Tag: vaccines

Needle-Free mRNA Vaccine With Aluminum Protects Mice Against COVID and Flu — But Study Lacks Safety Data

Scientists have developed a needle-free mRNA vaccine that protects mice against COVID-19 and flu and causes less inflammation than conventional formulations, according to a new study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The vaccines use a high-pressure liquid jet to deliver genetic material directly through the skin, unlike the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots, which use lipid nanoparticles as the delivery system.

The authors — researchers from Rutgers University and Japanese institutions — reported that the technology generated strong immune responses and reduced viral replication in vaccinated mice.

The vaccine hasn’t been tested in humans, and researchers haven’t established whether it could reduce serious adverse reactions.

“Showing that a carrier-free, needle-free vaccine can be made protective opens a different design space than the one the field has been working in,” said study co-author Renata Pasqualini, Ph.D., a Rutgers researcher, in a university announcement.

COVID vaccines linked to serious adverse events

The study comes amid continuing concerns about COVID-19 vaccine injuries, and a study released this week comparing Pfizer and Moderna vaccine mortality rates.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recognized a causal link between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly among adolescent and young adult males.

A 2022 study published in JAMA identified 1,626 reports meeting the CDC’s case definition for myocarditis following mRNA vaccination during the study period.

Reporting rates were highest among adolescent boys after their second dose, reaching approximately 106 cases per million Pfizer doses among males ages 16 and 17.

Symptoms of myocarditis can include chest pain, shortness of breath and an irregular heartbeat. Although many patients recover, some require hospitalization, and others have reported being permanently disabled.

Other documented serious adverse reactions include anaphylaxis following vaccination and a rare blood-clotting disorder associated with Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) collects reports of suspected vaccine injuries and deaths. The latest figures show 1,678,901 adverse event reports following COVID-19 vaccination submitted to VAERS as of Sept. 25, 2026, including 39,260 reported fatalities and 29,299 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis.

The Rutgers study did not investigate whether its mRNA needle-free vaccine could prevent serious injuries.

Keep reading

Congenital Measles Wasn’t a Problem When Everyone Got Measles as a Kid — Vaccines Changed That

Congenital measles — when a baby contracts the virus in utero from the mother — has been making headlines since the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) on Oct. 19 issued a health alert warning doctors about an increase in measles cases during pregnancy.

DOH’s alert provided clinical guidance on how healthcare providers can identify and treat measles in pregnant women and newborns.

The day after Pennsylvania released its alert, media outlets including NBC News reported that the U.S. historically rarely, if ever, sees cases of congenital measles. But now that appears to be changing. At least six babies in Pennsylvania have been born with measles so far this year, Pennsylvania doctors told NBC.

Pennsylvania health officials stress that the best way to prevent congenital measles is for the mother to get the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine before pregnancy.

“Getting vaccinated before becoming pregnant is the best way to prevent measles and newborn measles,” the DOH said in an Oct. 19 press release. “The MMR vaccine should not be administered during pregnancy and pregnancy should be avoided for 28 days after receiving the MMR vaccine.”

However, doctors who spoke with The Defender said that decades of studies have shown that vaccine-induced measles immunity is weaker and fades faster than natural immunity — so women who had a natural measles infection as a child are better protected against giving birth to a baby with congenital measles than women who got the MMR vaccine.

“For the first time in a generation, American babies are being born infected with measles and the science told us this was coming,” said Michelle Perro, a pediatrician. “The vaccine program didn’t eliminate measles — it shifted the risk to the most vulnerable: newborns and the pregnant women carrying them.”

Dr. Ben Edwards, an integrative medicine family practitioner who successfully treated over 300 cases of measles during the West Texas measles outbreak and runs a private practice serving roughly 2,000 patients, said that before the MMR vaccine, measles was a “routine childhood illness” in which over 99% of children overcame it with “no problem, resulting in robust, permanent and life-long immunity.”

During that era, “practically all pregnant mothers had measles in their youth,” he said. The mothers passed along protective antibodies to their babies in the womb, which protected the babies during the “more vulnerable first year of life.”

As the baby grew up and the level of maternal antibodies faded, the child would get measles sometime in the first decades of life and develop its own robust, lifelong immunity.

“It’s really a beautifully designed natural immunization process — but we’ve lost that because of the measles vaccine program,” Edwards said.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski agreed. “The natural course of measles pre-vaccine was to infect practically every immunologically-naive school-aged child every two years, imparting life-long immunity.”

The measles vaccine wiped out that natural cycle and brought with it inferior protection compared to naturally acquired protection, Jablonowski said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) acknowledges that congenital measles was exceedingly rare before the introduction of the MMR vaccine. On Sept. 8, the AAP published new guidance on congenital measles so that doctors know how to identify and treat it.

“Many providers who have never seen measles except in textbooks are now having to learn what to do, how to look out for measles in their patients and how to manage them,” said Dr. Pia S. Pannaraj, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

The AAP defines congenital measles as an infection acquired before birth in which a newborn tests positive for measles or develops symptoms within the first 10 days of life.

If a pregnant woman gets measles, there’s about a 25%-30% chance she will transmit the virus to her baby, the AAP said.

A congenital measles infection is typically confirmed via clinical or laboratory testing. It’s different from neonatal measles, in which babies contract the virus after birth from close contact with people who have measles.

The rule of thumb is that if the baby develops a measles rash 10 days or more after birth, it’s likely neonatal measles. If the rash develops less than 10 days after birth, it’s likely congenital measles, the AAP said.

There is no national database on congenital measles, “likely because the disease hasn’t been routinely seen in the United States for decades,” the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) reported.

“The same institutions that assured us measles was gone are now scrambling to count cases of a disease they never built a surveillance system for,” Perro said. “That’s a policy failure and babies are paying the price.”

Keep reading

Pfizer COVID-19 Shot Recipients Show Higher Death Risk Than Moderna Counterpart

A major new peer-reviewed study from Florida has found a significant difference in mortality outcomes between two major COVID-19 shots. Adults who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) shot showed a higher risk of death from any cause over 12 months compared to those who received the Moderna (mRNA-1273) shot.

The study tracked nearly two million Florida adults who received their first dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine between December 2020 and August 2021. Researchers compared mortality outcomes over the following year, matching participants by age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccination month, vaccination site type, and neighborhood.

A stark pattern emerged, showing a disparity most severe among patients 60 and older. The Pfizer cohort experienced 784 deaths per 100,000 compared to 562 among Moderna recipients, a 40% higher risk. The analysis also showed particularly alarming gaps in cardiovascular fatalities (up 57%) and COVID-19-related deaths (up 91%), while non-COVID mortality was also significantly elevated at 37% higher.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Nicholas Hulscher—an Epidemiologist and Administrator at the McCullough Foundation—expanded on the study’s findings.

First, applying the study’s 40 percent higher all-cause mortality hazard to an assumed 150 million U.S. Pfizer recipients and a baseline annual mortality rate of 0.87 percent, he calculated 522,000 potential excess deaths.

“That’s a hypothetical extrapolation of over half a million excess deaths from Pfizer alone,” he explained.

Hulscher then offered a more conservative estimate using the study’s absolute mortality difference: 221 additional deaths per 100,000 Pfizer recipients. This calculation yielded “331,500 additional deaths—if what we saw in Florida holds nationwide.”

Keep reading

Flu Vaccine Studies: Pseudo-Randomized or Untrustworthy Results?

The validity of a study, or a series of studies, may be questioned by several methods, one of which is identifying unexpected results. Consider the following example, which I used to teach in an introductory epidemiology course.

Having yellow-stained fingers is associated with lung cancer, but we know that the association does not reflect causality. Yellow-stained fingers do not cause lung cancer. Rather, the association is explained by smoking — a confounder — a cause of both yellow fingers and lung cancer.

Suppose a group of researchers reported that the association in question was not removed after adjustment for smoking status. Obviously, something is wrong, either in the data or in the way it was analyzed. Regardless of the reason, we will not trust any inference from that study, including the estimated effect of smoking. It is equivalent to rejecting a witness’s entire testimony after detecting a single relevant lie. That’s an analogy, of course, not a claim about intentional lying by the researchers.

Keep reading

VAERS and VSAFE: The “Worst Case Scenario” Twice

Files that were removed from the internet are in the evidence pack.

The scale of the violation is hard to imagine, I know. After the dazed feeling wears off, let’s get busy. I also want to thank Dr. Clayton Baker, who was the first to bring my attention to the role of Tom Shimabukuro in covering up vaccine safety signals for over ten years. Incredibly, he is still at the CDC, serving as the deputy director of the Influenza Division in their National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).

The following research brief benefited from various digital research assistants, and I have not edited the language yet. But the information cannot wait.

Read and share with friends and family. It’s not over yet.

The United States began vaccinating against Covid-19 on 14 December 2020. Two CDC programs were designed and paid to catch any harm that clinical trials had missed. VAERS takes reports from doctors, patients and manufacturers. V-safe sends vaccinated people text messages asking how they feel. Here we follow the paper trail of those two systems from the Christmas 2020 rollout into 2022. The bottom line:

The government’s “worst case” for amount of Covid vaccine injury reports assumed 1,000 reports a day. For fourteen months it was double that. For some of those months, it was triple.

The document that matters most is a monthly report from the contractor that runs VAERS for the CDC, General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT). It covers December 2020 and went to the CDC’s contracting officer’s representative on 16 January 2021, with CDC program staff and an FDA reviewer copied. Its first page carries a chart.

A red line marks 1,000 reports a day, which the government’s own planning called the “worst case.” The reports crossed that line on 21 December, the winter solstice, in the first week of the rollout. They dipped under it for three days around Christmas. From 26 December they stayed over it. The contractor told the CDC. that it was “unable to meet processing and other timeframes (data processing, telephone inquiries, clinical inquiries, etc.)” (GDIT report, PDF p. 8). All this while they were telling everyone everything was ok.

Keep reading

FDA Official Urged Fatal Myocarditis Warning on COVID Vaccine Labels 10 Months Ago. It Was Never Added.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety official recommended adding a warning about fatal myocarditis to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine labels in December 2025, after an agency review identified several pediatric deaths as possibly or probably related to vaccination.

More than 10 months later, the agency hasn’t added the warning.

According to documents obtained by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker, an FDA pharmacovigilance expert — Dr. Meghna Alimchandani — emailed agency leadership on Dec. 5, 2025, formally recommending that a warning for fatal myocarditis be added to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine labels.

Her recommendation followed an internal memo from Dr. Vinay Prasad, then-head of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The memo, later leaked to The New York Times, revealed that agency researchers had initially identified “no fewer than 10” child or teen deaths tied to vaccine-induced myocarditis.

However, documents released in June by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) showed that a month after CBER identified the 10 child deaths, it reduced the number of deaths to seven and downgraded the probability that the vaccines were directly responsible.

Several former FDA officials told RealClearInvestigations that the leaked memos and documents — along with reporting by The New York Times and other news outlets — “appears to have unsettled the FDA’s safety office,” leading the agency to reduce the number of child deaths that it linked to the COVID-19 shots.

In May 2025, the FDA directed Pfizer and Moderna to strengthen their COVID-19 vaccine label warnings by expanding the age group at risk for vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis and warning that myocardial injury can be lasting — but the warning about fatal outcomes has never been added.

Thacker suggested that overlapping political, pharmaceutical and media interests may have led to the FDA decision not to add the warning.

He attributed the lack of action partly to the Trump administration’s investment in Operation Warp Speed, which accelerated vaccine development in 2020, and to what he describes as the Biden administration’s reluctance to publicize findings that could undermine its vaccination policies.

