Tag: coronavirus

ACIP Launches Sweeping Covid-19 Vaccine Review Under Retsef Levi

MIT professor Retsef Levi has been an outspoken voice on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee (ACIP) since its dramatic overhaul in June.

He has pressed agency officials on uncomfortable questions, challenging the narrow surveillance windows used to track harms and insisting that delayed effects could not simply be ruled out.

He also raised concerns about the safety of RSV monoclonal antibodies after clinical trials showed a clear imbalance in infant deaths.

Now, Levi is no longer just a dissenter.

He has been appointed chair of the CDC’s new Covid-19 vaccine working group, and with today’s release of its Terms of Reference, the scale of his task has come into sharp focus.

Under the guidance of Levi and his colleagues, the ACIP working group now has a mandate unlike anything the committee has ever undertaken.

For the first time, federal advisers will investigate the unresolved issues that have dogged the vaccines since their rushed rollout in late 2020.

From DNA contamination in the manufacturing process to the persistence of spike protein and mRNA in the body, from immune class switching following repeated boosting to safety in pregnancy, cardiovascular risks, and long-term disability, the list of questions is as sweeping as it is sensitive. (full list below)

The Terms of Reference stretch far beyond the narrow remit that characterised ACIP’s early deliberations, when myocarditis was acknowledged as the only confirmed harm and most safety reviews stopped at 42 days.

Levi and his team are now tasked with probing long-term outcomes, mapping vaccine policies around the world, and assessing, to what extent, years of official reassurances about safety and efficacy hold up against emerging data.

It is a striking reversal for the CDC and the FDA.

Keep reading

Yale’s Censored Vaccine Injury Research and the Urgent Need for Scientific Reform

One premier research group has bravely studied the vaccine-injured and provided many critical details about their multi-year illnesses.

•Unfortunately, despite their excellent research, medical journals have refused to publish their results, including the most recent study which showed clear differences exist between long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

•Science is ultimately predicated upon the methods we use discern what is actually true (epistemology). As this subject has been neglected, our epistemological standards frequently result in existing dogmas and vested interests being reaffirmed while critically important data never reaches the public awareness (e.g., due to widespread medical journal censorship).

•During COVID-19, the severe abuses of the scientific community (which ultimately resulted from it having no accountability for failing to uphold its social responsibilities) broke the public trust in science, and allowed something previously inconceivable—MAHA to gain control of our corrupt scientific apparatus and have a mandate to reform it.

•NIH director Jay Bhattacharya has announced his commitment to fixing the scientific apparatus and has engaged in a variety of NIH initiatives and public discussions which are vital to allowing science to serve the people rather than vested-interests.

Yale’s medical school is widely considered to have one of the top autoimmunity research and treatment programs in America. As long COVID is considered to be immunological in nature, their researchers extensively studied it, and remarkably some of them then pivoted to also studying vaccine injuries (in part because the COVID vaccines rather than curing long COVID patients, sometimes made them much worse). A few days ago, they finished a new research paper on the subject, but like their previous ones, it was immediately summarily rejected by the “reputable” journals it was submitted to (including the one I feel was the most obligated to publish these findings). In this article, I aim to cover the importance of their most recent results and, more important, examine what their habitual censorship reveals about science in general.

Keep reading

Same Excess Death Patterns in Multiple Data Sets after mRNA Vaccine Rollouts

This article is based on the painstaking and meticulous work of intrepid researcher and Substack writer csofand. I will refer to him as “the researcher,” as he prefers to remain anonymous.

I am also grateful for the assistance of citizen researcher/journalist Benjamin Marten, who generously shared his VAERS data queries and results with me.

Why am I writing about excess mortality associated with Covid mRNA vaccines?

Recently, I was talking to some friends about various Covid topics and casually mentioned deaths and disabilities associated with the mRNA vaccines, as documented by the company that made them. My friends, who are somewhat open to Covid skepticism but have not explored the subject very thoroughly, and are still ensconced in the corporate media bubble, were taken aback. “You mean people died from the vaccines?” they asked incredulously.

Which, for me, raised the question: How can we still be arguing about this?

