Tag: big pharma

Connecticut Health Department Releases Vaccine Propaganda Videos

Welcome to vaccine dystopia, Connecticut edition.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health has launched its “Protect Who Matters Most” campaign with four cutesy, Schoolhouse Rock-style videos designed to promote vaccination. The department claims the initiative provides “trusted, accessible, and engaging educational resources” to help families make informed decisions. In reality, it delivers slick propaganda wrapped in songs and cartoons.

The first video features a soft-voiced woman singing about the terrors of “life before vaccines,” when “the right medicine had not yet come.” She paints a frightening picture of diseases that “could stay with you” until the miraculous arrival of vaccines. The message is clear: vaccines are the safest, sweetest, and most wonderful invention ever created to “protect who matters most.”

Unless, of course, your child suffers a serious adverse reaction and dies.

But the video doesn’t tell you that.

Video 2, a hip-hop number, equates vaccinating your children with truly caring about them.

The not-so-subtle implication here is that anyone questioning vaccines — whether over known toxins, aborted fetal cells, or sheer volume (more than 70 shots on the schedule) — must not love their kids enough.

It raises the common concern of “too many shots too soon” but immediately glosses over it with a catchy chorus.

Side effects are minimized to a little fever, sleepiness, or a Band-Aid, completely ignoring the possibility of severe or life-altering reactions.

The Vaccine Safety and Approval video uses a cheerful cartoon treasure map to guide viewers from “early research stones” all the way to the sacred “tested temple” of vaccine approval.

It’s pure feel-good propaganda that skips any honest discussion of risks, limitations, or the real-world performance of certain vaccines.

Keep reading

Big Pharma Is Running Drug Trials in a Chinese Concentration Camp Zone

Trivia question: What do Botox, Ozempic knockoff Mounjaro, and the cancer drug Keytruda all have in common?

They were all partly developed using clinical trial data from China. Specifically, from Chinese military hospitals. And, in a bunch of cases, from Xinjiang. That’s the place where the CCP has locked more than a million ethnic Uyghurs in concentration camps.

The House Select Committee on the CCP just sent letters to five major drugmakers—AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer—demanding answers about their clinical trials in China. The numbers, pulled straight from ClinicalTrials.gov, are unnerving. Merck alone ran at least 40 trials at PRC military medical centers and 31 more in Xinjiang. AbbVie: 17 Xinjiang trials, 16 at military hospitals. Similar story with Pfizer, Eli Lilly and BMS.

Is this a problem? Well, Committee Chairman and Congressman John Moolenaar said that “data developed through clinical trials at those hospitals could fuel the CCP’s military biotechnology research.”

But let’s say you don’t care about the CCP’s bioweapons program. Maybe you care about ethics?

Xinjiang is where the CCP is running a genocide against Uyghur Muslims. So when a drug trial recruits “volunteers” from inside that system, the word “voluntary” is probably a euphemism. China’s trial system enrolls patients three to five times faster than America’s. That sounds efficient until you ask why. Getting meaningful informed consent tends to slow things down. Forced labor camps tend not to have that problem.

Keep reading

Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy

A federal advisory committee today unanimously voted to endorse Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine — just months after rejecting the company’s application on the basis that Moderna had not performed an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which reviews scientific data on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other therapeutics on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), voted 9-0 in dual votes to recommend approval of the vaccine for the 50-64 and 65-plus age groups.

Today’s votes took place after several hours of presentations based on the findings of Moderna’s Phase 4 clinical trial data for its mRNA-1010 vaccine. The trial compared the efficacy of mRNA-1010 to that of a conventional, non-mRNA flu vaccine.

Daniel O’Connor, founder and CEO of TrialSite News, told The Defender today’s favorable votes “may reflect the committee’s view that the benefit-risk profile is acceptable.” However, the vote “does not erase the fundamental concerns surrounding this application.”

“Significant questions remain about comparator selection, study design and whether the reported efficacy advantage represents a clinically meaningful improvement for patients or simply a statistical advantage within the framework of the trial,” O’Connor said.

