Authors of ‘Astonishing’ Study Showing Unvaccinated Kids Are Healthier Refused to Go Public With Results
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 9, 2025
In a U.S. Senate hearing today, attorney Aaron Siri revealed the results of a large study that found vaccinated children were far more likely to develop chronic disease than unvaccinated kids.
The study never underwent peer review and was never published, because the authors — staunch vaccine supporters — told Siri they were concerned about losing their jobs or reputations because their findings contradicted the official public health narrative and vaccine policy.
Siri’s testimony, delivered during Tuesday’s Senate hearing, “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” addressed the study’s origins, findings and suppression.
The study involved over 18,000 children enrolled in Henry Ford Health system’s insurance plan in Michigan.
“The results are astonishing,” Siri told The Defender. “For example, vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease (a group of allergic conditions), 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorder.”
These findings were statistically significant — even when accounting for gender, race, birthweight, premature birth, and respiratory distress or trauma at birth.
But rather than publishing the results, the study authors and their bosses at Henry Ford Health refused to make them public — even though the lead author previously assured Siri and Del Bigtree he would publish the results, whatever the findings.
Hearing held so ‘more Americans have their eyes open to the reality and truth’
Today’s hearing was the third so far this year on vaccine injury held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The study’s results were entered into the congressional record.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), subcommittee chair who organized the hearing, told The Defender he hoped the hearing would open people’s minds so that “more Americans have their eyes open to the reality and truth.”
He noted the fierce resistance that U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced at last week’s Senate hearing from senators who had “totally closed minds.”
Johnson said he didn’t presume to know the full truth about vaccines’ impact on health. “I don’t know because we haven’t even been allowed to ask the question — much less get the answer.”
In addition to Siri, witnesses included Toby Rogers, Ph.D., and Dr. Jake Scott.
The hearing pitted staunch vaccine supporters Scott and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), subcommittee ranking member, against Johnson, Siri and Rogers.
There were tense exchanges about what constitutes bias and corruption in research.
Blumenthal said he “deeply feared” for the future of public health in the U.S. and claimed Kennedy wanted staff who embraced the secretary’s “dogma.”
Vaccinated kids 2.48 times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic health condition
According to Siri, the study authors looked at health data of 18,468 kids born between 2000 and 2016 who were enrolled in the Henry Ford Health system’s insurance plan.
Siri published excerpts from the study’s manuscript, including its results, in his new book “Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines.” Released on Sept. 4, the book challenges what he calls the “religion” of vaccines. Siri said:
“It is time to start treating vaccines as what they are, consumer products, not items of worship. We can save children from harm from infectious disease and from vaccines. We can do both.”
The study authors divided kids into two groups: vaccinated and unvaccinated. Nearly 2,000 were in the unvaccinated group. Roughly 16,500 kids received one or more vaccines, with the median number of vaccines being 18.
The authors found links “between vaccination and the incidence of asthma, atopic and autoimmune disease, and mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders including developmental delay and speech disorder,” according to a copy of the study Siri obtained.
The authors calculated incident rate ratios — the odds that a vaccinated child would develop a given medical condition versus an unvaccinated child. Overall, vaccinated children were 2.48 times more likely to be diagnosed with a chronic health condition than unvaccinated kids.
Vaccinated children were over four times more likely to be diagnosed with a speech disorder than unvaccinated children, and nearly six times more likely to be diagnosed with an autoimmune disease.
In some cases, the authors couldn’t do the calculation because no child in the unvaccinated group had the target disease. For instance, none of the unvaccinated had diabetes, brain dysfunction, behavioral dysfunction or tics.
The authors said the study couldn’t be used to prove vaccines caused the chronic conditions, but they concluded that the findings warranted further research.
How the study came about
According to Siri, the Henry Ford Health study came about after the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in early 2017 searched for a highly qualified scientist to do a study comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids.
Bigtree, ICAN’s founder, had previously met Dr. Marcus Zervos, co-director of the Center for Emerging and Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University and head of the Infectious Diseases division at Henry Ford Health.
Siri, who represents ICAN, and Bigtree met with Zervos. “While Dr. Zervos was a vaccine believer,” Siri told The Defender, “he showed signs of possibly being open to conducting some actual safety science.”
Siri and Bigtree initially thought it would be advantageous for the study to analyze children’s health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database. But accessing VSD data was a complicated proposition.
Zervos instead suggested he and his colleagues do the study using data they already could access through Henry Ford Health’s vast database. Henry Ford Health runs over 550 medical sites in Michigan, according to its website.
Siri said:
“Once Dr. Zervos appeared committed to performing the study, I made two requests. They were merely requests because I was in no position to dictate or demand anything.
“The first was that they would publish the study no matter what the result. The second was that the unvaccinated group would truly be unvaccinated — meaning no vaccines — so that the study would actually assess health outcomes between exposed (one or more vaccines) and unexposed (no vaccines) children.”
Zervos “looked us right in the eyes and assured us that he was a man of integrity and would publish the results, whatever the finding,” Siri recalled. Zervos also agreed to use a truly unvaccinated control group.
Study never published
In early 2020, Siri received a copy of the study but discovered that it had not been submitted to a journal for publication.
Lois Lamerato, Ph.D., who had worked on the study with Zervos, told Siri she and Zervos both thought the study was well done and worthy of publication.
But the “higher-ups” at Henry Ford Health, to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, did not want to submit it. Lamerato also said she was worried the study, if published, would make doctors feel uncomfortable.
According to Siri, Henry Ford Health officials didn’t provide any substantive explanation for not wanting the study published. Siri said:
“The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaccinated children suffered from multiple times the rate of various serious ailments.
“Had the finding shown vaccinated children were healthier or at least had the same outcomes as unvaccinated children, then this study would have no doubt been submitted for publication and published many years ago. Instead, it remained hidden from the world.”
Other studies also show increased autism in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated
Scott, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford Medicine, presented information during the hearing on studies supporting vaccine safety claims. He said he had no financial conflicts of interest, as his research is either self-funded or funded by Stanford.
Rogers, a fellow with the Brownstone Institute and independent journalist, testified on published research related to the causes of autism.
The U.S. has yet to start writing its report on the possible causes of autism, U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary told Bloomberg yesterday.
Rogers has researched autism since 2015, when his then-partner’s son was diagnosed with autism. At the time, he was pursuing a doctorate in political economy at the University of Sydney.
According to Rogers:
“I went to the CDC’s webpage on the causes of autism. As a Ph.D. student, I was trained to focus on primary source documents, so I read all of the references in their footnotes. … To my surprise, I quickly discovered that the CDC’s narrative did not add up.”
He also noticed that the U.S. government wasn’t responding with a sense of urgency to the sharp increase in autism, despite the cost already having reached “hundreds of billions of dollars.”
So he changed his doctoral thesis topic to “The Political Economy of Autism” and spent four years analyzing published materials on autism’s prevalence, causation and cost.
