Tag: covid-19

Surge in pilot deaths and incapacitation began in 2021, and the FAA has been trying to cover it up

  • A sudden, unprecedented surge in pilot deaths and incapacitations began in 2021, with a 40 percent increase in pilots dying before retirement age and a tripling of long-term disabilities, coinciding with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
  • FAA regulations were violated en masse when airlines coerced pilots into taking experimental mRNA injections, despite federal laws prohibiting pilots from using unapproved medical products.
  • Pilots were trapped in an impossible choice: Violate their religious or medical convictions and risk their health, or refuse the jab and lose their livelihoods — all while the FAA abandoned its duty to track vaccine-related adverse events.
  • The spike protein produced by mRNA jabs is directly toxic, causing inflammation, blood clots, myocarditis, and neurological damage — conditions that are catastrophic in a cockpit.
  • The FAA dismantled its pilot incapacitation database in 2022, eliminating a critical tool for tracking trends in pilot health just as incidents began to skyrocket.
  • Near-misses and in-flight emergencies have reached crisis levels, with aviation officials attributing the chaos to everything but the elephant in the room: the COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Pilots describe a culture of fear and silence, where speaking out against the jabs means professional suicide, leaving passengers unknowingly at the mercy of impaired crews.

The great airline vaccine heist: How pilots were strong-armed into a medical experiment

When the COVID-19 vaccines rolled out under Emergency Use Authorization, they came with a critical caveat: No one could be forced to take them. That legal protection was swiftly ignored. For airline pilots, the choice wasn’t really a choice at all. It was a gun to the head — comply or be erased. Major carriers like United Airlines didn’t just encourage the jab; they demanded it, offering cash bonuses to the compliant and pink slips to the resistant. Never mind that federal aviation law explicitly prohibits pilots from using experimental medications. Never mind that the FAA’s own Aeromedical Advice Manual warns against unapproved substances that could impair performance. The rules were rewritten in real time, not by scientists or safety experts, but by corporate executives and bureaucrats who had already decided the narrative: Get the shot, or get out.

Dr. Kevin Stillwagon, a retired airline pilot and immunology expert, doesn’t mince words. “They were illegal,” he says of the mandates. “You cannot put an experimental product into a pilot.” The law is clear: If a pilot takes an unapproved substance, flight surgeons must ground them until the FAA verifies its safety. But in 2021, that process was bypassed entirely. Airlines, backed by the federal government, bulldozed through legal and ethical barriers, turning pilots into lab rats in a real-world trial with no control group. The result? A wave of cardiac arrests, neurological disorders, and sudden deaths that has left the industry scrambling to explain away the carnage.

Stillwagon’s data is damning. Before 2021, pilot incapacitations were rare — about eight per year, according to a 2018 study in Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. But in the wake of the vaccine rollout, the numbers exploded. At Washington National Airport alone, near-misses jumped from one in decades to 28 in a single year. The FAA’s own 2004 research found that pilot cardiac events were the leading cause of in-flight fatalities. Now, those events are happening at an unprecedented rate, and the agency’s response? Cricket sounds. Worse, they discontinued their centralized database for tracking pilot incapacitations in 2022, just as the crisis was unfolding. Coincidence? Stillwagon doesn’t think so. “The data silence that the FAA has created is preventing systemic trends from being detected,” he warns. In other words, they’re hiding the bodies.

Keep reading

Sudden Deaths, Incapacitations Soar Among COVID-Jabbed Airline Pilots

“Something happened in 2021” that has jeopardized air travel safety, according to a disturbing report by Dr. Kevin Stillwagon, a retired airline pilot and immunology expert.

Mounting evidence points to the COVID-19 vaccinations that airlines, acting under pressure from the U.S. government, mandated or otherwise coerced their cockpit, cabin, and ground crews into taking.

Since 2021, there has been a marked increase in deaths of “younger” airline pilots while long-term disabilities for pilots have skyrocketed. All of this has been accompanied by an astronomical increase of near-miss incidents at the nation’s airports.

“Incapacitations of pilots are definitely increasing, especially in younger pilots,” Stillwagon said in a video discussion with Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation.

“There was a 40% increase in pilots dying early – before mandatory retirement age of 65 – in 2021,” Stillwagon said.

“Starting in 2021, pilot long-term disabilities have tripled,” he noted. “Prior to 2021, there was only one near-miss at the Washington National Airport (DCA).  But after 2021, there were 28 near-misses per year.”

Keep reading

Report: Trump Administration Planning to Phase Out COVID-19 Vaccine

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to phase out the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a report from the Daily Beast.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who is one of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “closest associates,” told the outlet that while a decision to remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the market could come “within months,” it could occur “in a number of stages.” Malhotra also added that “those closest” to Kennedy have reportedly expressed that they “cannot understand” why the COVID-19 vaccine “continues to be prescribed.”

“It could [happen] in a number of stages, including learning more about the data,” Malhotra, who is a British cardiologist, told the outlet. “But given the increased talk of vaccine injuries in the past few weeks among the administration, it could also come with one clean decision.”

Keep reading

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