccines was terribly distressing to many of the injured. They knew first hand that no one would be there for anyone if they developed a severe reaction. Being fully vaccinated meant you could go to work, visit restaurants or travel without restriction. Those same ‘privileges’ would not be open to the unvaccinated. The coercion, propaganda, bribes and incentives to get the vaccines was extraordinary. Next they were going to jab children.
Eventually, Bri discovered Dr Doshi, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland with an interest in the drug approval process and an expert in clinical trials, who was also a Senior Editor at the British Medical Journal. Bri and others set up a call with him, and he suggested organising a roundtable discussion in Washington, with senators, health officials and all media. Other pharmaceutical policy experts were brought in, and Bri and her friends started to gather the vaccine injury testimonials. Fundraising was needed to pay for the injured to travel to the event. Some organizations donated together with crowdfunding efforts that raised £37,000 to pay for everyone’s travel and accommodation. The roundtable event at the Senate lasted over 4 hours, which sparked some media interest. The clinical trial company offered a single ‘full and final settlement’ payment to Bri of £1,243.30. This amount did not even cover one-half of the cost of a single IVIG infusion. It seemed the second consent form that Bri had signed (under duress) had significant changes that included all the symptoms she had suffered since the jab, effectively invalidating the previous consent form. After meeting another vaccine victim, Dr Joel Wallskog, Bri and others formed a new group: React19.
Going Global
A Pfizer Whistleblower, Brook Jackson, had been a regional director at one of the clinical trial sites and expressed serious concerns about how the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial was conducted. Despite the stories some mainstream channels promoted about vaccine misinformation and “anti-vaccine propaganda”, clips of the roundtable event were going viral. Many of the vaccine injured, including healthcare professionals and doctors were risking their careers by speaking out against the vaccines. While React19 was originally set up to support the American’s who were injured, it ultimately became a hub for the vaccine injured all over the world. What became clear was that vaccine injury support groups before the covid vaccines faced similar medical gaslighting. The difference this time was never had a vaccine been administered to so many people at the same time – an estimated 5 billion globally – so the global repercussions would be huge. A chat group was initiated for React19, which grew with international leaders, creating a unified effort. Charlet Crichton set up the UK-based UKCVFamily around the same time as React19, as the healthcare system in the UK is different to the USA and more people in the UK had been given the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both groups now collaborated.
It was also becoming clear that as the vaccine injured community grew, the adverse reactions in all the trials had been hidden or misrepresented. Throughout her journey, Bri had started out searching to find the support she needed, but since taking on a leadership role in React19 she was now the support. The end of the book chronicles how finding allies was not as easy as some might assume. There was still no research paper from Dr Nath from the NIH, and when it finally did materialize on a preprint publication, it only published data from 24 patients (despite having over a hundred cases). Furthermore, any links to the adverse events of the vaccine were completely downplayed. When the injured were invited to speak at events by ‘advocates’ on behalf of the injured, often it was more for appearances. Some people in the freedom movement wanted to raise their profile through association with the vaccine injured, but were not directly offering help. Gradually the environment changed so that it was more ‘acceptable’ to discuss vaccine injuries. The film produced by Mark Sharman (former ITV and BSkyB News Executive) “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” released on YouTube in October 2022, was removed from the platform within hours following its mention in a Parliamentary debate, despite amassing over a million views!
Find the Science, Find the Money
The immunization surveillance systems such as VAERS, Yellow Card report scheme and others were not working. It is estimated fewer than 1% of adverse reactions are even logged on these sites and so the true nature and scale of such reactions are far greater than captured on these systems. A staggering statistic of the VAERS system is that in the 30 years of vaccine injury, 50,000 reports had been logged. In 2021, there were 750,000 reports of adverse reactions. In other words, the covid vaccine reports in 1 year outnumbered all adverse event reports from the prior 30 years combined. Many of the VAERS reports were not being followed up or being processed properly. Studies submitted to journals that had any data that questioned the vaccines, were often rejected from multiple journals.