Roger’s thesis, which passed peer review in 2019, is among the top 10 most-downloaded doctoral research papers in the history of the University of Sydney.
He gave senators a birds-eye view of the published literature. “Here are the facts,” Rogers said.
Twenty-two studies claim that vaccines don’t cause autism — but none have completely unvaccinated control groups. “So unfortunately,” Rogers said, “if you want to understand what’s causing the autism epidemic, these studies are of no use.”
Meanwhile, six published studies that included an unvaccinated control group found an increased risk of autism in the vaccinated. “Unfortunately, these studies have been systematically suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media and the medical establishment,” he said.
Rogers cited additional studies that showed an increase in autism following vaccination.
For instance, a 2018 study showed that up to 88% of autism cases are characterized by autistic regression — meaning a child who had been developing normally suddenly begins to lose skills, such as speech and eye contact. This suggests an acute toxic exposure triggered the development of autism, Rogers said.
“We now have eyewitness testimony from thousands of parents that the acute toxic exposure that preceded the autistic regression was a ‘well-baby’ vaccine appointment,” Rogers said.
What about genetic causes of autism?
According to Rogers, purely genetic causes of autism wouldn’t make sense. “Genes don’t suddenly create epidemics — the human genome just doesn’t change that fast.”
Most studies that look at both genes and environmental toxins, like pesticides and heavy metals, don’t control for vaccines as a possible covariate or confounder.
This makes it impossible to tease out the true impact of the toxin from the possible impact of the vaccine.
“The best available evidence suggests that anything that causes an immune activation event — an infectious disease, an industrial toxicant, or a vaccine — can cause autism.”
According to Rogers, autism is most likely caused by “vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants.”
He added, “If we stop exposing children to these hazards in the first place, that would stop the epidemics of chronic illness in children. Now we must summon the political will to act.”
Watch the hearing here
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.
US lawmaker moves to block Ukraine aid
RT | September 9, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has proposed removing $600 million in Ukraine support from the draft Pentagon spending bill, arguing that Americans’ “hard-earned tax dollars” should not go to foreign aid.
The Georgia Republican proposed cancelling the allocation of these funds in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years to shift priorities toward the US.
With Donald Trump back in the White House, the US has dramatically cut military aid to Kiev, pausing more than $1 billion in planned funds.
In a video post on X on Tuesday, Greene said that her amendment would strike $600 million from the defense bill, money that she noted “goes to Ukraine.” She argued that the US had already sent “over $175 billion to this war” and that it was “enough of your hard-earned tax dollars.” She described the measure as part of the America First agenda, saying US funds should not be used for “foreign wars” while the country faces a $37 trillion debt.
The congresswoman stated that the US usually allocates $300 million annually but that “Speaker Johnson and Republicans are feeling so generous they’re wanting to give them 600 million this time. My amendment will take it out.” Greene said, adding she has “never voted to fund this war.”
Greene introduced another amendment after learning that “another $100 million” had been earmarked for Kiev and said she wanted to remove all funding in case others in Congress felt “so giving.” Greene also put forward measures to cut aid for Israel, Syria, and Iraq adding that the money should be “kept back here at home.”
While previous President Joe Biden’s administration approved large-scale aid packages to Kiev, Trump has cut assistance but allowed some deliveries, such as Patriot air-defense systems. He has repeatedly expressed concern about possible misuse of US aid to Kiev, claiming that billions allocated under Biden may have been embezzled. In July, Trump said that any additional weapons delivered to Ukraine would have to be paid for by Europe’s NATO members.
Ukraine’s European backers are pressing for more weapons as part of security guarantees, while Russia insists Western military aid is an obstacle to reaching a peace deal.
Hamas: US proposal does not aim to end Gaza war
MEMO | September 9, 2025
A senior official in the Hamas movement, Bassem Naim, said on Monday evening that the initial ideas presented by the United States are “clearly intended to be rejected, rather than to reach an agreement that ends the war, ensures a full withdrawal of the occupation forces, and secures a prisoner exchange.”
In a statement sent to Quds Press, Naim explained that the American proposal suggests receiving all prisoners on the first day, linking withdrawal to the formation of a government acceptable to Israel and tasked with security duties. It also includes defining Hamas, considering pardons for its members, and disarming the resistance, “without any mention of reconstruction.”
The Hamas official stressed that the movement and other resistance factions seek “an agreement that stops the war and genocide, and opens the way for a political solution that fulfils legitimate national goals.”
Earlier on Monday, US President Donald Trump said that “the Israelis have accepted the terms of his proposal for a possible prisoner exchange and ceasefire in Gaza, and now it is Hamas’s turn to agree.”
Trump also spoke of the possibility of “reaching a deal soon to end the war on Gaza based on one of the proposals,” issuing what he described as “a final warning” to Hamas about the consequences of rejecting the new offer.
Israeli occupation attacks Hamas negotiators in Qatar, bombs Doha
Al Mayadeen | September 9, 2025
In a statement, the Israeli occupation military, in coordination with its internal security agency, Shin Bet, claimed to have carried out an airstrike on the Qatari capital, Doha, claiming to target the senior leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas.
Israeli Channel 12, citing military sources, reported that the strikes targeted members of the Hamas negotiating delegation while they were discussing the latest US-mediated proposal in Doha.
Reuters correspondents confirmed hearing loud explosions in the Qatari capital, noting plumes of smoke rising over the Katara district.
This brazen Israeli strike on Hamas’ negotiating delegation in Doha exposes once again the pattern of aggression that has defined Israeli and American conduct, using violence at the very moment when talks for peace are on the table. Just as Washington and Tel Aviv undermined dialogue before they attacked Iran in June, they now repeat the same tactic against the Palestinian resistance, targeting representatives engaged in negotiations.
Far from seeking peace, such actions demonstrate a deliberate sabotage of negotiations and reveal that only Palestinians show a genuine commitment to ending the war, while the Israeli occupation regime and the US weaponize diplomacy as cover for escalation.
Hamas reaffirms commitment to ceasefire proposals
The development comes as Hamas reiterated its commitment, alongside other Palestinian factions, to the ceasefire framework put forward by mediators on August 18.
In a statement, Hamas emphasized its openness to “any ideas or proposals” that would secure a permanent ceasefire, guarantee the full withdrawal of occupation forces from Gaza, ensure the unconditional entry of humanitarian aid, and achieve a genuine prisoner exchange through serious negotiations brokered by mediators.
US President Donald Trump announced Sunday evening on his Truth Social account that “the Israelis have accepted my terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well.”
In his post, Trump wrote: “Everyone wants the hostages home. Everyone wants this war to end! The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well. I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one!”
According to Israeli Channel 12, Trump conveyed a new proposal through his envoy Steve Witkoff, bypassing the usual mediators Qatar and Egypt. The reported plan includes the release of all Israeli captives, both living and deceased, on the first day of the deal in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners serving long sentences.
