Tag: vaccines

Another MAHA Betrayal: Trump’s Nominee for CDC Director Calls mRNA Technology ‘Safe and Effective’

When asked at a U.S. Senate hearing whether she thinks mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director nominee Dr. Erica Schwartz replied, “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”

Both the question and the answer show a serious lack of scientific understanding.

Here’s the scientifically accurate answer to the question: We don’t know the full safety profile of either of the two types of approved mRNA vaccines or the technology. First, It’s all too new. Second, we’re not even collecting the full data.

Read on for details.

According to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists and other experts in the field, comprehensive safety data isn’t known until a new drug (including vaccines) has been on the market and in widespread use for 7-12 years.

Even now, we aren’t getting full information on safety profiles because the data isn’t even being collected in the comprehensive manner required for accurate analysis.

The established scientific process requires that all illnesses after vaccination be meticulously recorded regardless of whether a patient or doctor thinks the illness is actually connected to the vaccine.

Most doctors are not following the process. Some misunderstand. Others are willfully ignoring. And no authority is ensuring they do their job.

Doctors typically aren’t even asking their ill patients whether they had an mRNA vaccine (for COVID-19 or RSV), which one(s), and when. So they aren’t collecting that crucial data.

Most people, including physicians, don’t understand that patients being treated for any illness are supposed to be queried.

This means, for example, someone who comes to the ER with a retinal detachment should be asked if he had a COVID-19 vaccine, which one, how many, and when, and then the data should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Same with someone who becomes sick with a rash, headaches, tendon rupture, stiff neck, depression or chest congestion. Everything.

Even when patients do tell a physician they think an illness might be vaccine-related, the physician frequently, improperly, determines on the front end that he doesn’t need to report the possible adverse event to the established database unless he thinks it’s connected to the vaccine. That’s not how the system works.

Keep reading

The Official Louisiana State Data Has No Other Explanation: US Childhood Vaccines Are Increasing Infant Mortality

Executive summary

This is it. This is the big one. Finally.

This is the story of the most damaging childhood vaccine study ever done.

I asked all four major AI engines to predict the outcome before showing them the results. All four said the same thing: the OR will be <1 and there will be minimal sex differences.

The actual result: OR >1 in 54/55 subgroup analyses and massive sex differences.

You would simply never see these results if the childhood vaccines were safe.

Nobody can explain the relatively higher deaths in the vaccinated cohorts if they were not caused by the vaccines. They all try to deceive you into believing the study methodology is subject to confounders and should be considered unreliable.

There are 3 biases that impact this study:

  1. Selection bias: The healthy vaccinee effect moves OR < 1 so that doesn’t explain the signal.
  2. Immortal time bias: This was caused by requiring everyone to be vaccinated before they die. Thus, if all kids are never vaccinated <60 days, then the unvaxxed group cannot die until they’ve been vaccinated. This was a big oversight in the paper. It might move OR > 1 depending on the data. If most all kids had their first vaccine < day 60 like their HepB vaccinate at birth, then this bias makes no difference. I’ve made the study authors aware of this. The limitation can be corrected by requiring a vaccination record match found prior to the landmark date (day 90).
  3. Right truncation bias: This affects only the Vaxelis group because Vaxelis was only available starting in 2021 so these recipients had less time to die than the unvaccinated group. This inflates the OR for the vaccinated group, but even after correction, it’s still a problem. I’ve made the study authors aware of this.

All Bradford Hill causality criteria are satisfied. So this isn’t just correlation. This is CAUSATION. The sex signal is not subject to any of the biases identified above.

This means that the recommended vaccines for 2 month old kids are unsafe.

There is no credible way to attack this study.

Keep reading

Moderna Injects First Participant With Experimental mRNA-4200 Cancer Shot That Forces the Body to Produce Seven Undisclosed Tumor Proteins

On Thursday, Moderna announced that it has injected the first participant in a Phase 1 clinical trial of mRNA-4200 (NCT06880549), an experimental mRNA product that causes the body to produce seven undisclosed tumor proteins following administration.

In other words, the product does not merely introduce tumor proteins into the body—it uses the body itself to manufacture them.

On purpose.