Compounding the issue, the 1986 US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) removed any financial liability from the manufacturers if any deaths or injuries were caused by vaccines. Moreover, vaccine damage payment schemes, such as the VICP in the USA, were wholly inadequate as proving vaccine was the cause meant hardly any claims were successful and any moderate payments often took years. The PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act established in 2005, also granted pharmaceutical companies immunity from federal or state litigation, in circumstances such as a pandemic. So, the companies making the vaccines have no responsibility for damage and little if any incentives to carry out scientific research into any injuries caused. The vaccine injured had to find the “science to follow” rather than “follow the science”. A combination of the “fact-checkers” who demolished any “anti-vaccine” testimonials and that medical reimbursement was non-existent, the out-of-pocket medical expenses the vaccine injured faced often exhausted personal savings to the point that many were refinancing or selling their homes.
Conclusion
The fear-mongering that had contributed to many of those injured by the vaccine to choose to get vaccinated in the first place was now continuing for this marginalized section of society. Those injured by the Covid-vaccine also learned from people who had been injured by past vaccines. The censorship tale was all too familiar, but the React19 community started doing their own research and discovered alternative therapies – be it pharmaceutical, natural, physical, spiritual – and lifestyle adjustments could help with their symptoms. The Covid vaccine rollout left a trail of devastation and damage in its wake. Social cohesion and disconnection also set in with the vaccine-injured ostracised from society. Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, most people have been affected by the loss of relatives, friendships, relationships, and often life-long careers and financial autonomy. For many, finding support in such dark times has literally been the difference between life and death. We all need healing from the collective trauma of the Covid era, which is still ongoing. By sharing this poignant story of the many Covid-vaccine injured, we hope this will inspire more kindness, connection, compassion, and courage to be open about the truth. That is Worth a Shot!
Worth a Shot?: Secrets of the Clinical Trial Participant Who Inspired a Global Movement―Brianne Dressen’s Story, told by Caroline Pover, was published in November 2024 by Skyhorse Publishing, ISBN: 9781510783461.
All proceeds from the book go to UKCVFamily and React-19, support vaccine -injured in UK and worldwide.
RFK Jr. Wins Crucial Vote, Moves One Step Closer to Top HHS Post
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 4, 2025
The Senate Finance Committee today narrowly advanced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
The 14-13 vote along party lines came after Kennedy secured the vote of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that oversees HHS. Cassidy was the lone Republican considered to be a possible hold-out.
The Senate is expected to vote on Kennedy’s confirmation later this week or early next week, ABC News reported. The nomination “is likely to succeed absent any last-minute vote switches,” The Associated Press reported.
Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), can be confirmed even if up to three Republican senators and all Democrats vote against him in the full Senate.
If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee a $1.7 trillion budget and 90,000 employees. HHS oversees 13 public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
During today’s committee meeting, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said, “It is time to put a disruptor” like Kennedy at the helm of the HHS. “I hope he goes wild,” Tillis said.
Shares of vaccine manufacturers and packaged food companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Novavax, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Mondelez and Hershey, dropped after today’s vote, Reuters reported.
CHD CEO Mary Holland welcomed today’s outcome. She said:
“CHD is delighted that the Finance Committee is sending RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate. Given the 2024 presidential results, this seems only fitting. ‘Make America Healthy Again’ has become a worldwide rallying cry, and CHD is proud to be a foundational part of this movement.”
In a statement, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, also welcomed today’s vote. He said:
“Americans demand a frank conversation about the state of our government healthcare agencies, and we’re very grateful for the Senators who responded by voting to move RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate.
“RFK Jr. has been asking the tough questions, and he’s been unmoved in the face of big-corporate money campaigns against him.”
In a statement before the vote, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chair of the committee, said that if confirmed, Kennedy “will have the opportunity to deliver much-needed change to our nation’s healthcare system.”
Cassidy, Kennedy agree to ‘unprecedently close collaborative relationship’
During last week’s hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, Cassidy said he was “struggling” with some of Kennedy’s positions regarding vaccines.