Hamas says received US proposal
The Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine, Hamas, confirmed Sunday evening that it has received new American ideas through mediators aimed at reaching a ceasefire agreement in Gaza.
In a statement, Hamas said it welcomes any real initiative that contributes to ending the ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people.
Hamas expressed its readiness to immediately join negotiations to reach a comprehensive deal that would include:
- The release of all prisoners on both sides
- A clear declaration of an end to the war
- A complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip
- The creation of a Palestinian independent committee to administer Gaza, to begin work immediately
The movement also demanded clear guarantees to ensure that “Israel” abides by any commitments, citing past agreements that were repudiated.
Hamas noted that it had already approved a mediator-brokered US proposal in Cairo on August 18, 2025, but “Israel” failed to respond and instead escalated its massacres and ethnic cleansing policy.
Christian Holy Places and the Jewish State
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • September 9, 2025
Recently Israel bombed two old venerable churches of Gaza: the Greek Orthodox church of Saint Porphyrios and the Catholic Holy Family Church. Thus, we were reminded that the Holy Land is called the Holy Land because it is the cradle of Christianity; this is the land where Jesus Christ was born and lived and died on the Cross, and was Resurrected. Where the Church was formed, where the Empty Tomb of Christ is located. This land was fought for in numerous Crusades, the flower of European chivalry died on its fields and hills fighting Muslim warriors. After the Crusades, for the last thousand years, her churches, shrines and relics remained safe and accessible for Christian pilgrims. And they are not museum pieces: every day there are many thousands of Christian Palestinians who worship in the churches and venerate its relics. Things began to change with the advent of the Jewish State.
Without going into deep theology, let us sum it up: historically the Jews are, and always were hostile to Christ and Christians. You can learn that from the New Testament, or from the Talmud, Jewish holy text, or from the news, where you can see Jews daily spit on Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem.
Rami Rozen expressed the Jewish tradition in a long feature in a major Israeli newspaper Haaretz :[1] “Jews feel towards Jesus today what they felt in 4 CE or in the Middle Ages… It is not fear, it is hatred and contempt. For centuries, Jews concealed from Christians their hate for Jesus, and this tradition continues even now.”
“He [Jesus Christ] is revolting and repulsive,” intervened an important modern religious Jewish thinker. This “repulsion passed from the observant Jews to the general Israeli public,” Rozen replied.
On Christmas Eve, according to a feature in the Jerusalem local paper, Kol Ha-Ir.,[2] Hassids customarily do not read holy books because this might save Jesus from eternal punishment (the Talmud teaches that Jesus boils in hell).[3] This custom had been dying out, but Hassids of Chabad, fervent nationalists, have brought it back to life. I still remember old Jews spitting while passing by a church and cursing the dead while passing by a Christian cemetery. Last year in Jerusalem a Jew decided to refresh the tradition. He spat at a Holy Cross being carried in procession in a city street. Police saved him from consequent trouble, but the court fined him $50, despite his claim that he had been fulfilling his religious duty.
A few years ago, the biggest Israeli tabloid, Yedioth Aharonoth, re-printed in its library the Jewish anti-Gospel, Toledoth Eshu, compiled in the Middle Ages. It is the third recent reprint, including one in a newspaper. If the Gospel is the book of love, Toledoth is the book of hate for Christ. The hero of the book is Judas. He captures Jesus by polluting his purity. According to Toledoth, the conception of Christ was in sin, the miracles of Jesus were witchcraft, his resurrection but a trick.
Writing on the Passion of Jesus, Joseph Dan, Professor of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, stated:
The modern Jewish apologists, hesitantly adopted by the church, preferred to put the blame on the Romans. But the medieval Jew did not wish to pass the buck. He tried to prove that Jesus had to be killed, and he was proud of killing Him. The Jews hated and despised Christ and Christians.
Prof. Dan added that there is little place to doubt that the Jewish enemies of Jesus caused his execution. Even today, Jews in Israel refer to Jesus by the demeaning word ‘Yeshu’ (instead of ‘Yeshua’) meaning ‘perish his name’. In a similar pun, the Gospel is called ‘Avon Gilaion’, the booklet of Sin. These are the endearing feelings towards Christ of the friends of Christian Zionists.
If there was raison d’etre of the Jewish existence, it was to fight Christ and to eliminate Christianity. That is the very reason why Jews wanted Palestine – because it facilitates their war against Christ. It’s hard to say whether Christianity will survive the total Jewish takeover of Palestine. Jewish faith is not just another faith, like say Buddhism. It is a fighting doctrine, an anti-Christianity.
In 1920s and 1930s, to solve The Jewish Problem, the Jews were offered many places for living: The Argentine, Kenya (then it was called Uganda), Dominican Republic, Birobijan in the Soviet Far East, but they insisted on Palestine. It’s not strange: Palestine is the centre of the world, the most important place of all. Not in vain, people fought and died for it for centuries. The followers of Mackinder, geopolitics, considered the ancient holy places of the world being the strategic points. Amazing that England gave away this most cherished possession to the Jews. And the Jews immediately began their work of expelling the Divine Presence from our midst.
Wait, you will say, Jews also believe in God! Yes, but a different one. To Gentiles – that’s you and other non-Jews – there is no access to the Jewish god. You must live forever without God, or you may worship the Jews, as God’s intermediary. It just so happens that the elimination of God’s Presence on earth is Satan’s main desire, too. So he has become a powerful Jewish ally; he helps them to destroy everything beautiful and spiritual on Earth.
Israel is the Jewish state, but not the only one: there is a bigger Jewish state, the USA. It’s not only the mighty supporter of its smaller brother. The USA nowadays has up to 80 percent Jews in the administration of its government, but this began a long time ago. Karl Marx and Werner Sombart wrote that the US could become a Jewish state even without Jews. (More precisely, Marx said that it was the Jewish state without Jews, and Sombart corrected him, saying the Jews were there from the beginning.) In the USA, this great heresy of Christian Zionism was formed, the parody of Christianity. Likewise, in the US blossomed homosexuality, a parody of the sacred union of Man and Woman, as it was viewed in ancient Egypt, and in Japanese mythology, and in the book of Genesis. The Devil is a great mocker!
Jews are much more comfortable with Islam: a Jew can join Muslims in prayers, as the great luminary Rambam once ruled, and historically Jews escaped to Muslim states from Europe when they were ordered to baptise or else. Amazingly, Jews do not hate Islam and Muslims with the same fervour they hate Christians.
