Tag: pandemic

Bayer’s Monsanto sues mRNA COVID-19 vaccine makers

Bayer’s agrochemicals unit Monsanto has filed lawsuits in the US against the manufacturers of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, claiming that they used its patent-protected technology in their products.

One lawsuit – filed in a federal court in Delaware – asserts that Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax vaccines, which generated tens of billions of dollars in revenues during the pandemic, used technology developed by Monsanto in the 1980s designed to eliminate ‘problem’ coding sequences in the building blocks of cells “to improve mRNA stability and the amount or quality of protein produced” in crops.

The technology was awarded a US patent in 2010 (No. 7,741,118) and is not due to expire until June 2027. According to the suit, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna used it to stabilise their mRNA vaccines.

“To develop effective mRNA medicines, defendants needed to stabilise the mRNA molecule and optimise its protein expression,” it claims, adding that they “optimised and manufactured their infringing mRNA vaccine products starting with a DNA template” and using Monsanto’s patented process.

Meanwhile, Reuters has also reported that Bayer independently filed a similar lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in a New Jersey federal court, contending that a DNA-based process the company used in manufacturing its adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine also infringes the patent.

The shot – known as the Janssen vaccine – won emergency authorisations in the US and other markets and made blockbuster sales in the pandemic before its use diminished due to concerns about rare clotting side effects. It was withdrawn from sale in the US in 2023.

While sales are well down on their peak, Comirnaty brought in worldwide revenues of more than $3.3 billion for Pfizer and BioNTech last year, with Moderna earning $3.2 billion from Spikevax.

Bayer has said it does not intend to do anything that would restrict the commercial use of the COVID-19 vaccines – although, that is already being achieved due to changing immunisation policies in the US under the Trump administration – but is seeking damages “in an amount adequate to compensate” for the infringement of its intellectual property and royalties on sales.

Keep reading

Air Force Officer Continues His Fight Against Vindictiveness and Intolerance Over COVID-19 Shot Mandate

An Air Force officer continues to battle one of the most egregious cases of vindictiveness and intolerance stemming from the military’s 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023 and deemed “unlawful as implemented” across all military departments in May 2025.

Following up on a story from September 2025, The Gateway Pundit spoke to Captain Anthony Monteleone to get an update on his case at the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).

On July 8, 2025, as directed by the Department of War, Capt. Monteleone submitted his packet to the AFBCMR to correct the harms from the unlawful mandate in collaboration with his attorney, Jeffrey Addicott, Director of the Warrior Defense Project, and Mike Rose, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS).

Two months later, on September 03, 2025, the AFBCMR denied his application, stating that his request “falls outside the jurisdiction of the AFBCMR,” and then reversed itself and accepted his case due to the directives from President Donald Trump and War Department leadership.

However, a grueling nine months after he submitted his package, and despite Congressional Representatives and multiple high-ranking Air Force officials reaching out to the AFBCMR on several occasions on behalf of Capt. Monteleone to stress the immediate need for relief in his case, the Board continues to delay the processing of his package.

As reported multiple times by The Gateway Pundit, numerous service members claim that the BCMR process is largely ineffective and that the Board’s willingness to engage amounts to little more than a superficial effort.

In short, despite the explicit directives from President Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata, and the Secretary of the Air Force Troy E. Meink, Capt. Monteleone continues to have active derogatory paperwork in his personnel file. He is still experiencing significant and ongoing damage to his career due to the unlawful COVID-19 shot mandate, which is solely attributed to the prolonged time it is taking for the Board to review his case.

Keep reading

Five More Somalis Plead Guilty in $14.6 Million Minneapolis Feeding Our Future Fraud Case

Five additional defendants, all Somali, have pleaded guilty to wire fraud in one of the largest pandemic fraud cases in U.S. history, the Minneapolis Feeding Our Future scandal that stole hundreds of millions of dollars meant for hungry children during COVID.

Ikram Yusuf Mohamed, 42, her husband Shakur Abdinur Abdisalam, 46, her sister Aisha Hassan Hussein, 29, Sahra Sharif Osman, 43, and her mother Fadumo Mohamed Yusuf, 59, each entered guilty pleas this week, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The group ran fake food distribution sites under the Feeding Our Future nonprofit umbrella and submitted phony claims for hundreds of thousands to over a million meals that were never served.

