Tag: vaccines

Unlike other industries, vaccine manufacturers are shielded from safety design defects

The entire vaccine programme is one giant depopulation and profit extraction scam, with the childhood schedule being especially devastating in terms of both its fraud and potential lifelong harms.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“NCVIA”) of 1986 allowed for Big Pharma and its intelligence-industrial complex handlers to ramp up their injectable democide offerings without any consequences or even a need to bother pretending that they were not openly maiming and murdering innocents by producing a single randomised controlled trial (“RCT”) with placebo control; to wit:

It is painfully obvious by now that all vaccines are all risk and no reward whatsoever.  Read more: If All Vaccines Are Unsafe And Ineffective, Then Why Are They Being Foisted on Humanity?, 2nd Smartest Guy in the World, 2 February 2025

Keep reading

Expert Guts Claims That HPV Vaccine Reduces Cancer Risk

Public health policy should rest on solid, transparent evidence — not slogans, not marketing and not selective readings of scientific reviews, biochemist Lucija Tomljenović, Ph.D., said recently.

In a wide-ranging interview on the “Slobodni Podcast,” Tomljenović challenged the evidence base for HPV vaccination programs.

She told host Andrija Klarić that safety and efficacy claims are unsubstantiated, and the benefits of the vaccine do not outweigh the risks.

The widely circulated claim that the HPV vaccine dramatically reduces cervical cancer risk — by as much as 80% if administered before age 16 — collapses under closer examination.

Tomljenović has published more than a dozen papers on the HPV vaccine. She was also an expert witness in litigation against Merck, maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. In that role, she presented a systematic critique of the claims that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer.

She also delivered an overview of the science on the adverse events associated with the shot, and she presented evidence that Merck manipulated regulators and legislators to grow the market for its vaccine.

Claims that HPV vaccine reduces cancer risk based on flawed Cochrane reviews

Tomljenović explained for “Slobodni” listeners why the 2025 Cochrane reviews on HPV vaccines — widely cited by health authorities and the media to support the claim that the vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence by up to 80% — are flawed.

She said the reviews’ own data undermine their conclusions.

The Cochrane Library is often regarded as the gold standard of systematic reviews, she said. Mainstream health institutions often base recommendations on findings from Cochrane.

However, systematic reviews are only as reliable as the studies they include, she said.

According to Tomljenović’s analysis of the 300-plus-page review, the majority of epidemiological studies cited to show the vaccine’s effects — including its ability to stop invasive cervical cancer — had serious or critical risk of bias, according to the ratings of Cochrane’s own reviewers.

A systematic review is a “study of studies,” a high-level research method that reviews, synthesizes and critically appraises the available body of evidence for a given disease or health topic in a standardized and systematic way.

Risk-of-bias assessments in those reviews evaluate whether methodological flaws — in design, analysis or reporting — are likely to invalidate results. A “serious” or “critical” rating signals substantial flaws that make conclusions highly questionable.

Keep reading

Surgeon General Nominee Aligns With Secretary Kennedy on Vaccines and Pesticides

Casey Means, President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, faced intense questioning before the Senate Health Committee over her views on vaccines, pesticides, business ties, and her alignment with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.

She is largely against pesticides and chemicals in food, so I imagine the left will suddenly be all in on both. They will claim it is Republican misinformation to suggest that chemicals in food can be harmful.

Means, a Stanford-trained physician and health entrepreneur, found bipartisan support for her focus on chronic disease and reducing Americans’ reliance on ultra-processed foods.

Mainstream media claimed that she sidestepped vaccine questions because she said, “vaccines save lives” and are an “important part of the public health strategy,” but stopped short of encouraging mothers to have their children vaccinated against measles and flu. It is dishonest to say she sidestepped the question. She answered that vaccines save lives while arguing for informed consent and questioning whether every vaccine in the current schedule is necessary.

She did not explicitly state that vaccines do not cause autism and questioned whether certain vaccines, such as the hepatitis B shot, should be universally administered at birth. She has been particularly critical of giving the hepatitis B vaccine to all newborns on their first day of life, questioning its necessity in every case.

She advocates “shared clinical decision-making” between families and their doctors rather than automatic adherence to a blanket schedule. While acknowledging the “overwhelming body of evidence” refuting a link between vaccines and autism, she also told senators that “science is never settled” and supported further investigation into environmental factors. Several senators pressed her on whether flu and hepatitis B vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and she acknowledged population-level benefits.

Refusing to encourage mothers to give their children a flu shot, saying more research is needed to determine whether vaccines are linked to autism, supporting informed consent, and suggesting that certain vaccines should possibly be removed from the standard childhood schedule is not sidestepping. It expresses a different viewpoint, which the left hates.

Dr. Means is a vocal critic of the prevalence of chemicals in the environment, which she links to rising rates of chronic disease. Her primary focus is on what she calls a broken food system and the dangers of ultra-processed foods and chemical additives.

Keep reading

Declassified CIA files reveal chilling blueprint to manipulate Americans’ minds through covert drugging with vaccines

A newly released CIA document reveals a chilling blueprint to manipulate minds through covert drugging experiments.