According to an FDA briefing document prepared in advance of today’s meeting, “no major deficiencies were identified” with the vaccine for adults 50 and over. Citing the clinical trial data, the document states that the mRNA-1010 vaccine had a 26.6% relative efficacy rate in adults 50 and over, with similar rates for adults 65 and up.

The mRNA-1010 vaccine also showed a higher immune response than Sanofi’s Fluzone vaccine, the document noted. According to Fierce Biotech, these results met all of the FDA’s “pre-specified criteria for success” and bolstered Moderna’s application for approval.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said today’s vote shifts mRNA-1010 safety monitoring to after licensure.

“VRBPAC meetings proceed to the beat of the rubber stamp. The unanimous vote guarantees a lot of really good questions of harm will have to be answered in the post-marketing period, when that harm manifests in the population,” Jablonowski said.

Moderna seeks traditional approval for the mRNA-1010 vaccine for the 50-64 age group and accelerated approval for the 65-plus age group.

Fierce Biotech reported that the FDA uses VRBPAC meetings to “seek outside counsel on tough or high-profile regulatory decisions.”

The FDA will make an approval decision on mRNA-1010 by Aug. 5 — and while the agency is not bound to VRBPAC’s votes, it “often follows the opinions” of its advisory committees.

Moderna’s stock was up over 4% in trading immediately after the vote, and up 3.50% at the close of market.

mRNA vaccine had higher rate of adverse events than conventional flu shot

Keep reading

HHS Terminates the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization Declarations Covering mRNA Shots, Drugs, and Biologics

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally moved to terminate the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) declarations that have been in place since the early months of the pandemic.

The termination is not immediate. HHS has established a transition period of up to 12 months for EUA drugs and biologics and 180 days for EUA medical devices. According to the agency, the phased wind-down is intended to avoid disruptions and allow manufacturers and healthcare systems time to transition away from the emergency framework.

These declarations formed the legal foundation for the authorization of COVID-19 mRNA injections, monoclonal antibodies, antiviral drugs, diagnostic tests, ventilators, personal protective equipment, and numerous other medical products deployed during the pandemic response.

Unfortunately, the deadly Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections are already fully FDA approved, meaning this action will have little practical effect on their continued use. The emergency framework that enabled their rapid rollout is finally being dismantled, but the products themselves have already moved beyond it.

While today’s announcement marks the formal beginning of the end of the COVID EUA era, it does not produce the outcome many of us had hoped for, including but not limited to the removal of mRNA products from the market.

Keep reading

New Study Strongly Links Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine to POTS, but Authors Downplay Signal

A new analysis of adverse events reported to the federal vaccine safety surveillance database after the HPV vaccine detected a strong safety signal for POTS, an autonomic nervous system disorder, in some people who received the shots.

The authors of the study, published last week in PLOS One, analyzed 77,909 reports associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between 2006 and 2024.

They concluded that the signal for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) warranted further investigation. However, they downplayed the significance of their findings, according to experts who spoke with The Defender.

Their discussion section dedicated only two sentences to POTS, even though the condition was the strongest signal identified by the analysis.

The authors underscored that a signal for POTS does not prove that it was caused by the shot, and said that a strong signal “does not necessarily translate into a large clinical or public health impact.”

Warning that when people hear about serious adverse events, it affects their “perception” of safety, the authors framed their paper as part of a process of identifying and addressing potential risks that “is crucial to maintaining high vaccination coverage.”

Cynthia Nevison, Ph.D., said this approach led the authors to be dismissive of their own results. “I always object in principle to papers that start out with the motivation of reducing vaccine hesitancy,” Nevison told The Defender.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker said the attempts to downplay POTS as a side effect of the HPV shot are “criminal and the paper is expertly crafted to hide this very obvious signal in order to repeat the default ‘safe and effective’ lie.”

He added that given VAERS underreporting, “we know that the pesky result they’re downplaying could represent 68,000 POTS cases nationwide and over 1 million serious adverse events total.”