The study raises obvious safety and informed-consent questions about how long the body produces the purportedly encoded tumor proteins, what their long-term biological effects may be, and whether the product or its outputs could be shed from the original recipient onto others through exosomes or extracellular vesicles in excreted bodily fluids.

A 2021 Journal of Extracellular Vesicles study found that cells expressing a target protein can release extracellular vesicles that “carry” that protein, demonstrating that what is produced inside the body can be exported outside the cell in membrane-bound particles.

A separate 2023 Pharmaceutics review explains that exosomes are natural transport vesicles that carry proteins and nucleic acids throughout the body and are present in bodily fluids including blood, saliva, and other secretions—meaning they are not confined to the original cell or even the original location in the body.

You can contact Moderna here and the FDA here.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Bill Would Move COVID Vaccine Injury Claims Into VICP in Biggest Reform Push in Decades

U.S. House of Representatives lawmakers on Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation to overhaul the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), proposing to move pending COVID-19 vaccine injury claims into the program.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act would transfer covered COVID-19 vaccine injury claims from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) into the VICP.

The bill would also update compensation limits, expand vaccine coverage and increase the number of officials who decide claims.

React19, a nonprofit that advocates for people injured by COVID-19 vaccines, called the proposal the “most significant effort in decades to restore fairness to America’s vaccine injury compensation system.”

“For React19’s community, the bill represents far more than a policy proposal,” the organization said. “It represents hope.”

React19 co-founder Brianne Dressen said the legislation reflects years of advocacy by people who felt they had been forgotten.

“Today is the culmination of years of relentless advocacy by people who refused to let their injuries be ignored,” Dressen said. “This legislation sends an important message: every American deserves to be heard.”

House Ways and Means Committee members Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and Lloyd Smucker (R-Penn.) introduced the bill.

‘Everybody knows someone who has been injured now’

Wayne Rohde, a longtime vaccine injury compensation advocate and author who has written extensively about the VICP, said the bill addresses an issue lawmakers can no longer ignore.

“We need to address the injuries caused by the COVID vaccine,” Rohde told The Defender. “If we’re going to have a viable vaccine policy in the U.S., if we do not compensate those who have been injured, [then in] the next pandemic, you will see a complete withdrawal from the public to accept any countermeasures because everybody knows someone who has been injured now.”

At the same time, Rohde said he has reservations about moving COVID-19 vaccines into the VICP because the legislation could bring additional vaccines developed with similar mRNA technology into the program.

“I have concerns about the technology used to develop it, and that it will allow traditional vaccine manufacturers to use that same technology for other vaccines covered in the program,” he said.

He also noted that the bill would expand VICP coverage to additional adult vaccines.

“If they add RSV, shingles and dengue, what that tells me is that the next vaccine down the pike will be swept into program, too,” Rohde said.

The VICP currently covers only those vaccines the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends for routine administration to children and pregnant women.

Keep reading

As ICAN Warned, RSV Vaccine for Pregnant Women May Pose Risks

Three years ago, ICAN sent a letter to members of FDA’s vaccine committee warning of the dangers of Pfizer’s RSV pregnancy vaccine, Abrysvo. A recent study supports ICAN’s position that those concerns were warranted.

In May of 2023, ICAN’s legal team sent a letter to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), the FDA committee that makes recommendations on whether or not a new vaccine should be approved. In the letter, ICAN asked the committee to hold off on recommending the approval of Abrysvo until concerning safety signals from the clinical trials had been further investigated. The committee ignored ICAN’s warnings and, shortly after, FDA approved the vaccine.

ICAN’s letter highlighted the following concerns from the Abrysvo clinical trial: “In mothers, serious adverse events included prolonged labor, premature delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, arrested labor, and gestational hypertension, the most frequent of which were preeclampsia and fetal distress.”

A recent study shows safety signals for pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorders (including gestational hypertension), premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and preterm PROM, after receipt of the Abrysvo vaccine. In fact, even though this study was sponsored by Pfizer, the study authors couldn’t avoid stating that “[f]urther epidemiological studies are needed to refine risk estimates….”

Keep reading

What are these ‘calamari-like’ clots that embalmers keep finding?

