Tag: big pharma

RFK Is over the Target

COVID pandemic tyrants mandated vaccination as a societal duty, lest we become disease-spreaders.  The vaccinated were supposedly protected from infection.  So how could the unvaccinated spread disease to them?

This highlights inherent deficiencies in the Germ Theory of Disease (GTOD), formulated as four postulates in the late 19th century by Robert Koch.  Koch’s postulates require the following:

  • The microorganism must be found in all individuals suffering from the disease, but not in healthy individuals.
  • The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
  • The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
  • The microorganism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host and identified as the same agent.

The third postulate doesn’t always hold.  Not everyone shows signs of disease during pandemics.  A person might be infected but asymptomatic.  This is simply a fact.  Those recognizing this are derided by the media/medical/pharmaceutical establishment as germ theory denialists.  Leftists believe that this is a sin second only to climate heresy.

COVID was a classic example of the GTOD’s deficits.  COVID was not an equal-opportunity killer of 1.2 million Americans and 7 million globally.  The young were mostly immune, whereas the elderly perished. 

Louis Pasteur helped develop the GTOD.  His nemesis, Antoine Béchamp, proposed the Microzymian theory: disease originates internally.  Béchamp asserted that disease is caused by changes in the body’s internal environment, not by external germs.  Microbes were a consequence, not a cause of disease.

A great deal of truth lies in his assertions.  Individuals’ nutritional status and immune function are key factors.  We saw evidence of this during COVID.  A direct relationship existed between Vitamin D levels and resistance to COVID’s intensity.  More nuanced efforts seek to bridge the divide between Béchamp’s concepts and the GTOD.

The medical industry envisioned dollar signs once the GTOD appeared.  An enemy had been identified.  The global war on microbes was on.  Children and pets are pumped with dozens of novel vaccines.  The childhood vaccine schedule is a tragic farce.  By age 18, children are scheduled to receive over 50 CDC-recommended injections.  Each provides profits to manufacturers and clinicians.  Seniors are urged to get nine vaccines.  According to RFK Jr., “50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines.”

Keep reading

After Big Pharma Made Trillions Pushing the Experimental Jab, Scientists Now Admit Cheap Over-the-Counter Nasal Spray May Block COVID Infection in New Peer-Reviewed Study

For years, Americans were told their only hope was to roll up their sleeves for Pfizer, Moderna, and the rest of the vaccine cartel.

Trillions of dollars flowed into their coffers while dissenting doctors were silenced, families were divided, and countless workers lost their jobs under vaccine mandates.

However, a peer-reviewed study out of Germany now shows that a cheap, decades-old nasal spray, azelastine, may do what the so-called ‘miracle’ experimental COVID jabs never accomplished: stop infection.

According to new findings published in JAMA Internal Medicine this week, all it may have taken to block infections was a $10 bottle of over-the-counter nasal spray used for seasonal allergies.

Researchers at Saarland University Hospital in Germany ran a phase 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on 450 healthy adults between March 2023 and July 2024.

Participants were randomly divided into two groups:

  • 227 volunteers received azelastine nasal spray (a common antihistamine used for allergies) three times a day.
  • 223 volunteers got a placebo spray.

All participants were tested for COVID twice per week for nearly two months.

The difference was undeniable:

  • Infections in the placebo group: 15 out of 223 people (6.7%) caught COVID.
  • Infections in the azelastine group: Only 5 out of 227 people (2.2%) got infected.

That’s a 67% reduction in risk of infection. The odds ratio came out to 0.31 (95% CI, 0.11–0.87; P = .02), meaning the nasal spray cut the likelihood of catching COVID by more than two-thirds, statistically significant.

Not only were fewer people infected, but those who did get sick had longer protection before infection (31 days on average versus 19 days in the placebo group) and shorter illness duration when measured by rapid tests (3.4 days vs 5.1 days).

The spray didn’t just block COVID. It also:

  • Cut symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections from 6.3% (placebo) down to 1.8%.
  • Reduced rhinovirus (common cold) infections from 6.3% to 1.8%.
  • Slashed the overall number of PCR-confirmed infections (COVID + other respiratory viruses) from 22% in placebo to 9.3% with azelastine.