Keep reading

The Empathy Weapon

This morning the New York Times published an essay by an immunologist who wasn’t vaccinated as a child, found science, got her shots, and now wants to help other parents see the light. It’s got that signature NYT sheen, is well written and emotionally compelling. And yet, if you’ve been paying attention to the media machine you can see that this piece is merely emotional blackmail. It’s sophisticated and speaks in the language of maternal love. The fact that it’s dressed in a lab coat is the tell.

The essay’s argument is simple: the author’s mother didn’t vaccinate her out of love. The author now vaccinates her own children out of love. The only difference is information and emotional support. The moral of the story? Parents who don’t vaccinate aren’t bad people – they just haven’t been guided to the correct conclusion yet.

Anyone not asleep through the last few years may recognize the game.

In 2021, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul stood before a congregation and told them the vaccinated were “the smart ones,” that those who refused were “not listening to God,” and that the faithful needed to go out as “apostles” and convert the unbelievers. It was cheap, crude, and disgraceful on so many layers.

And then there was Bill de Blasio. In the middle of the city’s vaccine push, the mayor of New York went on camera dangling a plate of burger and fries, moaning “Mmm, vaccination” like he was filming a McDonalds commercial.

I’ve never been more ashamed to be a New Yorker than watching those two represent my hometown during that period.

The Times essay is precisely the same sermon for a different congregation. Three pitches for the exact same product. De Blasio dangled fries at people who couldn’t afford to say no. Hochul played to the soul. The Times aims square at the laptop class. The approach may look different but the reveal is obvious: there is only one correct answer and the institutions hold it. These are all merely tactics to get the holdouts to convert.

Keep reading

CDC Awards Pfizer $1.24 Billion for COVID Vaccines for Kids and Adults

The roughly $735 million pediatric and $505 million adult COVID-19 vaccine grants cover 2026 and 2027, according to federal records. The monetary infusion has revived debate among critics and public health experts around the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and reliance on mRNA technology.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recent decision to award Pfizer $1.24 billion for COVID-19 vaccines has renewed debate over the government’s continued investment in mRNA technology.

The contracts, awarded on June 1, include about $735.7 million for pediatric COVID-19 vaccines and nearly $505.3 million for adult doses for fiscal year 2026-2027.

Critics say the funding reflects a continued commitment to vaccines associated with high rates of serious injuries and deaths, and a lack of adequate safety testing and monitoring.

Public health experts argue the investment is necessary to protect vulnerable populations and prepare for future outbreaks.

The latest contracts come as mRNA technology expands beyond COVID-19.

A recent review in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics found that mRNA-based therapeutics were identified in more than 550 registered clinical trials. The authors reported that more than 90% of the projects involved mRNA vaccines and that most products remain in early-stage testing before broader adoption.

‘Unnecessary and often harmful injections’

The procurement of monetary resources signals that federal officials intend to continue investing heavily in mRNA technology despite declining public demand and ongoing controversy over vaccine safety monitoring, critics say.

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender there was “no scientific justification” or “market demand” for the latest mRNA vaccine funding.

“This raises a serious question concerning how these captured agencies really work,” Tucker said. “We are talking about vast amounts of tax dollars flowing to support unnecessary and often harmful injections.”

Keep reading

How Government ‘Affordability’ Turns an $18 Antibiotic Into $2,500

Nothing makes anything less affordable than a government promise to make something more affordable, and a Texas pharmacist revealed this week how an $18 generic antibiotic gets listed for $2,500. But from there, things get so seriously stupid that you just know there must be a government program involved.

Brad Hart, along with his wife Glenda, own Forest Park Pharmacy in Fort Worth, so he knows a thing or two about how the system works — and just how dysfunctional it is.

“A family came in wanting to transfer their kid’s antibiotic to us,” he posted to X earlier this week. “The child had already STARTED the course. Then, mid-treatment, the insurance company decided the last 14 tablets suddenly needed a ‘prior authorization’ before the other pharmacy could hand them over.”

All this for Linezolid, a generic antibiotic that costs Forest Park $18.

Why all the fuss for something so inexpensive? 

