Tag: vaccines

Defense Department Continues Ignoring Harms to Readiness by Pushing Flu Shots Contrary to Large Body of Evidence

After the tyrannical enforcement of the now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate, now determined to be “unlawful as implemented,” skepticism of all vaccines has clearly increased throughout the military community.

Sadly, some service members are facing punitive actions for objecting to the flu shot, having argued it is ineffective and detrimental to not only their health, but also their religious convictions. An anonymous Marine officer and Air Force Major Brennan Schilperoort share a similar moral and religious objection to the shot, while also suffering adverse effects from a previous injection. Additionally, both officers have also shown natural immunity.

Rather than recognizing their Constitutionally protected religious rights to substantiate their objection, the military has decided to separate both individuals from service. Although Maj. Schilperoort’s pay was restored by the Air Force, it must be noted Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is aware of their situation, but has thus far remained silent on the issue of separation over the flu shot.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to independent journalist Jeremy Hammond, whose articles about the flu shot have elicited high praise from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

For Hammond, “The coerced vaccination of military service members is yet another unfortunate example of how the government systematically violates individuals’ right to informed consent.” He explained, “This policy exists despite scientific evidence indicating that getting an annual flu shot can actually increase the risk of influenza illness.”

A Cleveland Clinic study of their 54,402 employees during the 2024-2025 flu season found the flu shot was not effective in preventing the transmission of the respiratory illness. Results of the study can be found at MedRxiv, pronounced “med-archive,” an online platform used to share “preprints” in the medical, clinical, and health science fields.

The manuscript is a preprint, meaning it has not been peer-reviewed. Thus, “it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice,” according to the site.

While some might question the validity and reliability of the research as a result, preprints are also known to allow for quicker dissemination of research, provide opportunities for feedback from the scientific community, or could simply be considered an early version of the research manuscript.

With these parameters in place to consider, the study found “in an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state, yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of −26.9%” [emphasis added]. Therefore, based on this data, it can be stated vaccinated individuals were 27 percent more likely to get the flu.

Keep reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading

Calls Grow For Journal To Retract Danish Study After Corrected Data Show Link Between Aluminum And Vaccines

The authors of a recent Danish study widely reported on by mainstream media claimed they found no link between the aluminum in vaccines and autism.

However, corrected data added after the study’s original July 15 publication date show the authors got it wrong — in fact, the data in the study of 1.2 million children clearly indicate a link between aluminum in vaccines and autism, according to scientists with Children’s Health Defense (CHD) who reviewed the study and the corrected data.

On July 17, the Annals of Internal Medicine, which published the Danish study, added a disclaimer stating that it “included an incorrect version of the Supplementary Material at the time of initial publication.”

The updated materials are available with the link to the study at “Correction: Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood.”

CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski broke the news of the buried autism link on Monday’s episode of “Good Morning, CHD.” Today, Jablonowski told The Defender:

“According to the corrected data, nearly 10 (9.7) of every 10,000 children who were vaccinated with a higher dose of aluminum (compared to a moderate dose) developed a neurodevelopmental disorder — mostly autism — between ages 2 and 5.”

Keep reading

U.S. To Eliminate Mercury-Based Preservative From All Flu Vaccines

The Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday that it will fully eliminate thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, from flu vaccines, following a formal recommendation by a federal advisory panel.

The move marks a significant shift in vaccine policy after years of mounting concern over mercury exposure, particularly in children. 

Last month, the ACIP voted to limit flu vaccines to only those free of thimerosal. The mercury-containing preservative, largely phased out of childhood vaccines by 2001, still lingers in some multi-dose flu shots. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on Tuesday signed the advisory board’s recommendations, the department said Wednesday. –Just the News

“After more than two decades of delay, this action fulfills a long-overdue promise to protect our most vulnerable populations from unnecessary mercury exposure,” Kennedy said in a statement. “Injecting any amount of mercury into children when safe, mercury-free alternatives exist defies common sense and public health responsibility. Today, we put safety first.”

Kennedy added: “With the U.S. now removing mercury from all vaccines, we urge global health authorities to follow this prudent example for the protection of children worldwide.”

Thimerosal, first introduced in the 1930s to prevent microbial contamination in multi-dose vaccine vials, was largely removed from childhood immunizations by 2001. However, it remained in some adult flu shots and doses provided through multi-use vials, which have been favored for their efficiency in mass vaccination settings.

The renewed push to remove thimerosal gained traction in the late 1990s, after the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 mandated a review of mercury in medical products. In recent decades, growing public and scientific scrutiny of cumulative mercury exposure – particularly among infants and pregnant women – has led to calls for reform.