I hope the information compiled here can help put an end to the question of whether or not Covid mRNA vaccines harm and kill people.

What Is “Excess Mortality”?

According to Wikipedia, excess mortality is an epidemiological term that means “the increase in the number of deaths during a time period and/or in a certain group, as compared to the expected value or statistical trend during a reference period (typically of five years) or in a reference population.”

Simply put, it means more deaths than expected based on previous trends and future projections. As it relates to Covid-19, starting very early in 2020, a major topic of concern became how much excess mortality was caused by the disease (whether or not the disease actually caused a lot of excess mortality is a separate issue). After 2020, with near universal exposure to the novel coronavirus, and the rollout of a global vaccination campaign, excess mortality was expected to go back down. Instead, it increased.

Keep reading

The Case of the Damning FDA Memos

On July 21, 2025, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) announced that it had secured the release of over 600,000 pages of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) data used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize and approve Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2), following a successful lawsuit, culminating in a late 2024 court ruling.

These documents, now publicly available on ICAN’s website, are part of a broader release of over 1.6 million pages, including data from the vaccine’s licensure in August 2021 and the earlier EUA in December 2020.

This report builds on my prior investigative work analyzing thousands of FDA documents released following the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) lawsuit, which focused on the biological product file submitted by Pfizer for the full approval of its COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021.

I was one of the initial researchers to uncover and analyse the damning data hidden within Pfizer’s Pregnancy & Lactation Cumulative Review, Interim-Narrative-Sensitive document (3000+ pages), and Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports document, among others.

Both ICAN and PHMPT’s lawsuits sought to make public the FDA’s data on the Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 shot, asserting that transparency is critical for public trust and independent analysis, given the global administration of billions of doses of this experimental gene-based product that was mandated in several countries.

My preliminary review of ICAN’s EUA data reveals several irregularities, outlined below with references to key documents and downloadable sources. This report focuses on four critical issues: manufacturing oversight gaps, missing Bell’s palsy data, clinical trial site deficiencies, and the exclusion of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases.

Keep reading

Another Mexican Politician Facing U.S. Federal Fraud Charges

A Mexican politician is out on bond as he faces federal fraud charges in Texas for allegations that he used COVID-era loans to buy cryptocurrency. The politician, his wife, and various other South Texas business owners are accused of obtaining fraudulent loans during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were intended to support failing businesses, but were instead used for personal gain.

Court records revealed that 46-year-old Bernando Gomez Jr. and his wife, 42-year-old Lesley Chavez, allegedly took out nearly $200,000 in Paycheck Protection Program loans during the COVID-19 pandemic and then used them for personal expenses, including buying cryptocurrency. Gomez, who lives in Edinburg, Texas, is a sitting city councilman in the Mexican City of Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas, where he serves as a close advisor to local Mayor Miguel Angel Almaraz.

Court documents indicate that Gomez and Chavez own several entertainment and service businesses, including a wedding planning service, a rental company, and a print shop.

Federal prosecutors allege that in June 2020 and May 2020, they obtained a series of government loans through the Small Business Administration aimed at helping businesses survive the COVID-19 Pandemic. The government then forgave those loans after the business owners allegedly filed documents claiming that the money had been used for legitimate purposes such as paying employees and other similar expenses. After receiving those three loans, totaling $150,000, $40,800, and $20,800, they transferred the funds to different accounts, which they then used for personal expenses and, in the case of Gomez, to purchase cryptocurrency.

After their arrests, both Gomez and Chavez went before U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, who set their bonds at $100,000. Both have been released as they await trial.

Gomez is currently a member of Mexico’s National Action Party (PAN), one of the major opposition parties in Mexico that has been at odds with the current ruling party, MORENA.

Keep reading

Court Upholds Nearly $1 Million Fine Against Restaurant That Ignored Pandemic Indoor Dining Ban

A Washington state restaurant that ignored a 2020 state COVID-19 pandemic order must pay a fine of $936,000 – $18,000 per day, for each day it remained in operation while the state’s emergency order banning indoor dining was in place, an appeals court has ruled.