They used fake attendance rosters, inflated invoices through a related company, and paid kickbacks to cover their tracks.

Prosecutors say the five stole and laundered a total of $14.6 million in federal Child Nutrition Program funds, money that was supposed to feed kids during COVID but instead funded personal luxuries like rent, furniture, vacations, dining out, and DoorDash orders.

Each defendant’s company received more than $1 million in taxpayer money.

  • Ikram Yusuf Mohamed opened multiple sites that pulled in over $6.9 million, hid her role by using family names, created Star Distribution LLC for fake invoices ($4.9 million direct and $1.4 million more), and demanded over $1.3 million in kickbacks.
  • Shakur Abdinur Abdisalam ran Inspiring Youth & Outreach LLC, falsely claimed over 1 million meals, received $1.5 million, and paid a $21,000 kickback.
  • Aisha Hassan Hussein ran United Youth of MPLS LLC, claimed 1.3 million meals, received $2.2 million, and paid a $166,000 kickback.
  • Sahra Sharif Osman ran Youth International Club LLC, claimed nearly 700,000 meals, received $1.4 million, and paid a $7,500 kickback.
  • Fadumo Mohamed Yusuf ran Active Mind’s Youth LLC, claimed over 500,000 meals, received $1 million, and paid a $38,500 kickback.

All five pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel.

Each faces up to 20 years in prison.

Keep reading

COVID Inquiry Finds Lockdowns May Have Cost THOUSANDS OF Lives

The authoritarian COVID lockdowns and stay-at-home orders sold as life-saving measures have been unmasked once again as a deadly failure of big government overreach.

A new UK Covid-19 Inquiry report has concluded that the relentless “Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives” messaging likely cost thousands of lives by convincing people they could not get access to health services.

The inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, slammed the slogan created by Cabinet Office officials without input from health leaders. It “led some people to feel they must avoid burdening the NHS” and “may have inadvertently sent the message that healthcare was closed,” contributing to a sharp decline in A&E attendances for life-threatening emergencies such as heart attacks.

The report states plainly: “It is clear that, during the pandemic, worsening delays in diagnosis and treatment led to increased ill-health and suffering and, in some cases, cost lives.” Some patients waited so long their conditions became “untreatable,” with permanent loss of mobility.

Baroness Hallett stressed: “It is important that government communication campaigns do not deter those in need from accessing healthcare.” She urged future governments to consult healthcare professionals on messaging “to avoid unintended consequences.”

Office for National Statistics data backs this up, recording more than 17,000 excess deaths from non-Covid conditions at the height of the pandemic. Cancer screenings were paused, diagnoses plummeted, and non-urgent care cancellations left patients suffering. Hospital visiting bans were branded too tough, with dying people left alone and families devastated.

Keep reading

What Covid Policy Did to Doctors Who Refused to Stay Silent

The sound I remember most from the early days of Covid-19 is not the alarms. It was the silence between them. Intensive care units became Covid wards. Monitors glowed in dark rooms while ventilators pushed air into failing lungs. Nurses, shrouded in protective gear, moved quietly. Families were absent—barred from being with loved ones in their final hours.

One night at 3 am, I stood by a patient whose oxygen levels were steadily falling. Outside the room, another patient crashed. Down the hall, a third awaited intubation. For months, this was every night. For 715 consecutive days, I worked in that environment without taking a single day off. In moments like that, medicine becomes very simple. There are no politics in an ICU at 3 am. There is only a physician and a patient, and the responsibility to do everything possible to keep that patient alive.

That philosophy has guided physicians for generations. It is the foundation of clinical medicine: when a patient is dying, you explore every reasonable option that might help.

Yet during Covid, something extraordinary happened. What made the shift so jarring was not simply the presence of disagreement. Physicians have always disagreed. In fact, disagreement is the normal language of medicine. Grand rounds exist for that reason. Journal clubs exist for that reason. The entire structure of scientific publication—from peer review to replication—exists because medicine advances through argument, not obedience. During the pandemic, however, the culture of medicine changed almost overnight. Instead of asking whether a treatment might work, institutions began asking whether discussing that treatment might create the wrong public message. The priority quietly shifted from discovery to control.