Retired Air Force Major Thomas Haviland’s peer-reviewed research exposes a persistent phenomenon that the mainstream medical establishment continues to ignore.

A new peer-reviewed paper published July 1 in the International Journal of Innovative Research and Medical Science breaks down what embalmers across English-speaking countries have discovered in recent years: tough, rubbery, white fibrous clots appearing in a significant percentage of bodies long after the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine rollout.

Thomas Haviland, a retired U.S. Air Force Major, began investigating this phenomenon after watching the 2022 documentary Died Suddenly. He has since conducted annual surveys of embalmers in the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. His latest analysis of 808 responses from 2022 through 2025 found that 75% of embalmers reported seeing the unusual clots.

“The embalmers are seeing these white fibrous clots in an average of 23% of their corpses,” Haviland stated.

A separate, more recent, 2026 survey of Tennessee embalmers showed roughly 70% still observing the clots in 18% of cases, according to Haviland.

Notably, these structures differ sharply from clots seen before 2020. “Many of these embalmers have 20 or 30 years of experience, never saw this phenomenon before,” Haviland explained.

“Prior to COVID, they would see two types of clots. What’s called grape jelly clots… And they also see what’s called chicken fat clots… Much, much different than these large white fibrous clots, which are really tough and rubbery and hard to break.”

Haviland also shared the account of an endovascular specialist and cardiologist in Jacksonville, Florida, who contacted him about removing similar clots from living patients at his lab. “He actually refers to the clots as devious clots,” Haviland said. After sharing images and angiograms, the doctor emailed in March 2024 to tell Tom that he had been instructed to terminate communication immediately.

“Somebody, his hospital administrator probably got to him, right? Told him to shut up, stop talking about this, or else we’ll go after your medical license,” Haviland observed. “So it’s a shame. That’s what’s happening. People are staying silent about this when they should be speaking out.”

Laboratory tests on the clots, including Raman spectroscopy and others, point to the spike protein — whether from the virus, modified RNA injections, or both — sticking to a blood protein called fibrinogen and creating unusual structures. “It makes that fibrinogen all misfolded and twisted… So then it becomes almost impossible to break down the clot. It becomes this rubbery polymer instead,” Haviland said.

Despite repeated submissions of survey results to the FDA, CDC, and NIH, and the publication of supporting papers, major health agencies and institutions including the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford have shown no interest in obtaining samples for further study.

Although Haviland’s initial preprint was rejected by one platform as “not novel enough,” four years later, embalmers continue to report the never-before-seen clots into 2026.

Haviland and others behind his research are calling for forensic pathologists and independent researchers to examine the structures directly and for congressional hearings to investigate what embalmers have been documenting for years.

Keep reading

Here’s why Fauci can’t chicken out and plead the ‘Fifth’ during upcoming hearing…

Anthony Fauci thinks Biden’s last-minute “autopen” pardon is his golden parachute.

But he could be very, very wrong.

In reality, that so-called pardon might turn out to be a pair of golden handcuffs instead.

Americans have sat back and watched Fauci play a lot of games. He’s dodged, danced, redefined words, split a lot of hairs, and acted like the rest of the country (and the world) was way too stupid to understand what really went down during the COVID circus. He became the face of the “pandemic” response, and according to the media and liberals, he was the patron saint of “trust the science.”

Who can forget these absurd candles?

As you likely know by now, Senator Rand Paul says Fauci will testify publicly before his committee on July 29th, and this time, the “fifth” escape hatch might not be so easy to open…

That’s because Biden gave Fauci that sweeping preemptive “autopen” pardon before leaving office. The pardon was supposed to protect him. But legally, it screws up Fauci’s ability to sit there, twiddle his thumbs, and plead the Fifth when the questions get uncomfortable.

A lot of Americans believe Fauci should’ve faced real legal consequences a long time ago for what he did to humanity. They look at COVID, the lockdowns, deaths, mandates, ruined businesses, lost years, and all the sketchy questions about Wuhan and the endless array of smug lectures from “experts,” and they don’t see a humble public servant who deserves yet another theatrical political hearing… they see a criminal.

A criminal who got protected.