Compare that to the COVID shots: expensive, rushed, mandated, and now known to have diminishing efficacy against new variants and side effects. The vaccines were pitched as our salvation but couldn’t stop infection or transmission.

Keep reading

“I Want The Answer”: Trump Demands Pfizer Prove mRNA Jabs Work

Late last month a CDC advisory committee launched a review into the “safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity” of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as whether mRNA remains in the body longer than advertised. 

As part of the review, they will look at gaps in existing knowledge “relating to bio distribution, pharmacokinetics, and persistence of the spike protein, mRNA, and lipid nanoparticles to inform immunization recommendations,” the document states. In other words – they’ll be looking at whether the vaccine has ever worked, as well as harms it may cause. As ZeroHedge readers know, studies have found that the spike protein and mRNA in the vaccines persist for some time. 

Days after the committee was announced, the Department of Health & Human Services announced that Susan Monarez, who championed mRNA shots for COVID-19, is “no longer director of the CDC” – after she “clashed with the secretary (Kennedy) over vaccine policy,” which ultimately led to her firing.

Meanwhile at least four other CDC officials resigned on Wednesday in a massive leadership shakeup at the agency: Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s chief medical officer; Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Dr. Daniel Jernigan, the director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; and Dr. Jennifer Layden, director of the Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance and Technology.

As the leadership crisis at the CDC unfolds, President Trump issued a somewhat cryptic ‘truth’ – challenging Pfizer and other vaccine makers to make public the same ‘GREAT’ claims his administration was shown in order to justify operation Warp Speed. 

“It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree!” Trump wrote. 

“I have been shown information from Pfizer, and others, that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public. Why not???” the ‘truth’ continues. “With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW.” 

Keep reading

The trillion-dollar biotech industry is facing failure – and it’s because of covid injections

The Gene Technology Bill signals a proposed new direction for New Zealand in alignment with and subsidiary to the world’s leading biotechnology nations that will have a radical effect on our food and our health. Yet if we reflect on the results of the biotechnology sector so far, by and large these are meagre, fleeting, unprofitable and unhealthy. We live in an increasingly complicated globalised technological world that is endangering health and life.

The good news last week was the announcement that the Health Select Committee has once again delayed its report on the Gene Technology Bill, this time until 11 October. This was due to the behind-the-scenes concerns of Winston Peters and New Zealand First. Both Peters and Luxon labelled the issue “complicated.” They are right. The delay gives us some more time to make this an election issue that won’t disappear. If you need reminding about the content of the Bill, see HERE. Below, we analyse the latest scientific evidence and the evolving issues for New Zealand.

Excess Deaths Continue

A Japanese study entitled ‘Significant Increase in Excess Deaths after Repeated covid-19 Vaccination in Japan’ provides some further background on the nation with the highest uptake of covid-19 mRNA vaccines in the world. The Japanese had received 3.6 doses per capita by March 2024, compared to 2.5 doses per capita in New Zealand. Around 80% of the population was vaccinated, the average figure equates to a range between 0-8 covid-19 mRNA vaccines per person. 

As we have previously reported in our article ‘The Unthinking Faith in Biotechnology and AI’, Japan now has the highest rate of excess deaths in the world. From January 2020 to March 2024, there have been a cumulative 350,000 excess deaths or 2,730 excess deaths per million. This rate is three times higher than in the USA, where mRNA vaccination uptake was significantly lower, and two times higher than in New Zealand.

mRNA covid-19 vaccination was the flagship product of the vast biotechnology industry designed to cement a biotechnology era of novel medicines, long life and new channels to gain economic prosperity. But the vaccine did not stop the spread of covid-19 infection and its administration has been accompanied by a rate of reported adverse effects unprecedented in history. Initial claims that the vaccine was saving millions of lives have since been debunked. The preposterous 14 million lives saved claim promoted by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) has now been downgraded by the study of Ioannidis et al. to somewhere around 2.5 million and confined to older people. Even this lower figure is, in turn, now being robustly questioned in the review literature. mRNA vaccination was not just a failure; it was deadly.

Flagship Biotech Companies Are Failing

As a result, it is hard to escape the notion that the global biotechnology industry, with a current market valuation of US$1.74 trillion grossly inflated by speculation, has become a headless chicken, still running around while effectively dead. There are more than 20,000 biotechnology start-ups, mostly funded by governments but also by private investment in the most active biotechnology nations. These include the USA, China, India, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, the UK, Finland, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Japan.