Scientific debate faded. Physicians who questioned policies or explored treatments were treated as threats rather than colleagues. Instead of debate, there was enforcement.

Hospitals warned physicians to stay quiet. Medical boards hinted at disciplinary action. Social media platforms censored discussion of therapies that doctors around the world were actively studying. Media outlets portrayed dissenting physicians as reckless or dangerous. What had once been normal scientific discourse was suddenly labeled misinformation.

To physicians trained in earlier decades, this shift was deeply unsettling. Medicine has always lived with uncertainty. Treatments begin as hypotheses and evolve through observation and debate. During the AIDS crisis, clinicians tried multiple strategies before effective therapies emerged. The same was true for sepsis, trauma care, and organ transplantation. No one expected immediate unanimity. Yet during Covid, uncertainty itself became suspect. If a physician acknowledged that evidence was incomplete—or that clinical experience suggested alternative approaches—those statements were sometimes interpreted as challenges to authority rather than contributions to knowledge.

Keep reading

Damning study of over a million kids finds myocarditis only in the vaccinated

Biden administration officials and so-called experts characterized COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective” during the pandemic. In the face of an avalanche of tragic evidence to the contrary, the powers that be waged costly and unsuccessful propaganda and censorship campaigns to cure Americans’ skepticism.

Although the Trump administration has alternatively acknowledged the risks and fallout associated with the vaccines — the Food and Drug Administration admitting, for instance, that the vaccines killed numerous children — a coalition of medical organizations is fighting to legally force the government to keep recommending the COVID jabs to healthy kids and pregnant women.

That legal effort appears especially questionable given the finding in a recent study that children spared from the vaccine also appear to have been spared from an unfortunate health complication.

The peer-reviewed study — conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of Bristol, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and published in January in the scientific journal Epidemiology — looked at the safety and effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in healthy children ages 5-15 following the rollout that began in late 2021.

Keep reading

‘Smoking Gun’ Emails Show New York City Officials Played Role in Firing Unvaccinated Workers

Unredacted internal emails obtained after a three-year legal battle may reshape ongoing lawsuits over New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, according to attorneys who spoke on “Good Morning, CHD” this week.

The records, obtained through New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), show top city officials and government lawyers working together behind the scenes to push back on religious exemption requests, privately dismissing workers’ beliefs while building arguments to help arbitrators deny them.

Attorney Jimmy Wagner, who led the records fight, said the documents expose a “smoking gun.”

In the lawsuits over the documents, the unredacted versions were visible to everyone in the courtroom except the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Wagner said. City lawyers knew exactly what the emails contained while making arguments that directly contradicted them.

“They’re literally arguing out of both sides of their mouth,” Wagner said.

The government attorneys claimed they were acting with integrity and protecting religious rights. Yet “in the same breath, they have this … smoking gun piece of evidence that shows the city from the beginning … believed that anyone making a religious accommodation request, especially as it was associated to abortion, it was BS. That’s their language — ‘BS,’ in capital letters,” he said.

Keep reading

CDC Buried COVID Vaccine Death Data In Lancet Study, Internal Documents Reveal

Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) altered their own study on COVID-19 vaccine adverse events to downplay deaths linked to the shots, according to documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

CHD sued the CDC in 2023 to obtain the documents after the agency failed to respond to CHD’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The 100-page document tranche included an earlier draft of the CDC study that differed significantly from the version the authors published in June 2022 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., CHD senior research scientist, who analyzed the FOIA documents, said the CDC “severely edited” the study “to promote safety and to de-emphasize death.”

The first four words of the draft’s title were “Reactogenicity and Adverse Events.” However, the published version’s title began with “Safety of mRNA vaccines.”

Reactogenicity refers to the side effects or adverse events someone experiences after taking a vaccine or medication.

The study authors, members of the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team, analyzed reports of adverse events following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination during the first 6 months of the vaccine rollout in the U.S.

The researchers pulled the reports from two federal vaccine safety monitoring systems — the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and V-safe.

Although there were 4,496 deaths reported to VAERS during that time frame, the study authors stripped details about the deaths from the article’s abstract.

The lead study author, Dr. Hannah Rosenblum, wrote in a comment on the draft, “Note all death results/interpretation has been removed from abstract.”

That’s a big deal, Jablonowski said — because the abstract, which appears at the top of a study and summarizes it, is typically read much more than the full body of an article.

