A former Australian member of Parliament came out and said Pfizer and AstraZeneca are paying lobbyists to direct Australia’s leaders to push vaccine mandates.Clive Palmer, leader of the United Australia Party claimed ousted New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian was told she wouldn’t be charged in a corruption probe if she imposed a vaccine mandate.Palmer made these statements a couple weeks ago but it has garnered a lot of attention this weekend after Berejiklian resigned in disgrace following a corruption probe.Two weeks ago, Palmer said Pfizer and AstraZeneca were paying lobbyists tens of millions of dollars to direct Australia’s liberal leaders to push the double jab.According to Palmer, Berejiklian, who was under a corruption probe by the ICAC at the time, was told if she imposed strict lockdowns and vaccine mandates, she wouldn’t be charged.Shortly before Berejiklian resigned, she told Sydney residents that if they don’t take the Covid jab, they face total social isolation indefinitely after the stay-at-home order ends in December.Berejiklian made history for overseeing one of the most fascistic regimes in modern history like nothing we have witnessed in the Western world.It appears she was bowing to Big Pharma lobbyists and special interest groups once again proving Covid mandates have NOTHING to do with science or saving lives.Clive Palmer told reporters of Berejiklian: “The only way she gets out of the inquiry is if she pushes the double jab.”A lefty reporter pushed back on Clive Palmer: “You think the premier of New South Wales is trying to destroy businesses?”“I do,” Palmer replied. “She’s being directed by lobbyists in Sydney, who is being paid by AstraZeneca and by Pfizer tens of millions of dollars to get these policies through, to make sure the vaccines get pushed…that’s my personal knowledge and I’m happy to make a statement here, to police, to anyone.”
Tag: big pharma
Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Strip Vaccine Manufacturers of Nationwide Liability Immunity
On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced federal legislation that would dismantle the long-standing liability protections shielding vaccine manufacturers from civil lawsuits in the United States.
CDC data confirm millions of injury reports submitted following vaccination, though an HHS–Harvard Pilgrim analysis concluded the agency’s vaccine tracking system captures fewer than 1% of adverse events.
The bill, S.3853, formally titled “A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to end the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers, and for other purposes,” was introduced on February 11, 2026, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
The measure is cosponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
If enacted, the legislation would amend federal law to remove legal protections that have insulated vaccine manufacturers from product-liability lawsuits since 1986.
The Legal Structure Targeted
The liability shield stems from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
Under that framework, individuals claiming vaccine-related injury must generally pursue claims through a federal compensation system rather than through traditional civil litigation.
Manufacturers are broadly protected from design-defect claims and most tort actions in state courts.
The legal architecture was justified at the time as necessary to prevent vaccine market collapse amid rising lawsuits.
S.3853 would directly amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate those protections.
Although the full statutory text has not yet been published, the bill’s title makes clear that its purpose is not procedural reform but termination of the federal liability shield itself.
Moderna threatens American jobs after FDA snubs mRNA flu shot, trial looked ‘scientifically lax’
For years before he became director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, epidemiologist Vinay Prasad openly railed against what he perceived as the shoddy design of drug trials and the deference regulators gave them, sending biotech stocks tumbling when Commissioner Marty Makary appointed him.
A vaccine maker that hit the federal jackpot during COVID-19 acted caught off-guard when the former University of California San Francisco medical professor put his gripes into practice, halting its FDA application for a new mRNA flu vaccine based on what he considered weak trial design.
Moderna accused Prasad, who described his predecessor Peter Marks as a “bobblehead” for drug approval, of changing the rules in the middle of the game by refusing to review its biologics license application (BLA) without citing “specific safety or efficacy concerns.”
Prasad’s Feb. 3 “refusal to file” letter – which Moderna posted a week later on its COVID resources page for some reason – says the FDA warned the company before it even started the mRNA flu trial that the proposed design raised red flags.
“CBER does not consider the application to contain a trial ‘adequate and well-controlled’ and the application is therefore, on its’ [sic] face, inadequate for review,” because the control arm “does not reflect the best-available standard of care in the United States at the time of the study,” Prasad said, which was “consistent with FDA’s advice” before the study.
This was just the agency’s “preliminary review of the application and is not indicative of deficiencies that would be identified later,” when the FDA conducts a “substantive review,” Prasad emphasized, implying fresh hurdles for Moderna even if it runs a new trial.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel responded with his own thinly veiled threat against Prasad, who had already left the administration once under assault from populist and corporate conservatives who blasted his avowed support for progressive policies and more regulation before Prasad joined the administration.
CBER’s decision, which Bancel reiterated “did not identify any safety or efficacy concerns with our product, does not further our shared goal of enhancing America’s leadership in developing innovative medicines,” said the billionaire Frenchman, who came to Boston-based Moderna from French diagnostics company BioMerieux.
“We look forward to engaging with CBER to understand the path forward as quickly as possible so that America’s seniors, and those with underlying conditions, continue to have access to American-made innovations,” Bancel said, hinting the company would take jobs overseas if the FDA continued its current trajectory.
Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Just the News Moderna ignored “very clear FDA guidance from 2024 to test its product in a clinical trial against a CDC-recommended flu vaccine to compare safety and efficacy.”
The Most Unsettling Reality About Modern Medicine
There’s a reason doctors love pushing vaccines. The more they inject, the more money they make.
The foot traffic alone brings in big money, but there’s another perverse incentive, and once you hear it, it will make you angry.
RFK Jr. explains: “Pediatricians who vaccinate 80-85% of the kids in their office, get these giant bonuses… And that’s why they throw you out of the office if you fight back…You’ll lose them their bonuses.”
Sadly, these perverse financial incentives aren’t limited to vaccines but across many areas of medicine.
Dig a little deeper, and another disturbing pattern appears. And once you see it, you’re left gobsmacked by how dark modern medicine has become.
The video below is haunting—not because the doctor in it is malicious, but because she genuinely believes she’s helping.
She’s an MD with a Master’s in Public Health, a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a former leader at Georgetown. Her language is warm. Her intentions seem pure.
Yet this interview perfectly captures how public health has lost its way.
After conquering most deadly contagious diseases, it turned toward chronic illness—and failed.
Instead of questioning why children are getting sicker, it doubled down on vaccinating more, earlier, and without dissent, often dismissing safety concerns as heresy.
Watch this video. Then ask yourself what matters more in modern medicine: children’s outcomes—or institutional certainty.
Hims and Hers Stops Offering Semaglutide Drugs Following FDA Scrutiny
Telehealth business Hims and Hers will stop offering customers pills made of compounded semaglutide, which is used for weight loss and diabetes control, the company said in a Feb. 7 post on X.
Compounded drugs are medications created by licensed pharmacists or physicians by mixing and combining the various ingredients of a drug. These are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as a result of which their safety, quality, and effectiveness remain suspect. Semaglutide is the active ingredient of medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy, which are GLP-1 drugs used to treat diabetes and weight loss.
On Feb. 5, Hims and Hers announced it was offering compounded semaglutide to customers.
“This new option features a specialized formulation that is engineered to protect the active ingredient through digestion and support absorption,” it said.
The company offered introductory plans beginning at $49 from the first month, with a 5-month plan. Hims and Hers claimed it adhered to “all federal and state standards for compounding.” Moreover, all active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the compounded drugs are exclusively sourced from facilities registered with the FDA, according to the company.
In a Feb. 5 post on X, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said the agency would take “swift action” against companies that mass-market copycat drugs with a claim that they are similar to FDA-approved products.
Racketeering Scheme?: Vaccine Makers Profit Twice by Selling Drugs to Treat Vaccine Injuries
A lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) alleges that the AAP’s aggressive promotion of childhood vaccines created a “closed-loop” business model that set up pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccines and from drugs used to treat vaccine injuries.
The lawsuit alleges the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, by running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
A “racket” exists when a service creates its own demand, according to the complaint.
In this case, the same companies that make pediatric vaccines have also acquired companies that develop treatments for autoimmune disorders, allergies and neurodevelopmental conditions — conditions recognized in vaccine package inserts as adverse events that occurred during clinical trials or in post-marketing studies.
The complaint cites Pfizer’s 2016 acquisition of Anacor Pharmaceuticals for $5.2 billion. Anacor makes Eucrisa, a drug that treats eczema. At the time, Eucrisa was approved for 2-year-olds. It was later approved for babies as young as 3 months.
Post-marketing data have linked vaccines — including GlaxoSmithKline’s ENGERIX-B hepatitis B vaccine — to eczema, according to the complaint. Research studies have also linked the condition to the COVID-19 and measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccines.