The ban, imposed in late 2020 by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), went into effect following a jump in cases and hospitalizations (unaudited!). In response, the owners of Stuffy’s II restaurant, Bud and Glenda Duling, ignored the order – resulting in the financial punishment. 

The fine was levied by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries – which the Dulings say they cannot pay. Meanwhile, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals did not have their back, refusing to weigh in after saying they don’t have the authority to deal with constitutional matters. A superior court judge upheld the decision.

Despite providing tax returns showing that it operated at a loss in 2020 and received a PPP loan, the court ruled that the Dulings have not provided evidence that their company cannot pay the fines.

“Duling has not demonstrated that it is unable to pay the fine or that the fine is excessive,” Judge Rebecca Glasgow wrote for the unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the State of Washington judges that considered the case. “There is nothing in the record about what savings or assets Duling had,” Glasow continued, adding “Duling had ample opportunities to provide additional documentation and deposition testimony to support its contention that it was unable to pay the fine, and it did not do so.”

Keep reading

American Academy Of Pediatrics Pushes COVID-19 Vax For All Infants

In stark contrast to reality, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – which is heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, recommended on Tuesday that young children, including infants, receive the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that children are minimally impacted by the virus, the fact that the vaccine doesn’t prevent one from contracting it, and that it largely only helps the elderly and medically fragile from severe cases.

According to the organization, all children ages 6-23 months should receive the COVID-19 vaccine – regardless of whether they have natural immunity from prior infection, unless they have a contraindication such as a history of severe allergic reaction to a vaccine ingredient. 

While the recommendation is universal, the group said in a statement that their recommendation stems from infants and other children who are “at high risk for severe COVID-19.”

As the Epoch Times notes further, the organization pointed, in part, to a paper it published that found that among children hospitalized for COVID-19 from fall 2022 to spring 2024, the majority of those younger than 2 had no underlying conditions.

Of note, the paper cited surveyed 2,490 children who were hospitalized with COVID-19, effectively a rounding error. 

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, told The Epoch Times in an email that the AAP, which receives funding from vaccine manufacturers, should strengthen its conflict-of-interest safeguards.

“By bypassing the CDC’s advisory process and freelancing its own recommendations, while smearing those who demand accountability, the AAP is putting commercial interests ahead of public health and politics above America’s children,” Andrew Nixon, the spokesman, said.

The CDC used to recommend that all children, except for those younger than 6 months, receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

In May, under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC stopped recommending the vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women.

The CDC’s schedule currently states that children with moderately or severely compromised immune systems should receive a vaccine, even if they’ve been vaccinated before.

Keep reading

Here’s A Pile Of Evidence Lockdowns Would Never Have Happened Without Corporate Media

Artificial intelligence may make books even more important, because they preserve a footnoted historical record that an AI-powered internet edits, erases, and obscures in real time. This is why I dedicate hard-earned family funds to buying physical books worth keeping, such as Sen. Rand Paul’s Deception: The Great Covid Cover-up.

Although a part of me wants to join many Americans in pretending lockdowns are all in a misty, distant past, I can’t do that, because to forget would dishonor the suffering. It would deliberately discard what we learned at so great a price. I want to see and preserve evidence of the evils our political class and Democrat voters continue to inflict. Remembering may be the only way to help prevent or dilute repeated mass psychoses.

This is why I read An Abundance of Caution, a book out in April by the left-leaning journalist David Zweig, who has bylines in The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and The Wall Street Journal. Zweig meticulously inspects a linchpin of the surreal U.S. lockdowns, extended school closures, against good evidence available not just weeks after they began but well before.

The End of Credential Credibility

Abundance of Caution documents how America’s disaster response disqualified the vast majority of America’s credentialed class. For example, three out of the four most accurate groups of people modeling Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were outside of the public health field. Several were “random” stats guys.

“A team from a management consulting firm, along with — to be frank, two random guys — McConnell and Karlen, outperformed teams of researchers from Johns Hopkins, MIT, Duke, Columbia, the University of Michigan, the famed IHME, and the US Department of Energy’s elite Los Alamos National Laboratory, among others.” Zweig writes. “It is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of public health ‘experts’ than this outcome.”