Drug safety advocate Kim Witczak, a former member of the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, told The Defender that the warning label issue should not be partisan.

“This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats, Trump, Biden or RFK Jr., it’s about the American public’s right to know,” Witczak said. “If FDA scientists identified credible evidence of fatal myocarditis and recommended updating the COVID vaccine labels, why hasn’t that happened? Who made that decision?”

Keep reading

‘The Globalists Really Want It’: UN Renews Push for Vaccines in 100 Days

The United Nations is renewing a push to build the infrastructure needed to develop a vaccine within 100 days of the next pandemic, an effort backed by Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation.

In a policy brief published earlier this month, the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health said the goal is equity-driven — to help low-income countries access vaccines as quickly as wealthier countries during a global health emergency.

According to the brief, models suggest that rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days of sequencing the virus would have saved about 8 million lives by the end of 2021, and up to $14 trillion in healthcare costs and lost productivity.

Based on those projections, improving vaccine equity in future pandemics will require the global health community to prioritize regional manufacturing capacity alongside “resilient, pre-established preparedness frameworks.”

One such framework, according to the report, is “The 100 Days Mission” — a Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) initiative that aims to “potentially contain outbreaks before they spiral out of control.”

An ‘absolute nightmare waiting to happen’

The 100 Days Mission can contribute to “a global system that can respond quickly to future health emergencies while directing protection to populations with the greatest need,” according to the U.N. brief.

But for Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense (CHD), prioritizing speed over safety leaves insufficient time to evaluate the efficacy or potential risks of vaccines. Hooker called the plan an “absolute nightmare waiting to happen.”

He added:

“No intervention that is untested should be rolled out within 100 days of a ‘pandemic threat’ … Even if the platform to roll out a shot was adequately tested, there would be no clues as to how the vaccine antigen … would react physiologically, no time for animal studies and no evaluation of any long-term sequelae to vaccination.

“Not only would this produce a vaccine that doesn’t work, but also it could cause way more damage than the infection that inspired the intervention.”

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender the U.N. plan lists lockdowns as a key component of containing a future outbreak.

“This plan imagines 100 days of lockdown before the release of the shot, if that is even possible. Compliance with this will be very low,” Tucker said.

According to Tucker, there’s no record of any pandemic having been stopped by vaccines, because vaccines “cannot stay ahead of mutations.” He said the shots “will drive the mutations and thereby deprecate the shot formula.”

“This plan exists on paper and has nothing to do with reality. If attempted, it could conceivably do more harm than the previous attempt during COVID,” Tucker said.

Keep reading

CDC Death Certificate Codes Show ‘Robust Safety Signal’ for COVID Vaccines

The number of U.S. death certificates listing Y59.0, the code for a death caused by a viral vaccine, rose from fewer than 10 per year through 2020, to 198 in 2021, the year COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, according to a new analysis of CDC data by the research group CORRELATION.

Researchers said the significant increase in certified vaccine deaths starting in 2021 is “unprecedented,” at least since 1968, and constitutes “a robust safety signal for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Our results show that exceptional and brave attending physicians reported COVID-19 vaccine-caused deaths on the death certificates that they were legally mandated to complete, despite the large professional, institutional and political bias against doing so, and that these death-certificate results constitute a significant safety signal unprecedented since at least 1968,” Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., lead author of the analysis, told The Defender.

He added:

“There is no justification for a claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are ‘safe,’ since they caused certified deaths, beyond any previous levels for any vaccine type. The side effect of death must be mentioned when informing patients. There is a definite lower-bound risk of death that cannot be argued away by health agencies.”

Keep reading

EXPOSED: The Scale of Corruption In The Vaccine Industrial Complex

For decades, the public was told that pharmaceutical products undergo the gold standard of scientific scrutiny: randomized, inert-placebo-controlled clinical trials.

But as Bret Weinstein and Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker expose, the reality behind vaccine approval is pure regulatory sleight of hand. New shots are routinely tested not against a true, inert saline control, but against earlier vaccine versions or active adjuvant concoctions, falsely labeling them as “placebos.”