How do Muslims feel about Christianity? Muslims venerate Christ. He is called ‘The Word of God’, ‘Logos”, ‘Messiah’, ‘Christ’, ‘the Prophet’ and is considered a Messenger of God, along with Abraham, Moses and Muhammad. Many chapters of the Koran tell the story of Christ, his virgin birth and his persecution by Jews. His saintly mother is admired, and the Immaculate Conception is one of the tenets of Islam. The name of Christ glorifies the golden edifice of Haram al-Sharif. According to the Moslem faith, it was there that the founder of Islam met Jesus, and they prayed together. The Hadith, the Moslem tradition, says in the name of the prophet: “We do not forbid you to believe in Christ; we order you to.” Muslims identify their prophet Muhammad with Paracletes the Helper (Jn 14:16) whose coming was predicted by Jesus. They venerate places associated with the life of Jesus: the place of Ascension, the Tomb of Lazarus and the Nativity are adjacent to a mosque and perfectly accessible by Christians.
Although Muslims (and many Protestants) do not consider that Jesus is God, they do proclaim Him to be the Messiah, the Anointed one, the Paradise Dweller. This religious idea, familiar to Nestorians and other early churches but rejected by mainstream Christianity, opened the gates for those Jews who could not part with the notion of Unitarianism. That is why many Palestinian Jews and Christians of the Seventh Century accepted Islam and became Palestinian Muslims. They remained in their villages; they did not depart for Poland or England; they did not learn Yiddish; they did not study the Talmud, but they continued to shepherd their flocks and plant almond trees. They remained faithful to their land and to the great idea of the fraternity of mankind.
Paradoxically, nowadays in the US with its spiritual debt to Jews, a new term was coined: Judeo-Christian values, traditions, faith. This is sheer nonsense, it is a catachresis like cold-hot. And indeed, it works by submitting Christians to the Jews in the US, while in Palestine, it leads to destruction of the remains of all Christian life. Let us consider Bethlehem; before 1967 it was predominantly a Christian city. When the Jews captured Bethlehem, they ran a census, just like King Herod, and everybody absent from his home was stricken out. Students abroad, family visitors, war refugees, whoever was not in the house was deleted from the roll. By this first step Jews got rid of a third of the Christian population.
But before that, you can consider the pretty Christian village of Birim in Upper Galilee. The village of Birim has been dead for fifty years now. It is beautiful even in death, like Ophelia floating down the stream in the pre-Raphaelite painting of Millais. It was not ruined by war. Its Christian inhabitants were expelled from their houses well after the 1948 war. They were told to leave for a week or two, for ‘security’ reasons. They had no option but to obey the Israeli soldiers and move out. Their village was dynamited, their church surrounded by barbed wire. The people went to the Israeli Supreme Court, they went to the government, commissions were appointed and petitions signed. Nothing helped. For fifty years since then, they have lived in the nearby villages, and on Sundays they return to worship in their church. Their lands were seized by their Jewish neighbours, but they still bring their dead to be buried in the church graveyard, under the sign of the cross.
Until the arrival of the Israeli army, this ruined village with its orphaned church was the home of the rural Christians of Birim who for centuries of Moslem rule lived in peace with their Moslem neighbours of Nebi Yosha and with the old Sephardi Jewish community of nearby Safed. This Guernica of Galilee undermines the “Clash of Civilizations” myth of a “Judeo-Christian” civilization opposing a “monstrous” Islam.
Coming back to Bethlehem, we happen to see the beautiful image of Our Lady. She appeared to a Mexican peasant, and her flower-covered image arrested the strife and united Native Americans and Spaniards into one nation. She gave her rosary to Saint Dominic and a letter to Portuguese kids in Fatima. The Prophet Muhammad saved and cherished her icon found in a Mecca shrine, writes Maxim Rodinson. She appeared to the wealthy Jewish banker Alphonse Ratisbonne, and he took orders and built the convent of the Sisters of Zion in En Karim. A Palestinian Muslim in a refugee camp of Lebanon preserved the image he took from his native Galilee, tells Elias Khoury in his novel Bab Al-Shams. Syrian astronauts asked for her protection in the shrine of Seidnaya before their flight on the Soviet space shuttle.
In medieval legends, the Jews were often perceived as enemies of the Virgin. The Talmud refers to her in the most blasphemous and hostile way. A certain column-stump on Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa marks the place of a legendary attack of Jews on her person, while in Antioch in 592, Jews were found despoiling her image. These are old tales. And now some newer facts. Twenty-two years before 6.10.23 (that is the event and date that Jews want to count from) in Bethlehem, a Jew shelled the Virgin. A Jewish soldier in the formidable tank Merkava-3, constructed according to US technology at US taxpayer’s expense, fired a shell from a distance of fifty yards at the statue of the Madonna atop the Holy Family church in the town of the Nativity. The Virgin lost an arm, and her pretty face was disfigured. She became one of a hundred Palestinian women shot by the Jews in that outburst of war. This seemingly unnecessary act of vandalism could not have been an accidental shot. No terrorist hid behind her gentle figure on the pinnacle of the hospital church. At fifty yards, you make no mistake. It could have been orders; it could have been a spontaneous expression of feelings by a Jewish fanatic. Our world rewinds full speed back into the Dark Ages, and as Israel rekindles traditional Jewish hostile rejection of Christianity, we cannot indulge in Judaeo-Christian fantasy.
I also must mention the beautiful old Byzantine church of St Barbara, a local girl and the village patron saint. It is one of these bitter-sweet semi-ruined churches that still attract worshippers, along with St Anne of Safurie and Emmaus of Latrun, and it stands on a hill a mile away from the village. It would be called St Barbara-without-the-walls if it were in England.
On the thirty-first of May 2002, the Israeli army dynamited St Barbara, the living relic of the Christian past of the Holy Land. I do not know whether the sappers said the benediction prescribed for such occasions by the Jewish religious codex, Shulkhan Aruch: “Blessed you are, Our Lord, who destroys the Assemblies of Proud.” This destruction followed the Bethlehem siege; when, for the proverbial forty days and forty nights, from the Catholic Good Friday to the Orthodox Easter Sunday, the Jews besieged the Church of Nativity.
To conclude, it is only by a miracle Christianity may survive Jewish rule in Palestine, or indeed wherever anti-Christians rule. Historically, the Palestinian Church has served as a bellwether for the health of the Church everywhere else. It is the touchstone of our faith. Without the earthly testimony of Christians living in and working on the same lands walked by Christ and His apostles, Christians quickly fall victim to science-fiction fancies like Christian Zionism. The Holy Land is a living history that naturally refutes anti-Christian narratives that rely upon the ignorance of historical facts. It is the last relic of Christendom. And if it dies, Christendom is doomed to the same rootless, wandering extinction that plagues the Jews.
The collapse does not stop in Gaza: in France, once the beloved daughter of the Church, ruled by ex-Rothschild clerk Macron, in La Baconnière, the Church of Saint Cornelius and Saint Cyprian was demolished: the 12th-century building with stained glass by Auguste Allo and a bell from 1584 was declared unsafe and demolished due to the lack of 7 million euros for restoration. But in order to conclude with good news, I’ll say: last Sunday, Moscow witnessed a huge Crucession of hundreds of thousands of worshippers, for the first time since 1918. It happened soon after the ardent local Jews moved away to Israel. Christianity still has the potential for Resurrection.