“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning,” Cassidy posted on X earlier today. “I want to thank VP JD [Vance] specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”
Following today’s vote, Cassidy delivered remarks on the Senate floor, revealing the content of those discussions and the agreement he made with Kennedy to secure his vote.
He said Kennedy committed to a strong public health role for Congress and to meeting or speaking with Cassidy multiple times per month. They also agreed that Cassidy will participate in the hiring process for HHS and the public health agencies it oversees.
“He and I will have an unprecedently close collaborative relationship,” Cassidy said, noting that the hiring decisions that will follow “will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who have contacted me over this past weekend.”
Kennedy also agreed to maintain statements on the CDC website that vaccines do not cause autism and to maintain the recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Cassidy said he would also reject any attempt to remove the public’s access to “life-saving vaccines” without “iron-clad, causational scientific evidence” indicating otherwise. He also said he would carefully monitor any attempt to “wrongfully sow public confusion” about vaccines.
Cassidy conceded that “many mothers do need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe” and expressed his support for Kennedy’s positions on toxic foods and reforming the NIH.
“These commitments, and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to Make America Healthy Again, is the basis of my support,” Cassidy said, noting that institutions like NIH and FDA require “reform.”
During last week’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy emphasized his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda and said he would work to tackle the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.
Kennedy also said he would implement “radical transparency” in HHS. He also voiced support for vaccines — if backed by “good science.”
Related articles in The Defender
- Kennedy Calls for ‘Radical Transparency’ at Government Health Agencies, as Sanders Demands CHD Stop Selling Onesies
- RFK Jr. Pushes Back on Chronic Disease, Autism and Agency Corruption
- ‘True Corruption’: Agency Capture Responsible for Chronic Disease Epidemic in U.S.
- ‘An Act of War’: Big Food Intentionally Addicting Kids to Toxic Foods
- Breaking: RFK Jr. Suspends Presidential Campaign, Will Join Forces With Trump to ‘Save Millions of Children’
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Denials of Washington’s Links to Murder of Russian General Igor Kirillov Highly-Suspect
By Henry Kamens – New Eastern Outlook – December 31, 2024
The mysterious assassination of General Igor Kirillov raises suspicions of a covert connection between U.S. biolabs, Ukraine, and the broader geopolitical interests of the West, highlighting potential motives linked to sensitive military research.
Maria Zakharova, speaking for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confidently dismissed U.S. State Department claims of no involvement in the killing of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, Russia’s chief of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Troops. Zakharova had accused the U.S. of creating and funding the Kyiv regime, supplying it with weapons, and failing to condemn its terrorist acts. The suspicious timing of such assassinations can be compared to historic high-profile killings before major events, from WWI to operations in Afghanistan.
Such assassinations, often aimed at demoralizing Russia and targeting those Kyiv considers war criminals, which Ukraine defends as legitimate wartime tactics, raise many questions. Knowing Kirillov’s access to sensitive documents and possessing many of the same and similar materials, I can offer some insights into the “likely motives” behind him and his deputy being blown up in Moscow.
Peter Daszak, Spooky Guy with a Checkered Past
A very spooky guy with a Ukrainian father, Peter Daszak, is President of EcoHealth Alliance, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease. It should come as no surprise that this person is connected with BSL 3 labs Worldwide, Ukraine, Georgia and China.
This was also one of the main players at Lugar Lab, Tbilisi, Georgia too, at least when it comes to bat research and diseases transmitted between animals and humans (zoonosis). It is claimed Daszak is a fellow traveller with the Bat Lady from Wuhan, China. Coincidence or not, the British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak provides much revealing information in a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia.
EcoHealth Alliance presents itself as a nonprofit that protects the world from the emergence of new diseases and predicts pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak’s organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to carry-out research on bat coronaviruses.
There are other suspects to investigate: Daszak was named by the World Health Organization as the sole U.S.-based representative on a team sent to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, a team that also includes Marion Koopmans, Hung Nguyen, Fabian Leendertz, and Christian Drosten. This is more than coincidence, especially since many believe COVID is not naturally occurring, and if made in a lab, nature is not picking up where lab workers left off.
Too many ducks are lining up, COVID-19 pandemic. On February 9, 2020, Newt Gingrich invited Daszak as a special guest along with Anthony Fauci on Newt’s World to discuss the coronavirus and how it could potentially evolve into a global pandemic.
A lizard loving kid!
As one source describes, Dasak is not very honest, and the cover face, poster boy, for disguising military research and experiments. He started out in zoology, e.g., a lizard loving kid, who studied reptiles and then was able to help his wife get a job at the CDC in Atlanta, he tagged along unemployed with her and “suddenly” got a job coordinating virus research among seven (7) USAID and DoD universities.
Coincidence or not, Daszak described during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2011,
“Our research shows that new approaches to reducing emerging pandemic threats at the source would be more cost-effective than trying to mobilize a global response after a disease has emerged”.
As the NYT reported, in October 2019, when the federal government “quietly” cut off funding to the ten-year-old program called PREDICT, operated by United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s emerging threats division, much to the dismay of experts like Daszak, He was worried that shutting PREDICT down, could “leave the world more vulnerable to lethal pathogens like Ebola and MERS that emerge from [unexpected places], such as bat-filled trees, gorilla carcasses and camel barns.”
These disease sources can be considered as Red Herrings, and there is still great speculation that many of these Especially Dangerous Pathogens, EDPs, were manipulated in labs, and not only one country may be involved.
Daszak said, “PREDICT” a USAID project, was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge, and then mobilizing” in reaction. But in reality it was to seek out potential bio weapons.
EcoHealth also claims that it looks at the nexus between emerging viruses and how they affect public health, and what is underlying that … and it is claimed that “almost” all emerging disease are linked to some underlying drivers, some cause that’s related to people: travel and trade and building roads into forests around the world,
We have this unprecedented population growth. We’re doing things on the planet that we never used to do. We’re building roads into the remotest forests and what we do is we come into contact with wildlife species and pick up those artists. What we do at EcoHealth is to look at the relationship between people and animal, and the environment, and how that [leads] to pandemics and [then] we try and do something about it.
Peter Daszak plays a central role in discussions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. According to an expert collaborating with independent scientists investigating military labs, Daszak is widely viewed as a key figure of suspicion, allegedly disguising his self-interest as humanitarian work. Despite potential conflicts of interest due to his close ties with Wuhan and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Daszak headed up a WHO group in Wuhan and another group under the Lancet to investigate the virus’s origins.
General Igor Kirillov’s death is most likely connected to sensitive documents reportedly involving Ukraine, Georgia, and the Lugar Lab in Tbilisi. These documents, (still classified and under investigation, detail a joint Georgian-U.S. military research project on diseases potentially affecting Georgian and Ukrainian military recruits. The project, primarily funded by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in collaboration with the CDC and other institutions, outlines research objectives, budgets, and criteria for participant selection. Specific pathogens of interest, such as anthrax, are noted for their military relevance.
The WHO’s decision to appoint Daszak to monitor COVID-19 outbreaks in China has been criticized as politically motivated. Articles by Henry Kamens (NEO) and Jeffrey Silverman (Veterans Today ) support the allegation that that Kirillov’s death and the likelihood of U.S.-Ukrainian collusion in bio weapons research are not coincidental.
Silverman, whose work often focuses on Georgia’s unique geopolitical dynamics, has participated in RT documentaries on U.S. biolab activities and foreign policy. These documentaries have faced bans and restrictions on platforms like Facebook, reflecting their controversial nature, and bans for those who share the link with others.
The nexus between Daszak, the Lugar Lab, and broader U.S. geopolitical strategies are more than speculative. The closed-source verification and personally being involved with undisclosed documents, especially some of the actual documents which resonate within the context of broader Russian criticisms of Western intervention and bio-weaponization of animal diseases, (Zoonosis).
Peter Daszak a British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance, which researches emerging diseases and zoonotic pathogens has too many links to controversial funding for bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, raising questions about his role in the origins of COVID-19 and the covert development of new bio weapons for offensive purposes, at various BSL3 labs as being funded and operated by the US government in blatant violation of the 1972 bio weapons treaty.
It is clear that what Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov had access to, as confirmed by others, and his knowledge and role in sharing of these documents may have been the main motivation for his murder.
Kirillov “most likely” had a treasure trove of either highly classified or sensitive information about the links of these labs to the acquisition, development, and potential use of weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to highly resistant strains of anthrax.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Picked For NIH Chief as Free Speech Takes Center Stage in Science
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 26, 2024
With a decision that has garnered the attention of both supporters and skeptics of America’s public health establishment, President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health. For a nation battered by years of pandemic policies, conflicting narratives, and public mistrust, there’s more to this nomination— it’s a declaration.
Dr. Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and a leading voice in health policy, has been a consistent advocate for evidence-based decision-making and open scientific discourse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he gained national attention for his principled stance against lockdowns and sweeping mandates, which he argued caused more harm than good. Now, he’s poised to bring that same conviction to one of the most influential scientific institutions in the world.
Rather than being welcomed as a critical voice, Bhattacharya faced vilification from a system allergic to dissent.
Fighting for Free Speech in Science
Perhaps Bhattacharya’s most defining moment came when he fought back against censorship. The Stanford professor became a plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of colluding with Big Tech to silence dissenting voices on public health.
The suppression of ideas, Bhattacharya argued, isn’t just an affront to the First Amendment; it’s antithetical to the scientific method. By standing up, he wasn’t just defending his views but ensuring that future debates about public health policy could happen in the open, where they belong.
A New Era for the NIH
With his appointment as NIH director, Bhattacharya is stepping into a role that carries enormous responsibility. But for a man who has spent his career challenging conventional wisdom, this is an opportunity to turn the page on a period of public disillusionment with science.
In an X post following the announcement, Bhattacharya, who was once blacklisted from Twitter under the old regime, promised to reform America’s scientific institutions to make them “worthy of trust again” and to ensure that NIH-funded research would focus on improving health outcomes for all Americans.
President Trump underscored this vision, calling Bhattacharya a leader who will restore the NIH to its “Gold Standard” while addressing America’s greatest health challenges. Paired with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another advocate for reform, Bhattacharya is set to tackle systemic issues such as chronic illness, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and the erosion of public trust in science.
Trump names RFK Jr. to cabinet position
RT | November 14, 2024
US President-elect Donald Trump will nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), declaring that the former Democrat will ensure that “everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals [and] pollutants.”
Trump announced his choice in a social media post on Thursday evening. “For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to public health,” he wrote.
“HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming health crisis in this country,” he continued. “Mr. Kennedy will restore these agencies to the traditions of gold standard scientific research… to Make America Great and Healthy Again!”
The New York Post claimed the previous day that some of Trump’s closest advisers were pushing for Kennedy to be given an advisory position, but that the former Democrat was “stubborn” in demanding control of HHS.
If confirmed, Kennedy would oversee the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other sub-agencies. Kennedy has been vocally critical of all of these agencies, and vowed to enact sweeping reforms if placed in charge of them.
A long-time vaccine skeptic and proponent of organic agriculture, Kennedy has promised to “get processed food out of school lunch immediately,” to recommend that fluoride be removed from the water supply, and to crack down on the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides in farming.
Kennedy announced last October that he would run for the presidency as an independent candidate, ending his bid to challenge President Joe Biden in the Democratic Party’s primary elections. He suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump in August, citing Trump’s support for free speech, his promise to end the Ukraine conflict, and his willingness to tackle what Kennedy called “the chronic disease epidemic” afflicting American children.
New Report Adds to Evidence That Cellphone Radiation May Cause Brain Cancer
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. |The Defender | October 22, 2024
Peer-reviewed studies showing a link between brain cancer and cellphone radiation are piling up — contradicting a recent World Health Organization (WHO)-led study that claimed there’s no evidence of a link.