In the US alone, more than 2 million people are employed in the biotechnology sector. Following the dismal and dire results of mRNA technology, the investors, scientists and bio technocrats are being forced to face the reality of failure. Take Arena Bioworks, for example, a company launched in January 2024 with huge fanfare and US$500 million of funding. It included the support of billionaires and the participation of a galaxy of highly credentialed biotechnology scientists. Arena’s announced intention was to become the “Bell Labs” of biotechnology “to simply do nothing but science” to “tackle the [world’s] most daunting problems.”

In March of this year, Arena laid off 10% of its workforce; two days ago, a further 30% were laid off. A spokesperson for Arena confirmed the cuts will mostly affect cell and gene therapy work which was, until the reality of adverse effects began to bite, the flagship programme of biotechnology research around which its supposed health claims revolved.

Keep reading

Big Pharma heir Andre Hoffmann joins BlackRock CEO to drive WEF’s Agenda 2030 overhaul

Following the World Economic Forum (WEF) announcement to appoint interim co-chairs, much of the public focus has been on BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, but not so much on Andre Hoffmann, who is a Swiss billionaire and heir to the fifth largest pharmaceutical company on the planet, Roche.

With last April’s departure of Klaus Schwab from the board of trustees of the organization he founded over 50 years ago, the WEF briefly appointed former Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe as interim chairman.

Fast forward four months to August 15, 2025, and the WEF introduced two new interim co-chairs, billionaires Larry Fink and Andre Hoffmann.

“We believe the Forum can serve as a unique catalyst for cooperation, one that fosters trust, identifies shared goals, and turns dialogue into action.” — Larry Fink & Andre Hoffmann, WEF, August 2025

With an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion, Fink is the CEO of the largest asset management company in the world, BlackRock, managing some $11.6 trillion in assets.

And with an estimated net worth of $8.13 billion, Hoffmann is the vice chairman of F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the fifth largest pharmaceutical company by revenue in the world, just behind Pfizer.

Together, Fink and Hoffmann issued a statement saying that “the need for a platform that brings together business, government, and civil society has never been greater,” and that they “believe the Forum can serve as a unique catalyst for cooperation, one that fosters trust, identifies shared goals, and turns dialogue into action.”

The WEF leadership page says that in their work on the board of trustees, “members do not represent any personal or professional interests.”

However, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the business dealings of the new interim co-chairs align with multiple WEF agendas, from net zero and ESG to stakeholder capitalism and the U.N. Agenda 2030.

Keep reading

Minneapolis Murder – When Will Investigators Reveal Mental Health and Drug History of Shooter?

How many times will the nation have to suffer through another senseless mass murder and listen to the same lame excuses for the attacker’s motives? Twenty-three-year-old Robert Westman, aka Robin, killed two kids and wounded many others at an early morning attack on Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis yesterday and already we are being overloaded with the same blather.

We’ve seen these attacks and heard the same old tired arguments against guns and the “trans” status of the shooter. What we don’t hear, what is never discussed, is the mental health history of the shooter and, of course, the psychiatric drugs that may have been prescribed that could account for the murderous behavior. Why?

That’s easy. The mainstream media isn’t going to raise the issue of mental health and prescription psychiatric drugs because that’s how the salaries of the talking heads are paid. One only needs to turn on any of the cable or mainstream media sources and it takes minutes before the pharmaceutical commercials begin. Let’s face it, how would Sean Hannity, for example, be paid his enormous salary without the millions in advertising paid to Fox News by the pharmaceutical industry?

But of course, it’s much more sinister. The nation is addicted to a failed mental health model of diagnose and drug. In fact, after every mass shooting, there are cries for the need of “more mental health funding!” What most people don’t understand is that the entire mental health model, that has been used for the last fifty years, is built on fraud. That’s right, fraud.

There is no science to any psychiatric diagnosis. There is no abnormality in the brain that is any alleged psychiatric disorder, and the alleged “chemical imbalance” was, thankfully, completely debunked in 2022 by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff as a myth that was never supported by scientific evidence.