In another example, Sanofi in 2020 spent $3.7 billion to acquire Principia Biopharma, developer of an experimental therapy for immune thrombocytopenia, an autoimmune blood disorder.
Ozempic’s HIDDEN DANGERS: Weight Loss Jabs Linked To HIGHER Risks of Cancer, Heart Issues, And Chronic Disease
Big Pharma’s miracle injections are under fire again as new research uncovers how Ozempic and similar GLP-1 drugs could be setting users up for severe long-term health traps.
A new study suggests that slamming the brakes on appetite, these medications risk starving the body of essential nutrients, paving the way for elevated dangers of heart problems, chronic illnesses, and even certain cancers.
It’s another stark reminder of how the medical-industrial complex prioritizes profits over genuine wellness, leaving Americans to pay the price.
In a landscape where synthetic fixes are pushed over real food and lifestyle reforms, this revelation is stark. With millions hooked on these jabs, the findings demand scrutiny—especially as the media downplays the risks while pushing the hype.
A recent review by Australia’s Hunter Medical Research Institute and the University of Newcastle analyzed 41 randomized controlled trials on popular GLP-1/GIP medications spanning the last 17 years.
Shockingly, only two studies tracked dietary intake among adults, and one remains unpublished. This glaring “blind spot” highlights how little we know about the nutritional impacts of these drugs, despite their skyrocketing use.
The core issue is appetite suppression. While users shed weight, they often consume far fewer calories and nutrients, leading to deficiencies that can trigger inflammation, metabolic chaos, and heightened vulnerability to serious conditions.
As the researchers warn, inadequate nutrition “can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic complications, inflammation and long-term chronic conditions, including some cancers.”
At least half a million Australians are jabbing these drugs monthly, amid ongoing shortages. In the U.S., the numbers are even higher, with Ozempic and its cousins like Mounjaro becoming go-to prescriptions for obesity and diabetes.
Separate studies have already flagged mixed signals on direct cancer links. A 2025 JAMA Oncology paper found GLP-1 drugs associated with an overall 17% lower cancer risk, but with a potential uptick in kidney cancer.
Funding Disparities Rebrands American Gifted Children as Mentally Ill & Paris Hilton Doesn’t Help
America is starving for gifted education while financially rewarding psychiatric labeling. While bringing attention to the ADHD issue is appreciated, Paris Hilton’s recent Business Insider interview admitting “ADHD is my superpower” is a message wrongly pushing the alleged mental disorder as some kind of empowerment.
It is of interest that Hilton would raise the ADHD mental disorder to superpower status while, at the same time, the United States is significantly underfunding gifted education and financially incentivizing psychiatric labeling practices. High-profile figures, like Hilton, who frames ADHD as her “superpower,” contribute visibility to a growing trend in how behavioral conditions are marketed as sources of empowerment.
Hilton describes ADHD as fueling her “drive, curiosity, and creativity,” along with “a million ideas all the time.” She also mentions “rejection-sensitive dysphoria” (intense unbearable emotional pain caused by perceived rejection) as linked to ADHD, calling it “exhausting” and “painful.”
The financial disparities between ADHD funding and gifted programs are telling. The U.S. Department of Education’s appropriation for the Javits Gifted and Talented program is just $16.5 million, compared to estimates that ADHD services cost the U.S. education system $13.4 billion annually. The current system prioritizes mental health funding for diagnosis over the identification of superior educational ability.
Crucially, the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis lacks an objective biological marker… no blood test, brain scan, or X-ray. Put simply, there is no known abnormality that is the alleged ADHD. Instead, diagnoses rely on behavioral checklists and school-based screenings, broadening the label and creating pathways for the behavioral health industry and pharmaceutical market within educational settings.
This system warrants scrutiny beyond treatment facilities; it must also include how labeling pipelines shape outcomes. When behaviors are categorized as disorders, questionable mind-altering medication becomes the default intervention, steering children away from educational opportunities and toward clinical drug management.
Many gifted children, who often display heightened sensitivity and intensity, are instead mislabeled as having behavioral disorders. Characteristics such as defiance, oppositional behavior, hyperactivity, mood fluctuations, and attention difficulties—traits frequently seen in gifted individuals—are too often misinterpreted as pathology. Once labeled, these children are managed clinically rather than nurtured academically, a process perpetuated by the financial incentives inherent in current mental health policy, where the disparity between funding for education opportunities for the gifted receives a little more than $16 million, while ADHD-related programs enjoy nearly $14 billion in funding.