Edited by Paul Bennett
Notes
[1] 28.1.94.
[2] 14.12.93.
[3] Gittin, 56b-57a.
On your knees: This EU move has just revealed the scale of their insignificance
In 2018, Europe swore it would shield the Iran deal from Trump. In 2025, it brought Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ back under their own banner.
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | September 8, 2025
Back in 2018, Europe blasted Donald Trump for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Paris, Berlin, and London warned of a looming crisis in the Middle East and insisted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the only safeguard against another regional war. They even rolled out a special financial vehicle, Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), to shield trade with Tehran from US sanctions. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was finally ready to assert its own strategic autonomy.
Seven years later, the picture couldn’t be more different. Britain, France, and Germany have triggered the snapback mechanism – a procedure written into UN Security Council Resolution 2231 back in 2015. On paper, snapback is a technical clause: if one of the deal’s signatories claims Iran is in breach, all the pre-2015 UN sanctions come rushing back. In practice, it’s a political bombshell. The very governments that once positioned themselves as defenders of the deal are now taking the first steps to dismantle it.
How snapback works
Snapback is a built-in device of Resolution 2231: once a party to the deal files a complaint, a thirty-day clock starts ticking. If the Security Council can’t agree to keep the sanctions lifted, the old restrictions automatically spring back into place – no new vote, no vetoes, just the force of the mechanism itself snapping shut.
And those sanctions aren’t symbolic. They revive six earlier UN resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010: an arms embargo, a ban on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, and travel bans targeting Iranian banks, companies, and officials. In other words, a full reset to the era of maximum pressure that Tehran endured more than a decade ago.
On paper, it reads like legalese. In practice, it carries weighty consequences. For Europe, it means slamming shut whatever limited doors were still open for trade and diplomacy with Tehran. For Iran, it’s a return to a familiar landscape of international isolation – one it has increasingly learned to navigate through ties with Russia, China, and regional partners.
Europe’s brief rebellion
When Donald Trump tore up the nuclear deal in 2018, Europe seemed almost defiant. Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May openly criticized Washington’s unilateral move, warning it could ignite a new crisis in the Middle East and weaken the global nonproliferation regime. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was ready to chart its own course.
To prove it, Paris, Berlin, and London announced a special financial vehicle called INSTEX. On paper, it was meant to let European companies keep trading with Iran while bypassing US sanctions. In speeches, leaders cast it as a bold example of strategic autonomy – Europe standing by international law against American pressure.
In practice, it never delivered. Transactions were scarce, businesses stayed away, and INSTEX turned into little more than a symbol. What was meant to showcase Europe’s independence exposed instead its limits. Behind the rhetoric, the continent still lacked the muscle to stand up to Washington.
Even after the deal began to unravel, Tehran held on longer than many expected. For a time, Iran continued to observe key limits, signaling that it still wanted the agreement to survive. The steps it did take after 2019 – enriching uranium beyond agreed levels, reducing access for inspectors – were limited and largely declarative. They were less about racing toward a bomb than about sending a message: if Europe and the United States failed to keep their end of the bargain, Iran would not keep waiting forever.
Europe could have treated those moves as a call for dialogue. Instead, it chose to treat them as violations to be punished – leaning on legal mechanisms and pressure rather than genuine diplomacy. In practice, this meant not saving the deal but accelerating its collapse.
When Joe Biden took office in 2021, many in Europe breathed a sigh of relief. After four years of Trump’s “maximum pressure,” there was hope the US would return to the nuclear deal or at least give Europe more room to re-engage with Tehran. European diplomats saw Biden’s presidency as a reset button, a chance to salvage what was left of the JCPOA.
Talks resumed in 2022, bringing negotiators from Washington, the E3, and Tehran back to the table. But the optimism didn’t last. The West’s conditions went far beyond nuclear conditions: Iran was pressed to scale back its ties with Russia and cut off growing cooperation with China. To Tehran, those demands amounted to political disarmament – a direct threat to its sovereignty and security.
The negotiations collapsed. For Europe, it was a sobering moment: the Democratic administration they had counted on offered no breakthrough. For Iran, it confirmed what many suspected – that Washington’s return to the deal would come with strings too heavy to accept.
The US get what they want
The word snapback has already made waves in the halls of the UN back in August 2020. That summer, the Trump administration formally notified the Security Council that Iran was in breach of the nuclear deal and demanded that the old UN sanctions be reinstated. US lawyers pointed to Resolution 2231, which still listed Washington as a “participant” in the agreement – even though Trump had withdrawn the US two years earlier.
The reaction was swift and humiliating. Russia and China dismissed the move outright, and so did America’s closest allies in Europe. London, Paris, and Berlin all publicly declared that Washington had no standing to use the mechanism after quitting the deal. The snapback effort fizzled, and the sanctions remained suspended.
The irony is hard to miss. In 2020, Europe stood shoulder to shoulder with Moscow and Beijing to block Washington’s attempt. Five years later, the very same European capitals are the ones pulling the trigger.
When London, Paris, and Berlin announced they were triggering snapback, they wrapped the move in the language of diplomacy. In Paris, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stressed that France was still “open to a political solution.” In Berlin, Johann Wadephul urged Tehran to re-engage with the IAEA. Britain’s David Lammy said Iran had provided “no credible guarantees” about the peaceful nature of its program.
On the surface, it sounded like a routine chorus of diplomatic talking points. But behind the careful wording was a clear message: Europe was abandoning the posture of dialogue and embracing pressure. What the E3 once condemned in Washington, they were now carrying out themselves – only this time under their own flag.
In Tehran, the language was restrained but pointed. Officials called the European move “illegal and regrettable,” a formula that barely concealed deep frustration. For Iran, Europe’s decision confirmed once again that Brussels talks about strategic autonomy but falls in line the moment Washington sets the course.
Across the Atlantic, the response was the opposite: warm approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “welcomed” the step and claimed that snapback only strengthened America’s willingness to negotiate. Formally it sounded like an invitation to dialogue. But the memory of the spring talks – which ended not with compromise but with Israeli sabotage and US strikes on Iranian facilities – made the words ring hollow.
A world that has moved on
Europe’s wager on sanctions is a throwback to the early 2010s, when Tehran was isolated and the West could dictate terms. But that era is gone. Today Iran is not only a strategic partner for Moscow and Beijing but also a full member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – platforms that carve out alternatives to the Western order.
In this new landscape, snapback may sting in Tehran, but it hits Europe too. Brussels loses credibility as a negotiator and opportunities as a trading partner. Each step in Washington’s shadow makes the European claim to “strategic autonomy” sound thinner.
The paradox is striking. On paper, Europe insists on its independence. In reality, its voice is fading in a multipolar world. While Brussels signs off on sanctions, Beijing and Moscow are busy sketching the architecture of a new order – one where Europe is no longer at the center.
Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
@farhadibragim
When does murder get ignored? When the victim is white and the killer black
A black man kills a white woman in an American city, and the mainstream media gives it zero coverage. Imagine if the races were reversed.
By Henry Johnston | RT | September 8, 2025
The US mainstream media tends to operate by encouraging a certain prefabricated outrage. Sensationalized narratives are cultivated along predictable tracks. But no less egregious is what the media chooses to ignore. Few events of late have better exposed the ideological underpinnings of the media – and of the elite whose narratives it plugs – than the recent brutal and shocking murder of a young Ukrainian woman on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina.
On August 22, a career criminal, Decarlos Brown Jr., casually walked up behind 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, who was seated on a train minding her own business, and stabbed her three times in the neck in cold blood, killing her. He sauntered away, still clutching the knife dripping blood.
The mindless and savage attack was captured on surveillance footage, but Charlotte’s Democratic Mayor Vi Lyles pushed for it not to be released, ostensibly out of respect for the victim’s family. But the footage did eventually surface, and the story spread like wildfire. But this was a wildfire that couldn’t reach the impervious redoubt of the mainstream media – even after Elon Musk gave it the push into viral territory by chiming in on an End Wokeness thread pointing out the stunning media silence.
In fact, not a single major legacy outlet – the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Reuters, CNN, Wall Street Journal, and others – picked it up. One would think that, by sheer chance, one of these esteemed outlets would have bucked the trend. But that didn’t happen because, as Matt Taibbi once brilliantly pointed out,
“Reporting is done in herds, no one wildebeest can break formation without screwing things up for the others. So, they’ll all hold the line, until they all stop holding the line.”
As of this writing, it seems the media herd is starting to reluctantly skate to where the puck is going. And that means that some version of the story, however sanitized, will soon appear everywhere.
So what exactly has given this story its irresistible momentum? Let’s start with the blatant double standard about reporting interracial crime. A white victim and a black perpetrator, as was the case in this instance, is usually a circumstance that tips the scales in favor of silence. When an instance of black-on-white crime cannot be avoided, the respective races of the individuals involved are not mentioned, and the tone is more along the lines of “aww shucks, what a tragedy.” When the racial roles are reversed, the media coverage is extensive and sensational, and the race angle is established immediately and runs throughout the ensuing coverage like an electric wire.
Given such highly distorted media coverage of interracial crime, one would be forgiven for assuming that it is blacks who are perpetually in mortal danger of racist attack by whites in the US. This view was a large part of the impetus behind the Black Lives Matter movement. However, the actual statistics on interracial crime, which are not easy to find, show otherwise. Buried inside this Department of Justice (DOJ) report from 2020 is a rather remarkable admission: “[In 2019], there were 5.3 times as many violent incidents committed by black offenders against white victims (472,570) as were committed by white offenders against black victims (89,980).” Such stark wording was not repeated in subsequent reports under the Biden DOJ, but there is no reason to believe anything has changed in the streets.
Zarutska’s murder certainly comes at a time of record-low American trust in the mainstream media. Instances of misreporting and factual disasters have become such a recurrent theme as to not require individual examples. The media’s efforts at narrative formation have also become so heavy-handed that identifying the establishment cause being promoted in almost any piece of reporting is now a parlor game.
But – and I venture into very risky terrain here – the uproar over this senseless killing also points to a deeply ensconced taboo slowly starting to unravel: Many white Americans are tired of being denied the right to display even the slightest and most tentative hint of the type of racial solidarity that other groups are extended so liberally. It is a story being played out on a different stage with different actors in Great Britain.
There’s another angle here, and it is one that has already been remarked upon in numerous places. The victim was a citizen of a country that the US has spent enormous treasure and effort ostensibly defending since 2022. The roughly $130 billion in aid that Washington has coughed up for Kiev comes out to some $3,500 per Ukrainian citizen. Certainly enough for a bodyguard on train rides.
And yet the silence from the pro-Ukraine crowd has mirrored that of the media at large. This certainly confirms what has been abundantly clear throughout the war and remains so today: Ukrainian deaths that don’t advance a Western elite media narrative are dismissed and ignored. But this lack of reaction also casts in sharp relief the reality that pro-Ukraine sentiment in the US is largely a cause bundled in with the rest of the progressive agenda, underpinned by the uniform mouthpiece of a jaded media. The Ukrainian flags one sees out and about rarely reflect a principled stance but rather deference to elite cues.
It will be said that all sides have merely assumed their positions on the barricades to score political points on this deeply human tragedy. We will all be accused of coming to praise Caesar rather than to bury him. This young woman’s death is indeed a human tragedy and a particularly painful one. But to see it as only a tragedy is to dismiss its larger context and to refuse to draw any conclusions. That is willful ignorance.
When a tragedy unveils such a confluence of two deep ideological biases, what it does is reveal the contours of the magnet moving underneath the pattern of American life.
Henry Johnston is a Moscow-based editor who worked in finance for over a decade.
China’s Warning
By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | September 8, 2025
The global dominance that the United States, the greatest power in the West, wants to maintain at all costs violates the most basic norms of international law: the Trump Administration revoked the visas of representatives of the State of Palestine, preventing them from attending the United Nations General Assembly in September.
This claim to dominance is provoking growing opposition from the Global South. This is confirmed by the warning issued by China with the largest military parade in Beijing.
The official statement from the State Department states that the Trump administration has revoked the visas of members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, “in the interest of our national security” because “the PLO and PA are responsible for undermining the prospects for peace through their appeals to the UN International Court of Justice to obtain unilateral recognition of a hypothetical Palestinian state.”
In addition, the Trump Administration announced the suspension of visas for all Palestinian passport holders, preventing them from entering the United States for medical treatment, university attendance, visits to relatives, and business activities. At the same time, the Trump administration announced that it is studying “the post-war plan for Gaza”: it provides for the “voluntary transfer” of the entire Palestinian population to transform Gaza into a luxurious “Middle East Riviera.” In this way, while Israel continues its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, the United States is dismantling the foundations of the State of Palestine.
However, the global dominance that the West’s greatest power wants to maintain at all costs, violating the most basic norms of international law, is provoking growing opposition from the Global South. This is confirmed by the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members include China, Russia, Belarus, Iran, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with several other countries participating. At the meeting held in China, President Xi Jinping reiterated the basic principles:
“First, we must respect the principle of sovereign equality. We must uphold that all countries, regardless of their size, strength, and wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers, and beneficiaries in global governance. We must promote greater democracy in international relations and increase the representation and voice of developing countries.”
*
This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award-winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Where were you, Senators? While They Dripped Poison Into Our Children’s Bodies?
By Paul Connett, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 5, 2025
Paul Connett, Ph.D., co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There,” responds to Thursday’s U.S. Senate hearing during which members of the Finance Committee accused U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of “politicizing” science.
Yesterday, the world watched as you bayed and sneered at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for disagreeing with your beliefs on vaccines.