South Korean researchers — who analyzed 24 studies and published their report on Oct. 10 in Environmental Health — found significantly higher risks for malignant brain tumors, meningioma and glioma on the side of the head where cellphones were held.
They also found heavy, long-term cellphone use was linked to an increased risk of glioma.
The South Korean study brings the number of meta-analyses published since 2016 linking cellphone radiation to an increased risk of brain cancer to seven, wrote Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., on his website.
Moskowitz — who directs the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley — has conducted and disseminated research on wireless technology and public health since 2009.
“These seven peer-reviewed meta-analytic studies contradict the conclusion of the recent WHO systematic review,” he said.
“Seven studies is a lot and we anticipate more in the future,” Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless program, told The Defender.
Eckenfels-Garcia said:
“We encourage the WHO to revise its stance, unlikely as this may be. It’s more likely that the WHO and other captured agencies will label non-industry friendly science as misinformation, even if this puts the public further in danger.”
Moskowitz said there’s evidence that the WHO picked industry-biased researchers to conduct its review.
Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D., a leading scientist who found a link between cellphone use and gliomas, agreed. He told The Defender it was “striking” that the South Korean researchers reached a conclusion that directly contradicted the findings by the authors of the WHO study.
Hardell — an oncologist and epidemiologist with the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation who has authored more than 350 papers, almost 60 of which address wireless radiation — said:
“The WHO study authors should be responsible for their fraudulent behavior violating human health and the environment. Their lack of ethical principles in science gives a ‘green card’ to roll out this technology — and the misinformed layman is the victim.”
Brain tumor rates on the rise in Denmark
The South Korean study was published on the heels of new health data from Denmark showing that central nervous system tumors — including brain tumors — are on the rise.
Denmark is known for its high-quality tracking of cancer cases. So it’s concerning when their data show a clear increase, Mona Nilsson, co-founder and director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, told The Defender.
The Danish Cancer Registry on Sept. 30 published a report on the number of new cancer cases in Denmark, Nilsson said. It shows that central nervous system tumors have been increasing among both men and women.
Nilsson compared Danish central nervous system cancer diagnosis rates since 1995. “The data show that tumors of the central nervous system, including brain tumors, are increasing and are among the cancers that have increased most rapidly over the past 10 years, between 2014 and 2023.”
Credit: Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
The Danish statistics contradict the notion that the rate of brain tumors isn’t on the rise, Nilsson said. “That argument has been used to claim that cellphone use is not linked to an increased risk of brain tumors or cancers in general.”
A 2023 study on brain cancer rates worldwide from 1990-2019 found a significant rise in brain cancer among both men and women in nearly all parts of the world. The study authors noted that this increase was largely seen in Western countries.
In the U.S., overall brain and other nervous system cancer rates haven’t increased, according to the National Cancer Institute. However, there are many reasons tumors may go unreported in the U.S. and other countries, according to Moskowitz.
For instance, Hardell in a 2017 peer-reviewed study found indications of underreporting in the Swedish Cancer Register.
Although the incidence of reported glioma diagnoses in U.S. adults has remained steady, Moskowitz noted in a Sept. 25 webinar, there’s been an increase in glioblastoma — “the most common and most serious malignant brain tumor.”
“We have seen increases in brain tumor incidents among children and young adults,” he added. “Clearly, more research is needed to understand these increases in tumor incidents.”
Ellie Marks told The Defender she and her son founded the California Brain Tumor Association after discovering that her husband’s brain tumor was likely caused by long-term heavy cellphone use.
After the tumor diagnosis in 2008, Marks sent her husband’s medical and phone records to wireless radiation experts, including Hardell. “They got back to me and said, ‘Yes, he is the poster boy for the cellphone brain tumor correlation,’” she recalled.
Her husband survived, but it’s not easy living with a brain tumor — and her husband is far from alone, she said. “I know many others who have experienced brain cancer attributed to their cellphone use.”