Making the fraud of the psychiatric diagnosis worse is that the pharmaceutical industry jumped on board with psychiatric drugs sold as “treatment” for the alleged mental disorders. The problem with selling the antidepressants, stimulants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs as “treatment” is that the pharmaceutical companies admit that they have no idea how the drugs “work” as “treatment” for the alleged disorder. Will the drugs change behavior? Yes, but so will illegal drugs.  What people need to understand is that yes, they are depressed, suffering from anxiety and wiggling in their seat, but that doesn’t mean there is an abnormality. There isn’t an abnormality, and these drugs don’t treat one.

The drugs sold as “treatment,” however, come with an ever-expanding list of possible adverse events. First, for example, antidepressants that “treat” depression carry a black box warning (the most serious warning issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before a drug is pulled from the market) for suicidality. That’s right, the drug taken to “treat” depression can cause the patient to commit suicide. The drug also can cause depression, the very behavior the drug is prescribed to “treat.” You can’t make this up. But there are other possible dangerous, life-threatening adverse events associated with antidepressants, including aggressive reaction, aggression, agitation, anxiety, depersonalization, mania, paranoia, abnormal dreams/thinking, psychotic disorder and psychosis to name a few. And similar devastating possible side effects are attached to all the other categories of prescription psychiatric drugs, too.

The question that needs to be answered in the case of the Minneapolis shooter, and all the others, is what is the mental health history, what is the prescription drug history, and, in the case of “trans” shooters, one would want to know at what stage of the transition the shooter is in. The adverse effects of mixing psychiatric drugs and hormone drugs are still not fully understood and could contribute to the state of mind of the shooter.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. investigating if drugs taken in Robin Westman’s transition played ‘a role’ in Minneapolis mass shooting

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed Thursday that he has ordered an investigation into whether drugs that transgender shooter Robin Westman was taking during his transition could have played “a role” in his depraved violence.

“We are doing those kind of studies now,” he told “Fox & Friends” when asked if it was possible drugs taken during Westman’s transition played “a role” in him shooting up his former Catholic school’s first Mass of the year Wednesday.

“We are launching studies into their potential contribution,” he said in a response to a question noting that another recent school shooter, Audrey Hale, was also transgender.

The Health and Human Services secretary did not reveal if it was known what drugs Westman or Hale had taken, if any.

However, he noted a wider concern about Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) used to treat depression.

“Some of the SSRI drugs and some other psychiatric drugs might be contributing to violence,” he warned.

“Many of them have black-box warnings that warn of suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation. So we can’t exclude those as a culprit, and those are the kind of studies we are doing,” he said.

Such studies had been slowed by strict patient confidentiality rules, he noted — while stressing that his department had authority to go around them to investigate possible links between such medications and mental diseases

“There was no time in the past when people would walk into a church or a classroom and start shooting people,” he said. “It’s not really happening in other countries, it’s happening here. And we need to look at all of the potential culprits that might be contributing to that.”

Keep reading

Mass Killers May Be Telling Us Something — But Are We Listening?

In the wake of yet another mass killing—the tragic event at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on August 27, 2025, where two children were murdered and 17 others injured—the public discourse often zeroes in on guns, manifestos, and societal failures.

But amid the clamor, a critical question seems to have faded from view: What role might legal and illegal drugs, and toxic exposures play in the volatile mix that drives some individuals to violence?

For years, reporters routinely probed the medical histories of perpetrators, revealing patterns of psychiatric drug use. Today, that line of inquiry has largely vanished, even as evidence mounts that certain medications carry warnings for suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior, and environmental toxins disrupt brain function. Ignoring these factors not only overlooks potential triggers but also misses opportunities to prevent future tragedies through better data collection and analysis.

When Medications Were Front and Center

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, mass killings prompted immediate questions about the perpetrators’ mental health treatments, including any prescribed drugs. This was partly because many suspects exhibited clear signs of mental illness, and their medications often came under the microscope.

For instance, in the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people, Harris had been prescribed the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine), an SSRI known for potential side effects like agitation.

Similarly, in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High School shooting, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, who killed nine others before taking his own life, was on Prozac (fluoxetine), another SSRI.

Kip Kinkel, the 15-year-old behind the 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Oregon that left two dead and 25 injured, had also been prescribed Prozac.