Were you following a script forwarded to you by the PR hate machinery of the pharmaceutical industry?
Ironically, a similar complex of industry, CDC and pseudo-professional bodies has kept you silent on another public health practice for decades.
You have remained silent while they have dripped poison into our children’s bodies for 80 years.
Where were you between 2017 and 2020, when U.S. Government-funded mother-offspring and infant fluoride IQ studies were published?
Where were you in 2022, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention witnessed this science but failed to warn pregnant mums to avoid fluoridated water?
Where were you in 2024 when the National Toxicology Program reviewed these and many other IQ studies and concurred that fluoride was a neurotoxin?
Where were you on Sept. 24, 2024, when a federal judge concluded, after a seven-year Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) trial, that “U.S. Government-approved” fluoridated water posed an “unreasonable risk” to America’s children?
Did you read this science that you supposedly treasure? Did you put it above self-serving propaganda sources?
Are you following the science? Or following the money? On both issues?
Where was RFK Jr. during all this? He was reading the science.
And he watched the TSCA trial online. He knows that fluoridation must end.
Is he wrong on this? Are you?
Perhaps it’s time you stopped your baying and sneering and started actually reading the science?
Is it good to expose a baby’s brain to fluoride from day 1 of pregnancy?
Is it good to inject organic mercury into a baby’s bloodstream?
Is it good to inject aluminum into a baby’s bloodstream?
Should we be messing with messenger RNA?
Do we know what we are doing?
Paul Connett, Ph.D., is co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.”
Pharma’s Coup Attempt: How Cartel Insiders Are Plotting to Oust Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
By Paul Anthony Taylor | Dr. Rath Health Foundation | September 5, 2025
A leaked memo from one of the pharma cartel’s most powerful trade groups has revealed a desperate plan to push Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. out of his role as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document, apparently originating from a closed-door meeting of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), shows that industry leaders are prepared to spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress and manipulating public opinion to force Kennedy from his job. At stake is not just U.S. government vaccine policy, but the deeper question of who actually runs public health in America – democratically elected officials, or the corporations that profit from disease.
The plan unveiled
The memo appears to come from BIO’s Vaccine Policy Steering Committee, a powerful body representing companies such as Pfizer, Merck, Novavax, and Vaxcyte. According to whistleblowers, the group met on April 3, 2025, to discuss the “threat” posed by Kennedy’s healthcare reform agenda. The summary leaves no doubt about its intentions. One line is especially blunt: “It is time to go to The Hill and lobby that it is time for RFK Jr. to go.”
The threat to the cartel is clear. Kennedy has insisted on long-term safety data for vaccines, full publication of trial results, and the restoration of manufacturer liability for injuries. These proposals would dramatically slow down the fast-track approvals and legal protections that have allowed vaccine makers to rake in billions while avoiding accountability. In the eyes of BIO, this is not just policy reform – it is a direct attack on its business model.
Fear of accountability
BIO’s real fear is not scientific debate but financial disruption. The memo quotes one executive from Vaxcyte warning that “investors have stated they are leaving until the next data read out,” citing uncertainty caused by Kennedy’s push for tighter regulation. Capital, in other words, is fleeing the vaccine sector. Instead of reassuring the public with stronger safety standards, BIO is working to reassure Wall Street by removing the man calling for reform.
This exposes the heart of the problem: the pharmaceutical industry has become so dependent on weak oversight and political protection that it views accountability itself as a threat. Rather than adapt to higher safety expectations, BIO would rather manipulate politics to preserve the old system.
Buying influence
The most revealing part of the plan is financial. BIO has committed $2 million to a new communications campaign titled ‘Why We Vaccinate.’ But this is no ordinary public health initiative. According to the memo, its goal is not education but “inspire and frighten” messaging designed to sway the “movable middle” of public opinion. Essentially, by tying vaccination to national security, economic productivity, and workforce resilience, the campaign seeks to use fear as a political weapon.
This is not science. It is psychology. Instead of engaging Kennedy’s arguments on their merits, BIO plans to drown out discussion with a flood of fear-based advertising and carefully managed surrogates. Among those mentioned as possible allies are Dr. Mehmet Oz and Senator Bill Cassidy. These figures are expected to provide a veneer of bipartisan legitimacy while avoiding any real debate about the substance of Kennedy’s proposals.
Controlling the narrative
Equally troubling is BIO’s strategy of redefining language itself. The leaked document reveals plans to replace words like “protect” and “defend” with softer-sounding terms such as “streamline,” “optimize,” and “enhance.” But behind the rebranding lies a cynical truth. As Robert W. Malone MD has pointed out, when BIO says “efficiency,” it means fewer safety checks. When it says “transparency,” it means PR-polished talking points, not the release of raw scientific data. When it says “resilience,” it means consumer obedience, not real safeguards.
This is not reform – it is narrative disingenuity that would not be out of place in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. BIO is attempting to control the vocabulary while ensuring that nothing actually changes. It is a form of deception that goes beyond lobbying, seeking to manipulate the very terms of debate so the public never realizes reform has been hollowed out.
The plot is already underway
The memo points to this month (September 2025) as a critical deadline. Congress is back in full session, budget negotiations are getting underway, and the media cycle is returning to full speed after the summer lull. BIO’s campaign is timed to seize this moment, flooding the airwaves with its ‘Why We Vaccinate’ messaging before Kennedy’s reform agenda gains traction.
September also marks the reopening of schools, a time when vaccine debates are most prominent in the public eye. By striking early, BIO hopes to dominate the narrative and silence Kennedy before he can rally broader public support. For the pharma industry, this is not about science but survival.
Significantly, therefore, in the past couple of days, we have already seen nine former leaders of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) speaking out against Kennedy, publishing an open letter in The New York Times that criticizes his policies.
Separately, and simultaneously, more than 1,000 current and former HHS employees are said to be calling for Kennedy to either resign or be fired. Their letter – which does not name the signatories but mentions vaccines eight times – accuses him of endangering the nation’s health. It is difficult not to see the hand of BIO behind these moves.
A threat to democracy
The implications of this plot go far beyond health policy. If corporations can secretly conspire to spend millions lobbying for the removal of a sitting government official, then democracy itself is in danger. Whether one agrees with Kennedy’s policies or not, it should not be the pharmaceutical lobby that decides who serves in public office. That decision belongs to the people and their elected representatives, not to an industry that stands to profit from the outcome.
This is why the BIO leak matters so much. It shines a light on the machinery of influence that usually operates in the shadows – closed-door meetings, carefully managed talking points, and money flowing into Washington to buy outcomes that serve shareholders instead of citizens.
Who decides about global health?
The BIO plot also has international implications, as it aligns with broader efforts to centralize health policy through global treaties and the algorithmic censorship of dissenting medical views. If left unchecked, this could lead to a future where drug companies, aided by international bodies, dictate not only U.S. policy but all global health decisions as well. The Kennedy reforms represent a direct challenge to that vision.