As a longtime fact-checker for major publications and a father of two children shut out of school, Zweig also had internal motivations to question his political tribe’s hysteria during a presidential election year.

“[S]chool policies emerge as a window into the larger conversation around COVID-19 and, broader still, a prism through which to approach fundamental questions about why and how individuals, bureaucracies, governments, and societies act as they do in times of crisis,” Zweig writes in his introduction. “Ultimately, this is not a book about COVID. It’s about a country ill-equipped to act sensibly under duress.”

Keep reading

Veterans Affairs’ Numbers Humiliate the Military: Mandates Weren’t About Health or Readiness, They Were About Control, Says Whistleblower

While there is a growing wave in skepticism towards all vaccines within the Department of Defense after the illegal enforcement of the COVID-19 shot, a whistleblower has come forward to present information indicating that employees within Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have previously expressed similar doubts, especially regarding the flu vaccine.

The recent news stories of a Marine Corps officer, Air Force Major Brennan Schilperoort (whose pay has been restored), Army Sergeant Dan McGriff, (a pseudonym), and  Air National Guard Technical Sergeant Tony Oslin reveal the Department of Defense’s current disdain for service members seeking religious accommodation or medical exemption for the flu shot.

Has VA been more forgiving with its employees, given that they are more frequently in contact with the elderly compared to the typical service member?

The Gateway Pundit spoke to whistleblower Sonny Fleeman, who emphasized his opinions are entirely his own and do not reflect the views of the United States Government, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any organization he is currently or has previously been associated with.

When Fleeman submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Veterans Affairs in February 2025, the agency was still requiring COVID-19 and flu shots for its healthcare employees.

“I wanted to see how many of those on the inside—the doctors, nurses, and staff who actually live with the consequences—were requesting exemptions,” he explained. “That number would reflect the real sentiment of healthcare workers rather than a tightly controlled narrative being sold to the public,” he suspected.

“To sharpen the comparison,” Fleeman also asked about flu shot exemptions, and “the results were shocking.” In 2024, close to 100,000 VA healthcare workers—approximately 25 percent of its total staff—were granted exemptions from the flu shot mandate for medical or religious reasons.

“That’s one in four employees across the largest healthcare system in the United States, and possibly the world, yet the VA still functioned,” he pointed out. For him, “The data shatters the military’s claim that mandates were ‘operationally necessary.’”

Keep reading

The Creation of New ICD-10 Codes for Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”

― Steve Jobs

Definitions matter. In almost any context, problems left undefined inevitably remain problems left unsolved.

For this reason, healthcare professionals worldwide rely upon the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), a standardized system used to categorize and code diseases, symptoms, and health conditions. In the United States, ICD-10 codes serve as the foundation for medical records, insurance billing, epidemiological research, and public health policy. Without specific ICD-10 codes, severe conditions may remain invisible in the healthcare data ecosystem—making it harder to track, study, or provide adequate care.

This is precisely the challenge facing thousands of Americans suffering from persistent severe adverse events after receiving a Covid vaccine—a condition recently defined as Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS). As one of those individuals, I know all too well how debilitating and life-altering this condition can be. Our symptoms include exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and dizziness. They develop shortly after vaccination, within a day or two, can become more severe in the days that follow, and persist over time.

At present, there are no dedicated ICD-10 codes for PCVS. This absence has significant consequences for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike.

Visibility in the Healthcare System

One of the primary functions of ICD-10 codes is to make a condition visible within the healthcare system. Without specific codes, PCVS is at best recorded under vague categories like “unspecified adverse effect of vaccine” or “other specified postvaccination complication.” Leery of contradicting the safe and effective narrative, many providers simply utilize codes for general symptoms such as “fatigue” or “paresthesia.” As a result, PCVS is effectively lost in a sea of unrelated data.

Dedicated codes would allow providers to document PCVS in a standardized way, ensuring it is recognized in patient records, insurance claims, and national health databases. This visibility is crucial for legitimizing PCVS in the eyes of both a conflicted medical community and a polarized public.

Keep reading