Tag: covid-19

House probes whether EU, Biden administration pushed Spotify to censor podcasters including Joe Rogan, Steve Bannon

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday launched an investigation into whether the EU and Biden administration pressured Spotify to censor free speech, The Post has learned.

Censorship has been a point of tension for Spotify, which has faced heated backlash for flagging COVID-19 information from podcaster Joe Rogan and banning Steve Bannon from the platform.

“More relevantly, it’s the pressure we are seeing the EU put on companies to censor more,” a source familiar with the probe told The Post.

In a letter sent to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) slammed recent laws from the EU and UK that require social media platforms – even those based in the US – to censor “disinformation” and “harmful content” or face massive fines.

“These foreign laws, regulations, and judicial orders may limit or restrict Americans’ access to constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Indeed, that appears to be their very purpose,” Jordan wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.

Keep reading

Covid Lockdowns Devastated an Entire Generation of Children

In what we now understand were completely theatrical attempts to control the Covid-19 pandemic, experts demanded and politicians mandated all sorts of intrusive policies. Mask mandates were one of the most obvious. School closures. Lockdowns. Curfews. Capacity limits. Fear campaigns. The list is and was endless. And unfortunately the public willingly complied with all of them.

On and on they went, for years in some cases. But in their discussions of those useless policies, one thing they always, without fail, ignored was the ancillary cost.

Sure, you can mandate masks, but what does are the effects for those who are forced to wear them? What does it cost in terms of lost social cohesion, normalizing anti-social behavior? What are the trade-offs that result from closing schools, from forcing businesses to shut down, or locking down society?

Are there harms to physical, emotional, or verbal development?

These are important questions that were completely ignored by those in power during the pandemic, because they were inconvenient to the architects of the covidiocy.

But new research is out confirming yet again that the collective absurdity of Covid policies caused immense damage and permanent harm to a generation of children. For nothing.

Keep reading

Landmark Stanford Study Finds COVID Jabs ‘Saved Far Fewer Lives Than First Thought’

A major study by Stanford University and Italian researchers has found that the COVID-19 vaccine saved far fewer lives than originally thought.

The World Health Organization previously asserted that the jabs prevented as many as 14.4 million deaths in their first year, with some estimates going as high as 20 million.

Yet according to this latest study, the actual number of lives saved globally throughout the entire pandemic is likely closer to 2.5 million.

The data suggests that the vast majority of those spared were elderly, with roughly 90% of prevented deaths occurring among individuals over 60.

Among younger groups, the numbers were strikingly low: just 299 lives saved worldwide among people under 20, and 1,808 in the 20 to 30 age bracket.

The study also quantified the number of vaccinations needed to save a single life.

Across all ages, an average of 5,400 doses were required per life saved. For those under 30, that figure soared to 100,000 jabs.

Researchers also questioned the rationale behind blanket vaccine mandates, particularly for low-risk populations, and criticised the excessive drive to vaccinate all individuals regardless of age or vulnerability.

Keep reading

Extremists weaponize COVID, climate issues with conspiracy theories about state & elite control: RAND Europe

The RAND Europe authors are so stuck in their own echo chamber they don’t realize they’re acting like the extremists they claim to warn about: perspective

People who are concerned that the draconian measures implemented by public and private entities during COVID lockdowns might be deployed again in the name of combatting climate change are actually victims of conspiracy theories originating from online extremist groups, according to RAND Europe’s submission to the UK Home Affairs Committee’s Call for Evidence on Combatting New Forms of Extremism.

“Akin to COVID-19 conspiracy theories, climate issues are weaponized and entangled with conspiracy theories and narratives about state and elite control”RAND, Combatting New Forms of Extremism, July 2025

Despite initiatives like the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) great reset, which actively called on governments to take advantage of the shocks inflicted by their lockdowns, mass vaccination mandates, and social distancing measures in order to implement radical changes to society and the global economy with climate change-related policies, the RAND Europe testimonial says that “Akin to COVID-19 conspiracy theories, climate issues are weaponized and entangled with conspiracy theories and narratives about state and elite control.”

“Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste”Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” 2020

The RAND Europe testimonial, “Combatting new forms of extremism,” never gives a single example of a conspiracy theory related to climate change and control, but the authors are certain that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are exploiting the so-called climate crisis for their own gain due to a lack of government action.

According to the testimonial, “Both ends of the political spectrum are emboldened by the lack of governmental action on climate change.

“Eco left-wing extremists are angered by government inaction as they consider it as climate denial.

“For the right-wing extremists, government inaction reinforces their belief that climate change is a hoax.”