The report, added to the CIA’s reading room in 2025, details the government’s once top-secret Project Artichoke that ran from 1951 to 1956, focusing on behavior control, interrogation techniques and psychological manipulation.

The seven-page document, titled ‘Special Research for Artichoke,’ with an attachment labeled ‘Suggested Fields for Special Research Relative Artichoke,’ outlines proposals to develop chemicals capable of altering human behavior.

It discusses drugs designed for both immediate effects, like truth serums and long-term influence, potentially administered through food, water, alcohol or cigarettes.

Researchers also suggested that such substances could be disguised in medical treatments such as vaccinations or injections.

The CIA was also looking into methods beyond chemicals, listing hypnosis, sensory deprivation, gases and other psychological methods for interrogation and behavioral control.

Artichoke served as a precursor to the CIA’s MKUltra program, which later broadened mind-altering experiments on a larger scale.

Many files were destroyed in the 1970s, leaving the full extent of the research and how far it progressed unknown.

The document was declassified in 1983, but has resurfaced on social media, where users are shocked to see the CIA discussing methods for ‘drugging entire populations.’

Project Artichoke emerged during the early Cold War, a period marked by intense anxiety over communist powers and reports of brainwashing techniques used on American prisoners of war in Korea. 

Internal CIA memos suggested that US intelligence feared enemy nations had developed ways to control human thought and behavior, prompting the agency to explore its own capabilities.

The declassified document reveals the depth of this research, noting the need for a study ‘to determine what drugs are best suited for direct use on subjects along the lines of amytal and pentothal and which drugs are best for an indirect or long-range approach to subjects.’ 

The researchers involved in the secret program emphasized that long-term compounds should be capable of producing ‘an agitating effect (producing anxiety, nervousness, tension, etc.) or a depressing effect (creating a feeling of despondency, hopelessness, lethargy, etc.).’ 

They also outlined practical considerations for concealment, such as substances that could be introduced surreptitiously in ‘food, water, Coca-Cola, beer, liquor, cigarettes, etc.,’ highlighting the CIA’s focus on undetectable methods of influence. 

Moreover, the report recommended consulting with the Army Chemical Warfare Service, noting they have conducted ‘exhaustive studies along these lines’ that could provide specific guidance for the program.

Beyond drugs, Artichoke explored a wide range of psychological tools. 

Keep reading

The Evolving Battle Over Vaccine Mandates and Informed Consent in America

In early February, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo made headlines by announcing the state’s intention to become the first in the nation to eliminate all vaccine mandates, extending beyond Covid-19 requirements to include long-standing immunizations for diseases like measles, polio, and hepatitis B. Speaking at a press conference, Ladapo framed the move as a defense of personal liberty, declaring, “Your body is a gift from God… Government does not have that right.” This policy shift, initially proposed in September 2025 by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and Ladapo, aims to dismantle mandates for schools, nursing homes, and other institutions, arguing that they infringe on individual autonomy. If enacted by the Legislature, it could start a ripple effect, as more people are waking up to the truth about vaccines.

Ladapo’s announcement sparked widespread debate, with many Americans celebrating the push for “medical freedom.” Supporters argue it empowers parents and individuals, aligning with a broader post-Covid anti-mandate sentiment. Critics condemn it as a dangerous rollback that could endanger vulnerable populations, such as immunocompromised children. As of this month, bills like SB 1756 have advanced in the Florida Senate, expanding exemptions but stopping short of a full ban, amid reports of measles cases fueling the controversy. Public health officials fear this could inspire similar actions in conservative states like Idaho, which has already followed suit.

Keep reading

The Atlantic Busted Fabricating Dead Kid Measles Story

Last Thursday, The Atlantic published a heart-wrenching story about an 11-month-old child who died of measles. Written in the second person from the perspective of a mother whose two unvaccinated children fell ill with the disease, the story is rich with personal detail;

“You plant her on the couch with a blanket and put Bluey on the TV while she drifts in and out of sleep…” 

“While the kids are napping, you tap a list of your daughter’s symptoms into Google and find a slew of diseases that more or less match up…”

“Her cough wracks her whole body, rounding her delicate bird shoulders. She does not sleep well. And as you lift up her pajama top to check her rash one morning, you see that her breathing is labored, shadows pooling between her ribs when she sucks in air.” 

Turns out, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. The Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Bruenig simply made it up, leading to mass confusion.

As Laura Hazard Owen of NiemanLab – who initially busted Bruenig – writes:

When I initially read Bruenig’s story, I was stunned: An Atlantic staff writer’s unvaccinated child had died of measles in the 2020s, and now she was writing about it? At the end of Bruenig’s piece, though, there’s an editor’s note: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.” That was the point when I sent a gift link to my mom group: “as far as I can tell this piece is fiction. What do we think about this choice? I am very conflicted!!!” My conflict stemmed from my concern that, though the piece was heavily researched, it was not a true story. I wondered if the key people whose minds might be changed by it — people who don’t vaccinate their kids — would brush it off as fiction, or fake.