FDA turned blind eye to research linking wireless radiation and cancer
The uptick in brain cancer cases isn’t surprising, Eckenfels-Garcia said, and U.S. health agencies saw it coming.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims there’s not enough scientific evidence to link cellphone use to health problems, including brain cancer — but it rejected the findings of a $30 million study it commissioned on the topic.
At the FDA’s request, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) did a multi-year study, concluding there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of wireless radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
When the NTP in 2018 released its findings, the FDA rejected the study and in February 2020, released an unsigned literature review that criticized the study.
Commenting on the increased incidence of brain tumors, Eckenfels-Garcia said, “So essentially this is an ‘I told you so’ moment. This is exactly what happens when our captured government agencies ignore science, as the FDA did with the NTP study.”
Moskowitz said the FDA should have followed up on the NTP study by conducting a formal risk assessment of wireless radiation, but that never happened. Instead, the U.S. government shut down NTP’s follow-up work on its 2018 study.
In April, CHD filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for documents and communications related to why the U.S. government stopped the work. The NIH has not responded to the request.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
They Think We Are Stupid, Volume 11
Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | September 19, 2024
Court Finds Kennedy Has Standing in Our Consolidated Case
As I predicted, our new co-plaintiff Kennedy meets even the Supreme Court’s stringent standing requirements, the injunction against the government is back in play.
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | August 26, 2024
As I explained in a previous post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s companion lawsuit Kennedy v. Biden has been consolidated by the court into our Missouri v. Biden case. Based upon documents we obtained on discovery, the court recently found that Kennedy meets the Supreme Court’s stringent standing criteria. We only need one co-plaintiff with standing to bring the case and the petition for the injunction. So the injunction is back in play, and we will likely find ourselves at the Supreme Court again in a few months. Unless SCOTUS invents another technicality on which to temporize, they will be forced to rule on the merits of the evidence against the government, which we believe is overwhelming.
On the issue of Kennedy’s standing, U.S. District Court judge Terry Doughty last week ruled: “There is not much dispute that both Kennedy and CHD [Kennedy’s nonprofit Children’s Health Defense] were specifically targeted by the White House, the Office of Surgeon General, and CISA, and the content of Kennedy and CHD were suppressed. Therefore, Kennedy must now show a substantial risk that in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of Kennedy in response to the actions of one Government Defendant.” Citing evidence we uncovered in Missouri v. Biden, Doughty explained: “The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future.”
As reported in The Kennedy Beacon Substack:
The latest ruling is not only significant for Kennedy but for the future of online speech. In June of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to bring their case on government directed mass censorship. Now that Kennedy and the CHD have been found to have standing in the matter, the Supreme Court will likely have an opportunity to judge the issue on its merits rather than on a technicality as it did when making its standing ruling on an injunction in June.
If Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs are able to demonstrate to judges that the Biden administration’s intrusion into the actions of major social media companies resulted in censorship, the country will be one step closer to a major legal ruling guaranteeing freedom to speak online without the censorious interference of the federal government.
In related news, Kennedy announced Friday that he is suspending his presidential campaign. While he has deep disagreements with Trump on several issues, he is endorsing Trump’s candidacy to advance the key issues on which they have substantial agreements—including stopping government censorship and propaganda. His 48-minute speech announcing this decision was an extraordinary moment in American politics and is worth watching. In addition to discussing the issue of government censorship, which seriously hamstrung his ability to campaign, Kennedy’s remarks focus also on the root causes of the current epidemic of chronic disease in the United States.
While there is online buzz that Trump may tap Kennedy as Attorney General, I anticipate if Trump is elected he will appoint Kennedy to his cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a department which includes the CDC, FDA, and NIH. This could prove a welcome opportunity for the reform of our public health agencies. I am currently working with a team of policy analysts and health freedom advocates on concrete policy proposals for just such reforms, and will keep you posted on our progress with that project.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
- Ecological Impacts Of Offshore WindParks Are Worse Than Expewcted, New Study Finds
Aletho News 