Under this rigged framework, as long as a new shot causes no more immediate harm than the last hazardous formulation, regulators stamp it “safe.”

Combine this rigged safety baseline with statistical tricks that inflate tiny, meaningless results into “95% effectiveness,” and the entire corporate narrative falls apart.

The system was never designed to uncover true harm; it was designed to hide it in plain sight.

You will not believe how corrupt the FDA’s process for vaccine safety testing is.

“It’s just smoke and mirrors.”

Send this to someone who still believes Pharma’s “safe and effective” narrative.

New vaccines are never tested against a placebo.

Bret Weinstein: “That’s jaw-dropping in and of itself.”

But it gets worse.

“They test it against something that they claim is a placebo… the last version of the shot.”

“If the last version of the shot was demonstrated to be safe, and the new version of the shot doesn’t do any more harm than the last version, then it’s safe, right?”

Jeffrey Tucker: “If it’s slightly better, then you report the relative efficacy.”

“It’s a tenth of a percent, and that’s where you get your 95% effectiveness.”

Keep reading

Vaccine Injury: A Glimpse of the Scale

Ihave heard these stories a thousand times. I am a board‑certified pediatrician with 46 years of clinical experience. I’ve practiced in group and solo settings, served as Director of Pediatric Education for a residency program, and received numerous awards for child‑health initiatives. My solo practice had 3,500 general pediatric patients. I spent five years as Medical Director of the Autism Research Institute.

By caring for and consulting on more than 600 children with autism from 5 countries and 20 states, and hundreds of children with complex chronic illnesses, I have a unique clinical perspective to share, which mirrors what these families shared today.

My concerns about vaccine safety began in 1999 after my patient experienced a severe and irreversible reaction following a vaccine I gave. Despite exhaustive efforts to identify another cause, I could not. The trajectory of my career changed. I left a secure academic position I loved and opened a solo practice dedicated to children whose medical needs were not being met.

During my career I learned an extraordinary amount from parents who are usually perceptive observers of their children’s health. At ARI we partnered with families to identify medical problems that were overlooked. Their insights guided our research and these actions should guide our actions today. Families directed us to treat gastrointestinal dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and impairments in detoxification pathways. Collaborations with international scientists helped identify mitochondrial dysfunction, methylation abnormalities, cerebral folate deficiency, and prolonged cell danger responses.

Most pediatricians do not know about these issues. Addressing these problems often resulted in measurable improvements in autism symptoms. Some children initially diagnosed with moderate to severe autism entered kindergarten no longer meeting criteria for autism because their medical problems were treated. Other severely affected children treated as toddlers have gone on to college without knowing they once carried an autism diagnosis.

My concerns about vaccine safety extend far beyond the narrow question of whether vaccines cause autism. Autism and complex chronic illnesses are profoundly heterogeneous. In my experience, antecedents, mediators, and triggers vary widely among children. Vaccines contribute to oxidative or mitochondrial stress in all children. In some kids; they amplify pre‑existing vulnerabilities. For others, early-life factors—such as C‑section birth, antibiotics, or prematurity — create antecedent conditions that interact with later vaccines and precede neurodevelopmental regression.

In 2005, I gave grand rounds at the university where I had been chief resident. Simply raising the possibility that the accelerated vaccine schedule might contribute to rising autism prevalence resulted in my adjunct faculty appointment not being renewed. At the time, I used a modified schedule that reduced aluminum exposure while remaining fully compliant with Virginia’s school requirements.

In 2006, I met with AAP leadership to discuss vaccine safety concerns – which were dismissed. Despite no research funding from government or pharma, I published a dozen studies in my spare time. One 17‑year project examined whether autism risk could be reduced by applying insights learned from families. After seven years, my autism prevalence was 1 in 297—at a time when the national rate was worse than 1 in 50. I submitted the findings to the AAP in 2013, expecting interest in a six‑fold reduction in such a serious public health problem. I received no response.

Keep reading