Keep reading

New York Teachers Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccines Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court

A group of 19 teachers who sued the city of New York after they were denied religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings, which they allege unconstitutionally favored some religious beliefs over others.

In a petition filed Monday, the teachers allege that New York City granted religious exemptions only to people who belonged to religions whose leaders had not publicly endorsed COVID-19 vaccination.

The city denied requests by teachers who applied for exemptions based on personal religious beliefs that contradicted their religious leaders’ official support of the vaccines, the appeal said.

Michael Kane, a plaintiff in the case and founder of Teachers for Choice, said:

“What New York City did was so egregious. To allow this to stand sets a horrendous precedent for my children and grandchildren. The discrimination was so intense and constitutionally shoddy it must not be permitted.”

According to Kane, most of the teachers are “still out of work or doing odd jobs, making half their previous income.”

Although New York City Mayor Eric Adams rescinded the mandate in February 2023, the city didn’t rehire the teachers.

The case stems from two lawsuits filed in 2021 challenging New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its denials of the religious exemption requests: Kane v. de Blasio and Keil v. City of New York. Children’s Health Defense is supporting the combined lawsuit.

Several lower courts, including the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2024, ruled against the teachers.

The New York City Department of Education, its Chancellor, Melissa Aviles-Ramos, and New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan are among the defendants named in the combined lawsuit.

Keep reading

What Is the PREP Act?

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to Covid, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

What the PREP Act Says

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d – Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

  • Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent, or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product, or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

  • Scope of claims for loss:
    • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.
    • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.
  • The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population, and geographic area specified in the declaration.
  • For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

  • The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).
  • In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.
  • The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.
  • The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures
  • No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration
  • No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Keep reading

VAX EYE SYNDROME: Pfizer COVID vaccine spike prions enter the EYES and CORNEA, causing serious damage

The researchers focused on the corneal endothelium, the innermost layer of the cornea responsible for maintaining corneal clarity by pumping out excess fluid. Using specialized tools such as specular microscopy and Sirius corneal topography, they observed changes in corneal thickness, a decline in endothelial cell count and alterations in cell size and shape — indicators of stress or damage to this delicate structure.

Specifically, corneal thickness increased by approximately 14 micrometers (a 2 percent rise), which in itself is not harmful but could signal inflammation or fluid retention. More concerning was the eight percent drop in endothelial cell density — from 2,597 to 2,378 cells per square millimeter — still within the safe range for healthy individuals, but potentially risky for those with already compromised eye health.

The study also found that the vaccine led to increased variability in cell size, known as the coefficient of variation, which rose from 39 to 42. This suggests some cells may have died and others stretched to fill the gaps, a typical response to stress. Additionally, the percentage of hexagon-shaped cells, which are vital for maintaining a healthy endothelial layer, dropped slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent.

Although none of the participants reported noticeable vision issues during the two-month follow-up, scientists caution that these microstructural changes could have long-term consequences, especially for people with existing eye problems or a history of eye surgeries such as corneal grafts. If the damage to the endothelium is permanent or worsens over time, it could result in conditions like corneal edema, bullous keratopathy or corneal decompensation — disorders that may lead to chronic vision impairment or even blindness if untreated.

Despite these findings, the researchers did not advise against COVID-19 vaccination. They emphasized the need for ongoing monitoring and further long-term studies to determine if the observed changes persist or resolve over time. Importantly, the study confirmed a high likelihood that the changes were directly associated with the vaccine and not random occurrences.

This research adds to a growing list of safety concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. In May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded warning labels on Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to more clearly highlight the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men aged 16–25.

While the short-term effects of the Pfizer vaccine on eye health appear to be mild, the study underscores the importance of ongoing post-vaccination surveillance and personalized medical care for individuals at risk. As evidence continues to evolve, health agencies and physicians may need to consider more tailored guidance for those with existing ocular conditions.

Keep reading

Everyone Should Be Closely Watching This VAERS Whistleblower Case

A significant COVID-19 accountability case is heading to discovery, establishing critical legal precedents regarding the requirement to report adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) while receiving federal funding. The COVID jabs have caused harm, including death, to millions, making this a crucial case to watch. Whistleblower Deborah Conrad, a dedicated Physician Assistant, was fired in 2021 by her employer, United Memorial Medical Center (Rochester Regional Health), for purportedly spreading “vaccine misinformation” and “over-reporting” of adverse events following the experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections. But hold on a second—upon examining the entire situation, it appears evident that Deb was, quite simply, “doing the right thing” and reporting adverse events to VAERS.