Keep reading

Federal Bill Introduced to Strip COVID-19 “Vaccine” Manufacturers of Liability Protection

Representative Chip Roy has introduced the Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered (LIABLE) Act, a bill that would strip COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers of the federal legal immunity granted during the pandemic and allow millions of injured Americans to pursue civil lawsuits.

During the COVID-19 emergency, the vaccines were classified as medical “countermeasures,” triggering protections under the PREP Act that effectively blocked lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. Instead, injured victims have been forced into the federal Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)—a little-known system that has paid only a tiny number of claims.

The LIABLE Act would remove all federal laws that grant COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers immunity from civil liability for harms caused by the shots. It would also allow individuals to pursue lawsuits even if they previously filed claims through federal compensation programs, and the legislation would apply retroactively, meaning people vaccinated earlier in the pandemic could still bring legal action.

The bill is co-sponsored by several members of Congress, including Thomas Massie, Lauren Boebert, Clay Higgins, Paul Gosar, and Andy Biggs.

If the bill becomes law, the legal reckoning would be enormous.

A tsunami of lawsuits from millions of vaccine-injured Americans would slam vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer and Moderna — potentially large enough to drive the companies into bankruptcy.

Keep reading

Covid Jabs Called ‘Bioweapons’ In Court For First Time

Mary Holland, President of Children’s Health Defense, reposted the following on X:

NEW: For the first time ever, the Covid jabs are called “bioweapons” in court!

Dutch lawyer suing the Architects of the Great Reset quotes Dr. Francis Boyle, who died right after agreeing to testify:

“The COVID mRNA injection is a bioweapon… conceived by the Pentagon.”

“The core of Professor Boyle’s argument is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene-function research. As a result, the COVID-19 injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system. A, bioweapon, in other words.”

“This technology is, as Boyle declared, paid for, developed, financed and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA. This technology platform, nanotechnology platform, was not an afterthought.”

This clip of Peter Stassen, the lawyer suing the “Architects of the Great Reset” in Dutch court on behalf of plaintiffs harmed by the Covid injections, is taken from a video posted by Dr. Joseph Sansone to Rumble on March 14, 2026.

Sansone is one of five expert witnesses involved in the case, along with retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova), former Assistant Secretary of HUD Catherine Austin Fitts (@solari_the), et al.

Note that Dr. Francis Boyle, an eminent professor of international law who helped to draft the implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, died mysteriously soon after he agreed to take part in this lawsuit….

—————-Partial transcription of clip—————

“I will start with the statement of Joseph Sansone. It is based on the sworn statement of the late Professor Dr. Francis Boyle, who has determined and concluded Professor Boyle is the greatest authority in the field of bioweapons legislation. He is the author of it, so he knows what is legally meant by it.

“He knew, like no other, that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon. He has also made that loud and clear to the world known, after which, despite being in good health, he passed away shortly after he had declared himself willing to give testimony under oath about this in court.

“The core of Professor Boyle’s argument is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene-function research. As a result, the COVID-19 injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system. A, bioweapon, in other words.

“This bioweapon consists of two integrated components, the pathogenic load and the delivery mechanism. It is beyond doubt that the pathogenic load is the product of illegal gene or function research. Boyle refers to this, to an article in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, of which I have included the link in this plea note.

“If you open that link, you will immediately read the warning that true scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. You will also immediately know that what is called the new normal, true scientists are, not scientists, but faith fanatics. These are the scientists behind whom the respondents hide.

“The article in Nature Medicine that Boyle reports on was published in 2015, and the title reads, translated, A Cluster of Circulating Coronaviruses in Bats, Similar to SARS Shows Potential for Human Infection. I present to you what the summary of this research included in the article reveals. It states, based on these findings, we have synthetically created an infectious fully SHC014 recombinant virus, developed and demonstrated robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.

“So it states, we researchers have created a SARS-like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. I cannot provide a better example of illegal gain-of-function research. And who wrote that article from 2015? Among others, researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan? Yes, Wuhan. You know, where, according to the official narrative, people suddenly dropped dead on the street when COVID-19 broke out because there was a bat mutated the spike protein. The pathogenic payload of the bioweapon is the result of this research.

Keep reading