Following the publication, two journalists reached out to Owen to let her know that they were similarly confused, as there “was not an editor’s note/disclaimer on the piece at all.” 

What’s more, The Atlantic’s own spokesperson told one of the journalists: “This is based on a mother’s real account,” – after which the outlet added a disclaimer. 

Keep reading

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.

Keep reading

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.”

Keep reading

Judge Weighs Whether To Block Vaccines Changes From CDC, RFK Jr.

A federal judge weighing whether to block changes to U.S. vaccine guidance and an advisory panel did not immediately rule Feb. 13 after hearing from attorneys representing medical groups and the government.

Lawyers for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and other groups told U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Boston that recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule and the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel violate federal law and will reduce vaccination rates.

“This is a clear and present danger to public health,” said James Oh, a lawyer for the groups.

Oh said the schedule update, which removed the broad recommendation for six childhood vaccines for diseases including rotavirus, influenza and hepatitis A, “set off alarms” in the medical community and occurred without any rational explanation from the agency.

The CDC on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule.

Government officials said in filings that the the reasoning behind the change was in part due to an assessment carried out by senior health officials that analyzed the U.S. childhood schedule against schedules from other countries.

“The U.S. is a global outlier among peer nations in the number of target diseases included in its childhood vaccination schedule and in the total number of recommended vaccine doses,” the officials, Drs. Tracy Beth Hoeg and Martin Kulldorff, concluded.

The plaintiffs, which also include several women who say changes under Kennedy have prevented them from receiving vaccines, are challenging a series of actions. They focused on arguments for and against imposing an injunction blocking that update and the health secretary’s remaking of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

Oh said that the committee is not fairly balanced because it is dominated by people who oppose vaccines, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and urged Murphy to block the committee’s upcoming Feb. 26–27 meeting.

Government lawyers said in a recent brief that the advisory committee members have a variety of employment histories and that the accusation they are anti-vaccine “does not accurately represent the members’ complex and nuanced perspectives and their committee voting records.”

Murphy asked during the hearing whether he could consider the “broader public health impacts” of the changes in vaccine recommendations while weighing the case.

Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer told him health officials were not pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda and welcomed “spirited debate about vaccine policy.”

But he said the Department of Health and Human Services had broad authority to change policy to address a decline in public trust in vaccines following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The court cannot substitute its judgment in place of the agency,” Belfer said.

Murphy did not immediately rule.

With the meeting upcoming, he said he “must make a decision in this case on an uncomfortably tight timeline.”

Keep reading

Key Architect of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ List Resigns After ‘Epstein Files’ Reveal Tangled Web of Censorship

The 2021 publication of “The Disinformation Dozen” list of 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers” sparked efforts to discredit U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sayer Ji and other outspoken critics of COVID-19 pandemic policies and vaccines.

Five years later, the release of the “Epstein Files” has led to the resignation of one of the list’s architects — Morgan McSweeney.

McSweeney, chief of staff to U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, resigned Sunday. In 2018, he co-founded what later became known as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which published the “Disinformation Dozen” list.

McSweeney’s resignation stemmed from his prior support for Peter Mandelson, former U.K. ambassador to the U.S.

Mandelson is implicated in the Epstein Files for his close ties to disgraced financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. McSweeney had advised Starmer to appoint Mandelson to his ambassadorial post.

Starmer removed Mandelson from his post in September 2025, after emails between Mandelson and Epstein were made public. In the emails, Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a child prostitute was wrongful and should be overturned.

The Epstein Files also showed that Mandelson shared sensitive government information with Epstein. The U.K. Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation of Mandelson, while Starmer apologized to Epstein’s sex-trafficking victims.

In his resignation letter, McSweeney took “full responsibility” for advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson.

But Ji, listed as one of the “Disinformation Dozen,” told The Defender McSweeney’s resignation shows that “the architecture behind a decade of political censorship is coming into view.”

“The same political culture that normalized backroom routing of power, deniability, and proxy enforcement is the culture that produced CCDH — and shielded it from scrutiny while it reshaped public discourse on both sides of the Atlantic,” Ji wrote on Substack.

In its early years, CCDH targeted left-wing political figures and independent media outlets in the U.K. with claims of antisemitism. Later, it targeted “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the U.S.

The Biden administration and corporate media used the “Disinformation Dozen” list to discredit figures like Kennedy and Ji. Social media platforms deplatformed those included on the list.

Internal documents leaked in 2024 showed that CCDH sought to launch “Black Ops” against Kennedy and “kill Musk’s Twitter” — now known as X. “Black ops” refers to secret operations carried out by governments or other organizations that hide their involvement.

The Epstein Files don’t contain evidence indicating Epstein was involved in CCDH’s operations, Ji said. But they do reveal an “operational lineage” connecting Epstein to figures like Mandelson and McSweeney, revealing “the hidden origins of CCDH — and the elite networks now illuminated by the Epstein files.”

“The Epstein files help explain why censorship became so aggressive,” said Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “CCDH and similar entities functioned less as neutral watchdogs and more as enforcement mechanisms — protecting systems, not public discourse.”

Keep reading