And let’s be honest here, a blanket pardon doesn’t exactly scream “innocence,” does it? Normal people see something like that and ask the obvious question: if nobody did anything wrong, why did Biden’s autopen feel the need to pardon him before anyone was even charged with anything?

And again, that’s what makes this hearing interesting.

Because if Fauci can’t hide behind the Fifth, then he may be forced into a very ugly corner. He can tell the truth or risk lying to Congress (again). And if Republicans actually have the balls to press hard, follow up, and refuse to let him bluster his way through the hearing, this could become more than another useless Swamp show.

Keep reading

Correcting the New York Times ACIP Reporting on Vaccine Injury

Seeing Sunday’s New York Times headline titled “Confidential Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Track Covid Vaccine Harms,” a reflexive question flashed in the minds of even the most staunch defenders of legacy vaccine policy – is the NY Times about to dismiss the Covid vaccine-injured?

For those who don’t care to read the outlet’s reporting, here are what the authors chose to add as closing words:

“The basis of supposed Covid vaccine injury syndrome is even less persuasive and thus even less directly relevant to vaccine policy…”

For experienced readers, seeing who the article’s lead author is should have caused pause immediately. When it comes to journalistic integrity, Apoorva Mandavilli is not who comes to mind.

In an October 6, 2021 NYT article titled ”A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now,” Mandavilli stated that 900,000 US children have been hospitalized due to Covid. She was forced to correct the glaring error when the real number was found to be slightly more than 63,000.

In 2022 Mandavilli reported on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation of Pfizer’s Covid shot for kids aged 5-11. The NY Times initially reported, “Nearly 4,000 children aged 5 to 11 have died from a Covid-related condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome during the pandemic.”

Mandavilli was again forced to add a correction

Keep reading

If a SIDS-vaccine study offends, remove it

In 2021 Toxicology Reports published Neil Miller’s results of his examination of VAERS reports of 2,605 SIDS deaths between 1990 and 2019:

The peer-reviewed paper found that 75% of SIDS reports occurred within seven days of vaccination, with the highest number on day two. [snip] The journal removed the paper April 9, 2026, citing “serious methodological flaws” and “potential implications for medical practice.” Miller said the journal never specified what those flaws were, despite repeated requests.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote a letter on June 29 demanding that “Toxicology Reports and its parent company Elsevier release all records related to the decision to remove the paper. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. HHS also wrote to the journal June 11 seeking clarification.”

Neil Miller is careful to say that his paper correlating vaccines with SIDS does not prove causation. But reclassifying ICD codes to remove vaccine-related deaths and purging papers that expose shocking statistics to the contrary smacks of the deliberate suppression of information unfavorable to the vaccine industry.

This is not to damn vaccines: in the first half of the 20th century alone, smallpox is credited with killing 254 million people. Vaccines eliminated that disease. Although tuberculosis can be treated by medicine, the scourge of that devastating disease was largely vanquished by vaccines.

Multi-billion-dollar industries engender powerful — some may say insurmountable — incentives to grow and continue to grow, continuously. The vaccine industry is no exception.

The CDC maintains that children need vaccines starting within 24 hours of birth through age 18, comprising approximately 15-17 vaccines across 26-30 doses. The CDC fails the public when they create the impression of stacking the deck in favor of the industry by “reclassifying” or withholding contradictory information. Absence of absolute proof of harm is no excuse when the degree of safety remains unproven. Parents are entitled to access to all available information regarding the risks as well as the benefits of vaccines.

Keep reading

Brian Hooker’s paper showing vaccines increase mortality was REMOVED from preprints.org

They censored this paper as a danger to public safety. This means they know the paper is incorrect and can explain the observed data. But they are keeping their analysis a secret. From everyone, including the authors.

So Karl wrote the entire advisory board. Only ONE member bothered to respond with the reasoning. The rest ghosted him.

But the BIG problem is that the “reasoning” does not EXPLAIN what the study observed. At all. We are left clueless. If the vaccines didn’t increase the mortality, then what did? All we have is COMPLETE SILENCE.

In this article I’ll post what the Advisory Board member wrote and what I wrote back.

Keep reading