The widespread misdiagnosis of the nation’s gifted is consequential. When institutions classify gifted students as psychiatrically disordered, subject them to medication, and lower academic expectations, the result is lasting harm to individual lives and societal potential.
Historically, under President Eisenhower with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the U.S. prioritized identifying high-ability students, supporting guidance and testing within schools. However, legislative priorities shifted under pressure from behavioral-health and pharmaceutical interests, moving schools away from talent identification toward managing behavior through diagnostic labeling and medication.
The funding imbalance suggests that gifted students are not overlooked by happenstance and, rather, are systematically converted into patients within a lucrative behavioral management industry.
The Information War Over Antidepressants
Stat News hit the ethical and scientific bottom two weeks ago when they published an article by Stephen B. Soumerai, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Christine Y. Lu, professor at the Sydney Pharmacy School of the University of Sydney.1
I have rarely seen so much disinformation in so few words, only 1,220. I reproduce the article in its entirety, in italics, with my comments.
I do not consider Stat News a reliable news source. It has corporate ties, and despite its name, it has nothing to do with statistics, which I thought for ten years till I looked it up. Stat is short for Statim, which means immediate in Latin.
The two professors have forgotten that professors have an obligation towards society to be honest conveyors of science. Their article is propaganda of the worst kind, which is apparent already in its title and subtitle:
RFK Jr.’s war on antidepressants is coming – and it will cost lives. Kennedy’s rhetoric is not only based on bad science, it fuels distrust in mental health treatments.
It is primitive and a no-go for scientists to raise their voice by using war rhetoric but they continue with this in the first sentence of the article:
While his war on vaccines may be getting more attention, health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is coming for another important medical tool: antidepressants. In November, he posted on X that the CDC is “finally confronting the long-taboo question of whether SSRIs and other psychoactive drugs contribute to mass violence.” We fear that in 2026, he may turn his rhetoric into action.
Kennedy has not started a war on vaccines.2-6 As health secretary, he has taken rational, much needed, and evidence-based initiatives. He fired the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) because it rubber-stamped all proposals that came to them and because some members had conflicts of interest in relation to vaccine manufacturers and other drug companies; dropped the much too broad recommendations for the Covid vaccine; cut funding for mRNA vaccines; stopped recommending the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns; and reduced the huge childhood vaccine schedule that made the US an outlier compared to Europe.
Moreover, it is well documented that SSRIs and other psychoactive drugs can cause violence.7-11 For antidepressants, the violence is dose-related,11 and it is highly relevant to study their role in mass shootings. Unfortunately, the authorities routinely refuse to release information about what drugs the mass murderers were on. It has become taboo to mention that psychiatric drugs kill people, indeed to such an extent that they are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer (much because elderly people may lose balance, break their hip, and die).12
Texas AG Starts Investigation Into Vaccine-Related Financial Incentives
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Jan. 21 said he’s investigating incentives related to vaccinating children.
Paxton’s office said in a statement that the probe will cover pediatricians, insurers, vaccine companies, and other entities “engaged in deceptive or unlawful conduct by failing to disclose financial incentives connected to their administration of childhood vaccines.”
It noted that some pediatricians kick out families that refuse to adhere to a vaccine schedule and that doctors can receive bonuses for vaccinating.
An Epoch Times investigation found that insurers have offered bonuses as high as $400 per child as an incentive to vaccinate patients.
Paxton is issuing civil investigative demands for information to companies, including UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer.
“I will ensure that Big Pharma and Big Insurance don’t bribe medical providers to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines they feel aren’t safe or necessary,” Paxton said in a statement.
He said that Texans “deserve to have full faith in the recommendations of their medical providers—particularly when it involves the health of their children” and that “any provider or entity whose medical guidance is fueled by financial incentives from an insurance company, Big Pharma, or otherwise will be exposed.”
Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for more information.
UnitedHealthcare had said in a document, which was taken down after The Epoch Times’ story was published, that doctors were eligible for bonuses for patients who received vaccines against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and human papillomavirus.
The Epoch Times reached out to UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer for comment, but they did not respond by publication time.
Studies have found that vaccinations can be profitable, including a 2020 paper. Some doctors have said in surveys that they can lose money on vaccines due to certain factors, such as low reimbursements.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.