Nonetheless, Deb was fired in October 2021. She was unexpectedly chaperoned into a conference room, where she was interrogated and then escorted out without due process. Deb and her attorney, Warner Mendenhall, are currently suing Rochester Regional Health for damages, including back pay and civil penalties in violation of the False Claims Act. On June 11, 2025, in a triumph for those who have fought hard throughout the COVID-19 tyranny to protect their patients, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a landmark ruling in favor of Deb, denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss the core claims in Deb’s False Claims lawsuit. This move opens the door for Deb’s case to proceed to discovery.

As highlighted by Mendenhall, the court determined that Rochester Regional Health had a significant obligation under its CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement to report serious adverse events to VAERS (never mind that the CDC itself looked the other way regarding injuries reported in its V-safe app). Indeed, the hospital’s failure to comply with this requirement—instead literally blocking Deb from reporting serious adverse events after the COVID-19 jab—while continuing to seek federal reimbursement constituted potential fraud against the government. Additionally, the court agreed that the detailed allegations provided by Deb sufficiently met the stringent legal standards for fraud claims, despite her lacking access to internal billing records. Furthermore, the court found that her retaliation claim could proceed, as it was likely she was terminated for attempting to expose the hospital’s non-compliance with adverse event reporting. Mendenhall wrote:

“This ruling is significant beyond just Deborah’s case. It establishes that 1) healthcare providers cannot ignore federal safety reporting requirements while continuing to collect taxpayer money; 2) the False Claims Act can be used to hold institutions accountable for COVID-related misconduct; and 3) whistleblowers who expose these practices have legal protection.

We estimate over 500,000 were killed by the shots, millions lost their jobs for refusing them, and Big Pharma received billions for dangerous and experimental treatments. This case reveals a legal pathway to begin holding the system accountable.

The case now moves to discovery, where we will seek the hospital’s internal “vaccination,” treatment, and billing records to uncover the full scope of unreported adverse events, which we believe are in the 1000s in this hospital system alone.”

Incredibly, while successfully managing to submit 160 VAERS reports, Deb’s case involves a shocking 170 serious adverse events that the hospital allegedly stopped her from reporting. Again, under the terms of their vaccine provider agreement and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, all COVID-19 vaccine providers were legally bound to report adverse events related to the jabs to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, when Deborah observed several adverse events, including fatalities, following COVID-19 injections in both her own patients and in the patients of her peers, she took the initiative to compile and submit patient reports to VAERS in her spare time.

However, she soon faced pressure from Rochester Regional Health to “dial it back” and was advised to limit her reporting to only her own patients, excluding those treated by other providers. But the hospital didn’t stop there. It further urged her to “toe the company line” by supporting the experimental vaccine to minimize vaccine hesitancy, despite the hospital’s legal duty, again, under its agreement with the CDC in order to receive federal funding during the pandemic, to report vaccine-related injuries.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading

Florida Surgeon General Highlights Vaccine Injuries, Calls on NIH to Act

At a press conference at Florida State University in Tampa, Florida, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo made an urgent call for the NIH program funding to help Americans injured by Covid-19 vaccines and expressed support for the May federal changes in the HHS’s restrictive Covid-19 vaccine recommendations.

On the Ground in Tampa: What Ladapo Really Said

I was invited to Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s press conference in Tampa on July 17, 2025. In contrast to how some mainstream outlets later portrayed it, the event centered on a call to recognize and research Covid-19 vaccine injuries, rather than a mere anti-vaccine screed. Dr. Ladapo – a physician and Florida’s top health official since 2021 – emphasized the urgent need to support those suffering adverse effects from mRNA Covid-19 shots. He praised recent federal moves to scale back mRNA vaccine recommendations for certain groups, but went further by asserting that these products “should not be used in any human beings,” given their safety profile. From my front-row perspective, Dr. Ladapo’s tone was measured yet resolute. He recounted how unusual it is, in his experience, to encounter so many post-vaccination issues. “When was the last time that you had a vaccine that literally almost every single person knows someone who had a bad reaction from it?” Ladapo asked pointedly.

Before the Covid era, he noted, he never personally knew a patient who was clearly vaccine-injured. “Now,” he continued, “there are very few people that I run into who either themselves have not had a bad reaction from these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, or who don’t know someone who’s had a bad reaction.” 

This was a striking report that hung in the air – one supported anecdotally by nods from some attendees sharing their own stories. Dr. Ladapo stressed that adverse reactions have become distressingly commonplace, and he even bluntly called the Covid shots “terrible vaccines” as a result.

Keep reading