Ultimately, therefore, this story is not just about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It is about whether public health will be guided by the principles of science, safety, and consent – or by the profit motives of an industry that sees accountability as a threat. Seen in this light, BIO’s efforts to remove Kennedy are not a sign of power. They are an admittance of weakness.
Kennedy’s reforms may be inconvenient for Wall Street, but they reflect the public’s increasing demands for safety, consent, and honesty in medicine. The real question now is whether corporations will continue to dictate the rules – or whether the American people can successfully reclaim health policy for the public good.
Paul Anthony Taylor
Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.
Sparks Fly as RFK Jr. Tells Senators CDC Failed Americans During COVID
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 4, 2025
In a contentious Senate hearing today, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. engaged in fiery exchanges with senators on both sides of the aisle who questioned his record in office, the administration’s vaccine policies, and the ouster of top officials and advisers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
During the hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight over the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), many senators used their allotted five minutes to make impassioned speeches and air their grievances, often leaving Kennedy little or no time to respond.
The New York Times described Kennedy, who was visibly annoyed at times, as “remarkably salty and dismissive with senators at times today.”
“You don’t want to talk,” Kennedy told Sen. Elizabeth Smith (D-Minn.). “You want to harangue and have partisan politics. I want to solve these problems.”
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) called for Kennedy to resign or be fired by President Donald Trump during the hearing. This morning, Democratic senators on the committee issued a statement calling for his resignation.
Kennedy clashed with senators over the administration’s recent firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) narrowing of the COVID-19 vaccine approvals, the recent cancellation of $500 million in research funding for mRNA vaccines, Kennedy’s restructuring of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) and the upcoming agenda for that committee, which will address the universal hepatitis B vaccine recommendations.
Several senators also pressed Kennedy on whether Operation Warp Speed was a great accomplishment, and raised concerns about cuts to Medicaid and funding for rural hospitals.
Kennedy shot back at his critics, promising to fix the “malpractice” within the public health agencies, and touting his agency’s many accomplishments since he took the helm.
He blasted the CDC, which he said, “is the most corrupt agency in HHS,” for its history of failing to protect Americans’ health, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, during which the U.S. “did worse than any country in the world.”
“The people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving,” he said, adding, “That’s why we need bold, competent and creative new leadership at CDC. People who are able and willing to chart a new course.”
Wyden called Kennedy a liar, Kennedy accused Wyden of doing nothing to prevent chronic disease
After Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) kicked off what he predicted would be a “spirited debate,” ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) attacked Kennedy for the “costs, chaos and corruption” he allegedly brought to the agency.
That was also the title of a report Wyden co-authored with Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) and submitted to the record, summarizing their take on Kennedy’s tenure at HHS.
Wyden called Kennedy a liar and made what he called an “unprecedented” request that Kennedy be formally sworn in, presumably so the committee could later prove he lied under oath. Crapo refused the request, which isn’t customary in Senate hearings.
Wyden then launched a long attack on Kennedy’s “agenda,” which he said is “fundamentally cruel and defies common sense.”
Kennedy shot back:
“Senator, you’ve sat in that chair for how long? 20, 25 years? While the chronic disease in our children went up to 76%, and you said nothing. You never asked the question, why it’s happening. ‘Why is this happening?’ Today, for the first time in 20 years, we learned that infant mortality has increased in our country. It’s not because I came in here. It’s because of what happened during the Biden administration that we’re going to end.”
Kennedy says Monarez lied in WSJ Op-Ed
Several senators referred to an op-ed written by Monarez and published this morning in The Wall Street Journal. Monarez, who was fired last week by Trump, claimed Kennedy pressured her “to compromise science itself.”
“I was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric,” Monarez wrote.
When asked, Kennedy disputed Monarez’s account of her firing. “I told her that she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ And she said ‘no,’” he said.
Wyden quoted Monarez to Kennedy and asked whether he had pressured her to preapprove recommendations. “No, I did not say that to her,” Kennedy responded.
So she’s lying today to the American people in the Wall Street Journal ?” Wyden asked.
“Yes, sir,” Kennedy responded.
Kennedy said the opposite was true. Monarez indicated she would refuse to endorse any CDC vaccine panel recommendations even before the committee met to make them, he said. He said he asked her to walk back that stance so she would hear the recommendations and their rationale before making any decision, but Monarez refused.
Taking away vaccines?
Several senators, including Smith and Warren, accused Kennedy of going back on his commitment and “taking away vaccines” from the American people.
Warren cited the FDA’s decision to end emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccines and limit approvals of the vaccines to people at high risk. However, HHS also confirmed the vaccines would be available for anyone who decided they wanted them anyway.
Defending the move, Kennedy told Warren, “We’re not going to recommend a product for which there’s no clinical data for that indication, is that what I should be doing?”
“I know you’ve taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator,” he later told Warren.
Operation Warp Speed — worthy of a Nobel Prize
Senators accused Kennedy of holding a contradictory position on Operation Warp Speed, which Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said deserved a Nobel Prize, but few gave him time to respond to the accusations.
Several senators also lambasted Kennedy for not acknowledging that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), a physician who supported Kennedy and spent much of his five minutes questioning why the hepatitis B vaccine is given to all babies, asked Kennedy to respond.
Kennedy said that when the COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out, they were necessary because the virus was dangerous, but that the vaccines were significantly less necessary now.
“The virus has mutated, it’s much less dangerous, where there’s a lot of natural immunity and herd immunity, and so the calculus is different, and it’s complicated.”
Kennedy added:
“They think I’m being evasive because I won’t make a kind of a statement that’s almost religious in nature, ‘it saved a million lives.’ Well, there is no data to support that. There’s no study. There’s modeling studies. There’s faulty data.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who thanked Kennedy for “putting up with this abuse,” backed Kennedy’s statements on the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines and said federal health agencies hid the early signals for myo and pericarditis.
At the end of the hearing, Crapo offered Kennedy the floor to make a statement if there were things he wanted to clarify.
“I think I’ll have mercy on everybody here,” Kennedy said. “Let’s adjourn.”
Watch the full hearing on CHD.TV
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.
Featured Video
Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Rothschild Banking Clan Uses Its Vast Wealth to Influence World Events and Control Governments
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 15.09.2024
How powerful is the Rothschild banking family? How did they amass their fortune? Just how rich are they? Do they secretly control the world? Sputnik explores. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- London tourism expo promotes Israeli agency linked to theft of Palestinian land
- Dockworkers launch global strike against Israeli and US military shipments
- Europe facing gas price shock – Gazprom chief
- Ukraine continues recruiting people with disabilities
- Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
- Beyond Netanyahu: what Israel’s election means for Palestinians
- Lithuania plans universal conscription
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Ukraine News
- Financial Times rejects Nordic demands to correct Putin call story – media
- The Case for Less Unity in Europe
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