Hart explained, “Insurance and the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Manager] behind them price drugs off a number called AWP — ‘Average Wholesale Price.’ People in my industry have another name for it: ‘Ain’t What’s Paid.’ It’s a benchmark number, not a real-world cost. On paper, the AWP for just those last 14 tablets is about $2,500.”

“The system that’s supposedly ‘protecting’ this family from cost is the same system that inflated an $18 medication into a $2,500 line item, then slapped a prior auth on it to “review the expense” THEY invented,” Hart continued. “They manufactured the problem, then billed everyone for the privilege of solving it.”

PBMs and AWPs were unfamiliar to me, so I asked Grok to explain how they work and why they exist.

The short version is that Washington’s tax incentives and Affordable Care Act (thanks, Obama!) mandates push everything into third-party insurance, disconnecting patients from real costs. Medicare Part D (thanks, W!) and weak transparency rules empower PBM middlemen (another Washington creation) to profit from fictional AWP benchmarks, delaying care and sucking up tax dollars while also overcharging sick people.

You get robbed coming and going.

Really, what the insurance companies do here is play arbitrage games enabled by government meddling in the name of affordability. That’s why Forest Park Pharmacy doesn’t take insurance and just sells medications at a market-rate markup from their wholesale cost.

One solution — and this is exactly what I used to do — is to buy bare-bones high-deductible health plans with catastrophic coverage and pay cash for everything else. But I can’t do that anymore because Obamacare made those plans mostly illegal or unobtainable. 

Why, it’s almost as though the entire system were geared for price-gouging. 

Keep reading

Scientists Warn of Vision and Nerve Side Effects from GLP-1 Drugs

Vision problems often develop quietly, with no pain or early warning, yet once eyesight is damaged it’s rarely restored. That’s why any new evidence linking popular medications to sudden changes in eye health deserves your attention. GLP-1 receptor agonists, marketed under names like Ozempic and Wegovy, are being taken by millions of people worldwide, not only for Type 2 diabetes but also as quick solutions for weight loss.

These drugs have been hailed as breakthroughs, but their effects on human health, including the eyes, tell a more complicated story. Emerging research suggests that their influence on vision could trigger unexpected harm.

For those already managing diabetes or for individuals considering these drugs solely for weight management, the stakes may be high because eye-related changes can be lasting. Understanding how they affect the delicate tissues of your eyes is central to protecting your long-term health. That is why new studies examining their role in vision changes are so important, offering insight into the risks tied to their use.

Keep reading

FDA Approves Merck Pneumococcal Vaccine for ‘At-Risk’ Kids as Young as 2

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded its approval of Merck’s pneumococcal vaccine Capvaxive for use in children ages 2 and up who are considered at increased risk for the disease.

The drug was specifically designed for adults, Merck said in a statement, but “may” offer additional protection for high-risk kids.

Critics pointed out that the vaccine adds to the list of childhood vaccines not tested against a placebo, and that it contains an ingredient linked to high rates of adverse events.

Children and teens with chronic conditions, including pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections, can get the vaccine in addition to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) they already get as part of routine pediatric shots recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The decision makes Capvaxive the only PCV approved as an extra vaccine for this group.

The vaccine protects against Streptococcus pneumoniae, which causes a wide range of bacterial infections, including pneumonia, bacterial meningitis and middle ear infections. The illnesses are typically treated with antibiotics.

CRM197: a questionable platform for childhood vaccines

The FDA based its expanded approval of the drug on results from a Phase 3 trial that enrolled 882 children and adolescents with chronic conditions.

The trial compared Capvaxive against PPSV23 (pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine), another vaccine that protects against pneumococcal illness — meaning it was not tested against an inert placebo.

Capvaxive contains CRM197, a protein. It is a mutant of the diphtheria toxin used to boost the immune response in some vaccines. In Capvaxive, bacterial sugars from 21 strains of pneumococcus are individually linked, or conjugated, to the CRM197, which enhances the body’s immune response to each of the bacteria.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker warned that giving a vaccine containing CRM197 to at-risk kids will be “another train wreck for children, but a boon for Merck as it opens up a fresh new market of children.”

That’s because research has found that other vaccines using the platform have high rates of adverse events.

Keep reading