These cases weren’t anomalies.

A compilation by advocacy groups like AbleChild lists over a dozen similar incidents, including the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people, had a history of mental health treatment and was prescribed antidepressants, though details on his actual compliance history was spotty.

In the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, James Holmes, who murdered 12 and injured 70, was under psychiatric care and had been prescribed sertraline (Zoloft), an antidepressant linked to manic episodes in some users.

Reporting at the time often highlighted these details, fueling debates about whether the drugs—intended to alleviate depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder—could instead exacerbate violent impulses in vulnerable individuals.

This scrutiny aligned with emerging FDA warnings. In 2004, the agency mandated black-box labels on antidepressants, alerting users to increased risks of suicidal thoughts and behavior, particularly in young people. Some experts, like psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have long argued that SSRIs can induce violence and mania in a subset of patients, citing akathisia—a state of severe restlessness—as a potential trigger. A 2015 Swedish study of over 850,000 people found that antidepressants were associated with violent crime in 11,225 cases, though causality remains debated.

Keep reading

AAP Received Tens of Millions in Federal Funding to Push Vaccines and Combat ‘Misinformation’

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is suing U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and has called for the end to religious exemptions, received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in a single year, according to public records.

AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.

Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, and highlight telehealth for children.

However, not all of the money could be tracked through public records.

The federal grants are in addition to financial contributions the AAP receives from several major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi.

Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, said the joint funding that the AAP receives from taxpayers and Big Pharma “reflects a troubling alignment between its policy positions and the interests of its largest funders — both federal agencies and pharmaceutical corporations.”

Keep reading

What ACIP Wasn’t Shown

In June 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held its first meeting under the new leadership appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The public expectation was clear: that this newly appointed committee would restore rigor, independence, and critical examination of evidence before recommending routine use of new pharmaceutical products.

One of the most significant items on the agenda was whether to recommend Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody, Clesrovimab, for routine use in healthy newborns. Though marketed as a new product, it is nearly identical in structure and function to Sanofi–AstraZeneca’s nirsevimab, approved in 2023.

The committee ultimately voted 5 to 2 in favor of the recommendation. That vote followed a CDC presentation, which framed the safety data as reassuring, leading most members to conclude there were no outstanding safety concerns. 

But was that reassurance justified? And on what exactly was it based?

The Seizure Signal, and How It Was Presented

During its June 2025 meeting, ACIP members were shown a safety slide from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), focusing on seizures after administration of nirsevimab. The data were split into two age groups: infants aged 0-37 days and those aged 38 days to under 8 months. Each group showed elevated risk ratios for seizures (3.50 and 4.38, respectively), but both were labeled “not significant.” No pooled analysis was displayed.

However, as Dr. Maryanne Demasi later reported, combining the two groups into a single cohort yields a very different picture: a nearly four-fold increase in seizure risk (RR 3.93, 95% CI 1.21–12.79, p=0.02), a result that is statistically significant. That consolidated signal was never presented to the committee.

The decision to stratify at 38 days – precisely the point in US schedules when routine infant vaccinations begin – had no clear biological justification, and by dispersing the signal across two smaller groups, it effectively erased the statistical significance.

A second design choice compounded the problem. The CDC’s analysis applied a self-controlled risk interval with only the first 7 days designated as “risk” and days 8-21 treated as the “control” period. Any seizure occurring on day 8 or later was thus counted against the background rate, even though such timing could plausibly reflect a product-related effect. Standard pharmacovigilance practice calls for testing multiple windows, not a single narrow cutoff.

These analytical decisions mattered. The vote to recommend clesrovimab passed 5-2. Had members been shown the pooled seizure risk alongside the consistent trial-level imbalances in nervous system events, shifting just two votes would have changed the outcome.

Finally, as Demasi emphasized, the concern is not confined to one brand. Given the structural similarity between nirsevimab and clesrovimab, the seizure risk is likely a class effect. This means the omission of the pooled analysis did not just obscure a statistical detail. It withheld information with direct implications for every RSV monoclonal antibody now in use.

These findings emerged only through independent reanalysis. Without Dr. Demasi’s work, they may have remained unknown – not only to the public, but even to ACIP members casting their votes.

Keep reading