According to HHS, 96 percent of flu vaccines for the 2024–2025 season are already thimerosal-free, meaning the transition to single-dose, preservative-free vials is unlikely to disrupt supply. Vaccine manufacturers have assured the agency that they can meet demand for both adult vaccinations and the Vaccines for Children program.

Keep reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading

Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All

Dr. Reichert: “We realized we had incendiary material.”

Dr. Reichert said the researchers thought their study would prove flu vaccinations helped.

Dr. Reichert: “We were trying to do something mainstream. That’s for sure.”

Sharyl: “Were you surprised?”

Dr. Reichert: “Astonished.”

Sharyl: “Did you check the data a couple of times to make sure?”

Dr. Reichert: “Well, even more than that. We’ve looked at other countries now and the same is true.”

An important and definitive “mainstream” government study done nearly two decades ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side.

It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially.

The authors of the study admitted a pro-vaccine bias going into the study. Here was the history as described to me: Public health experts long assumed flu shots were effective in the elderly. But, paradoxically, all the best studies done on the question failed to demonstrate a benefit. Instead of considering that they, the experts, could be wrong–instead of believing the scientific data–the public health experts assumed the studies were wrong. After all, flu shots have to work, right?

So the NIH launched an effort to do “the” definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu shots were beneficial to the elderly. The government would gather some of the brightest scientific minds for the research, and adjust for all kinds of factors that could be masking that presumed benefit.

Keep reading

Vaccine Risk vs. Disease Risk

Imagine you’re a parent considering the CDC’s vaccine schedule: 43 shots with somewhere around 63 doses of vaccine your child is supposed to get by age 18—measles, flu, Covid, the works. You’ve heard the pitch: vaccines save lives, protect the herd, keep diseases in check. But you may naturally wonder: What’s the actual risk to my kid from all these shots when compared to the diseases they’re meant to stop?

Here’s the catch—no one’s ever put out a full, public breakdown of those cumulative odds, assuming vaccines even work as advertised. (Spoiler: they don’t always—Covid shots don’t stop infection or spread, some vaccinated people still catch measles, mumps, and flu today, and all of the last cases of polio in the US were caused by the vaccine.)

Enter Grok, an AI from xAI, which I asked to crunch the numbers. Grok is imperfect, and yet it can still provide us a window and the best idea we, as outsiders, can get to arrive at ballpark numbers and some insight into a vexing controversy.

The results?

On paper, using publicly available data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other sources, vaccinating looks way riskier for your kid than skipping the shots in 2025. There are caveats, but I’ll examine this conclusion step by step, and explain why, when parents raise eyebrows, it’s not just unfounded conspiracy talk.

An obvious note to add here is that the numbers are so shockingly clear, this article will doubtlessly inspire immediate fake “fact checks” and effort to censor, launched by the usual suspects. The propagandists will crunch different odds and figures, and try to poke holes in this analysis to make it sound as though this is a complete misinterpretation. Debunked. Conspiracy Theory.

For example, they would doubtlessly rather utilize calculations that incorporate worst case scenario numbers from decades past when diseases were at their height, without taking into account a disease’s natural ebb and flow. They would rather look at disease toll from a time when there were fewer medical advancements to prevent disease spread and serious illness. And— fair enough on this one— they would prefer to use calculations that look at disease risk in the distant past when nobody was vaccinated, rather than look at the risk today with most people vaccinated. I’ll address that in this article.

In any event, I offer this simply for your own analysis and consideration, to add to the body of knowledge.

Keep reading

What Is the PREP Act?

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

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

What the PREP Act Says

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

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

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

(a) Liability Protections

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

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

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

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

(b) Declaration by Secretary

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

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

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

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

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

Keep reading

Survey Reveals “Seismic Shift” As More Parents Reject Vaccine Schedule

A new survey published in the JAMA Network by researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that an increasing number of pregnant women and new mothers are delaying, or even outright refusing, government-recommended vaccines that hospitals and pediatricians push on newborns and young kids. The findings come just ahead of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s much-anticipated announcement on what the federal agency believes to be the root cause of the autism spike in children ahead of the fall school season. 

Titled “Vaccination Intentions During Pregnancy and Among Parents of Young Children,” researchers found that 33% of parents with children under age 5 intend to delay or refuse some or all government-recommended vaccines. In contrast, only 4% of first-time pregnant women reported plans to delay or refuse all recommended vaccines.

Researchers noted that first-time pregnant women are increasingly distrustful of newborn vaccinations. About half of these women are unsure whether they will commit to the entire vaccine schedule promoted by the government, which includes dozens of shots, compared to only 4% of parents of young children who reported being uncertain about the same schedule. 

Wonder why parents are increasingly concerned…  

Keep reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading