Tag: vaccines

Report: Trump Administration Planning to Phase Out COVID-19 Vaccine

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to phase out the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a report from the Daily Beast.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who is one of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “closest associates,” told the outlet that while a decision to remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the market could come “within months,” it could occur “in a number of stages.” Malhotra also added that “those closest” to Kennedy have reportedly expressed that they “cannot understand” why the COVID-19 vaccine “continues to be prescribed.”

“It could [happen] in a number of stages, including learning more about the data,” Malhotra, who is a British cardiologist, told the outlet. “But given the increased talk of vaccine injuries in the past few weeks among the administration, it could also come with one clean decision.”

Keep reading

‘Right This Wrong’: GRACE Act Would Strip Federal Funding From Schools That Ban Religious Exemptions

A member of the U.S. Congress has drafted legislation that would strip federal funding from schools that don’t allow parents to apply for religious exemptions from vaccination requirements for their children.

The GRACE Act, or Guaranteeing Religious Accommodation in Childhood Education Act, drafted by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), would target elementary and secondary schools, as well as local and state educational agencies.

The legislation would not require state authorities or educational institutions to offer religious exemptions, but it would deny federal funds to those entities if they maintain vaccine mandates that don’t include provisions for religious exemptions.

“The denial of religious exemptions to families and children is un-American and unconstitutional,” said Michael Kane, CHD’s director of advocacy and founder of Teachers for Choice. “CHD and I thank Rep. Steube for putting forth this important legislation to right this wrong that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

The GRACE Act is a response to the “alarming erosion of civil rights” that occurred under the Biden administration, said Cait Corrigan, a former congressional candidate from New York and an advocate for medical freedom and religious liberty.

“This issue is one of religious freedom, individual liberty and parental rights, which I often describe as part of a broader response to years of increasing concern,” Corrigan said.

Steube’s office did not respond by deadline to The Defender’s request for comment on the legislation.

‘A matter of conscience, faith and the fundamental dignity of every family’

Corrigan said the proposed legislation is “not just an issue of policy” but “a matter of conscience, faith and the fundamental dignity of every family in this country.”

Keep reading

ACIP Launches Sweeping Covid-19 Vaccine Review Under Retsef Levi

MIT professor Retsef Levi has been an outspoken voice on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee (ACIP) since its dramatic overhaul in June.

He has pressed agency officials on uncomfortable questions, challenging the narrow surveillance windows used to track harms and insisting that delayed effects could not simply be ruled out.

He also raised concerns about the safety of RSV monoclonal antibodies after clinical trials showed a clear imbalance in infant deaths.

Now, Levi is no longer just a dissenter.

He has been appointed chair of the CDC’s new Covid-19 vaccine working group, and with today’s release of its Terms of Reference, the scale of his task has come into sharp focus.

Under the guidance of Levi and his colleagues, the ACIP working group now has a mandate unlike anything the committee has ever undertaken.

For the first time, federal advisers will investigate the unresolved issues that have dogged the vaccines since their rushed rollout in late 2020.

From DNA contamination in the manufacturing process to the persistence of spike protein and mRNA in the body, from immune class switching following repeated boosting to safety in pregnancy, cardiovascular risks, and long-term disability, the list of questions is as sweeping as it is sensitive. (full list below)

The Terms of Reference stretch far beyond the narrow remit that characterised ACIP’s early deliberations, when myocarditis was acknowledged as the only confirmed harm and most safety reviews stopped at 42 days.

Levi and his team are now tasked with probing long-term outcomes, mapping vaccine policies around the world, and assessing, to what extent, years of official reassurances about safety and efficacy hold up against emerging data.

It is a striking reversal for the CDC and the FDA.

Keep reading

Yale’s Censored Vaccine Injury Research and the Urgent Need for Scientific Reform

One premier research group has bravely studied the vaccine-injured and provided many critical details about their multi-year illnesses.

•Unfortunately, despite their excellent research, medical journals have refused to publish their results, including the most recent study which showed clear differences exist between long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

•Science is ultimately predicated upon the methods we use discern what is actually true (epistemology). As this subject has been neglected, our epistemological standards frequently result in existing dogmas and vested interests being reaffirmed while critically important data never reaches the public awareness (e.g., due to widespread medical journal censorship).

•During COVID-19, the severe abuses of the scientific community (which ultimately resulted from it having no accountability for failing to uphold its social responsibilities) broke the public trust in science, and allowed something previously inconceivable—MAHA to gain control of our corrupt scientific apparatus and have a mandate to reform it.

•NIH director Jay Bhattacharya has announced his commitment to fixing the scientific apparatus and has engaged in a variety of NIH initiatives and public discussions which are vital to allowing science to serve the people rather than vested-interests.

Yale’s medical school is widely considered to have one of the top autoimmunity research and treatment programs in America. As long COVID is considered to be immunological in nature, their researchers extensively studied it, and remarkably some of them then pivoted to also studying vaccine injuries (in part because the COVID vaccines rather than curing long COVID patients, sometimes made them much worse). A few days ago, they finished a new research paper on the subject, but like their previous ones, it was immediately summarily rejected by the “reputable” journals it was submitted to (including the one I feel was the most obligated to publish these findings). In this article, I aim to cover the importance of their most recent results and, more important, examine what their habitual censorship reveals about science in general.

Keep reading

Same Excess Death Patterns in Multiple Data Sets after mRNA Vaccine Rollouts

This article is based on the painstaking and meticulous work of intrepid researcher and Substack writer csofand. I will refer to him as “the researcher,” as he prefers to remain anonymous.

I am also grateful for the assistance of citizen researcher/journalist Benjamin Marten, who generously shared his VAERS data queries and results with me.

Why am I writing about excess mortality associated with Covid mRNA vaccines?

Recently, I was talking to some friends about various Covid topics and casually mentioned deaths and disabilities associated with the mRNA vaccines, as documented by the company that made them. My friends, who are somewhat open to Covid skepticism but have not explored the subject very thoroughly, and are still ensconced in the corporate media bubble, were taken aback. “You mean people died from the vaccines?” they asked incredulously.

Which, for me, raised the question: How can we still be arguing about this?

I hope the information compiled here can help put an end to the question of whether or not Covid mRNA vaccines harm and kill people.

What Is “Excess Mortality”?

According to Wikipedia, excess mortality is an epidemiological term that means “the increase in the number of deaths during a time period and/or in a certain group, as compared to the expected value or statistical trend during a reference period (typically of five years) or in a reference population.”

Simply put, it means more deaths than expected based on previous trends and future projections. As it relates to Covid-19, starting very early in 2020, a major topic of concern became how much excess mortality was caused by the disease (whether or not the disease actually caused a lot of excess mortality is a separate issue). After 2020, with near universal exposure to the novel coronavirus, and the rollout of a global vaccination campaign, excess mortality was expected to go back down. Instead, it increased.

Keep reading

The Case of the Damning FDA Memos

On July 21, 2025, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) announced that it had secured the release of over 600,000 pages of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) data used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize and approve Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2), following a successful lawsuit, culminating in a late 2024 court ruling.

These documents, now publicly available on ICAN’s website, are part of a broader release of over 1.6 million pages, including data from the vaccine’s licensure in August 2021 and the earlier EUA in December 2020.

This report builds on my prior investigative work analyzing thousands of FDA documents released following the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) lawsuit, which focused on the biological product file submitted by Pfizer for the full approval of its COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021.

I was one of the initial researchers to uncover and analyse the damning data hidden within Pfizer’s Pregnancy & Lactation Cumulative Review, Interim-Narrative-Sensitive document (3000+ pages), and Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports document, among others.

Both ICAN and PHMPT’s lawsuits sought to make public the FDA’s data on the Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 shot, asserting that transparency is critical for public trust and independent analysis, given the global administration of billions of doses of this experimental gene-based product that was mandated in several countries.

My preliminary review of ICAN’s EUA data reveals several irregularities, outlined below with references to key documents and downloadable sources. This report focuses on four critical issues: manufacturing oversight gaps, missing Bell’s palsy data, clinical trial site deficiencies, and the exclusion of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases.

Keep reading

AAP Received Tens of Millions in Federal Funding to Push Vaccines and Combat ‘Misinformation’

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is suing U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and has called for the end to religious exemptions, received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in a single year, according to public records.

AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.

Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, and highlight telehealth for children.

However, not all of the money could be tracked through public records.

The federal grants are in addition to financial contributions the AAP receives from several major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi.

Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, said the joint funding that the AAP receives from taxpayers and Big Pharma “reflects a troubling alignment between its policy positions and the interests of its largest funders — both federal agencies and pharmaceutical corporations.”

Keep reading

American Academy Of Pediatrics Pushes COVID-19 Vax For All Infants

In stark contrast to reality, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – which is heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, recommended on Tuesday that young children, including infants, receive the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that children are minimally impacted by the virus, the fact that the vaccine doesn’t prevent one from contracting it, and that it largely only helps the elderly and medically fragile from severe cases.

According to the organization, all children ages 6-23 months should receive the COVID-19 vaccine – regardless of whether they have natural immunity from prior infection, unless they have a contraindication such as a history of severe allergic reaction to a vaccine ingredient. 

While the recommendation is universal, the group said in a statement that their recommendation stems from infants and other children who are “at high risk for severe COVID-19.”

As the Epoch Times notes further, the organization pointed, in part, to a paper it published that found that among children hospitalized for COVID-19 from fall 2022 to spring 2024, the majority of those younger than 2 had no underlying conditions.

Of note, the paper cited surveyed 2,490 children who were hospitalized with COVID-19, effectively a rounding error. 

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, told The Epoch Times in an email that the AAP, which receives funding from vaccine manufacturers, should strengthen its conflict-of-interest safeguards.

“By bypassing the CDC’s advisory process and freelancing its own recommendations, while smearing those who demand accountability, the AAP is putting commercial interests ahead of public health and politics above America’s children,” Andrew Nixon, the spokesman, said.

The CDC used to recommend that all children, except for those younger than 6 months, receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

In May, under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC stopped recommending the vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women.

The CDC’s schedule currently states that children with moderately or severely compromised immune systems should receive a vaccine, even if they’ve been vaccinated before.

Keep reading

What ACIP Wasn’t Shown

In June 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held its first meeting under the new leadership appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The public expectation was clear: that this newly appointed committee would restore rigor, independence, and critical examination of evidence before recommending routine use of new pharmaceutical products.

One of the most significant items on the agenda was whether to recommend Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody, Clesrovimab, for routine use in healthy newborns. Though marketed as a new product, it is nearly identical in structure and function to Sanofi–AstraZeneca’s nirsevimab, approved in 2023.

The committee ultimately voted 5 to 2 in favor of the recommendation. That vote followed a CDC presentation, which framed the safety data as reassuring, leading most members to conclude there were no outstanding safety concerns. 

But was that reassurance justified? And on what exactly was it based?

The Seizure Signal, and How It Was Presented

During its June 2025 meeting, ACIP members were shown a safety slide from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), focusing on seizures after administration of nirsevimab. The data were split into two age groups: infants aged 0-37 days and those aged 38 days to under 8 months. Each group showed elevated risk ratios for seizures (3.50 and 4.38, respectively), but both were labeled “not significant.” No pooled analysis was displayed.

However, as Dr. Maryanne Demasi later reported, combining the two groups into a single cohort yields a very different picture: a nearly four-fold increase in seizure risk (RR 3.93, 95% CI 1.21–12.79, p=0.02), a result that is statistically significant. That consolidated signal was never presented to the committee.

The decision to stratify at 38 days – precisely the point in US schedules when routine infant vaccinations begin – had no clear biological justification, and by dispersing the signal across two smaller groups, it effectively erased the statistical significance.

A second design choice compounded the problem. The CDC’s analysis applied a self-controlled risk interval with only the first 7 days designated as “risk” and days 8-21 treated as the “control” period. Any seizure occurring on day 8 or later was thus counted against the background rate, even though such timing could plausibly reflect a product-related effect. Standard pharmacovigilance practice calls for testing multiple windows, not a single narrow cutoff.

These analytical decisions mattered. The vote to recommend clesrovimab passed 5-2. Had members been shown the pooled seizure risk alongside the consistent trial-level imbalances in nervous system events, shifting just two votes would have changed the outcome.

Finally, as Demasi emphasized, the concern is not confined to one brand. Given the structural similarity between nirsevimab and clesrovimab, the seizure risk is likely a class effect. This means the omission of the pooled analysis did not just obscure a statistical detail. It withheld information with direct implications for every RSV monoclonal antibody now in use.

These findings emerged only through independent reanalysis. Without Dr. Demasi’s work, they may have remained unknown – not only to the public, but even to ACIP members casting their votes.

Keep reading

Veterans Affairs’ Numbers Humiliate the Military: Mandates Weren’t About Health or Readiness, They Were About Control, Says Whistleblower

While there is a growing wave in skepticism towards all vaccines within the Department of Defense after the illegal enforcement of the COVID-19 shot, a whistleblower has come forward to present information indicating that employees within Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have previously expressed similar doubts, especially regarding the flu vaccine.

The recent news stories of a Marine Corps officer, Air Force Major Brennan Schilperoort (whose pay has been restored), Army Sergeant Dan McGriff, (a pseudonym), and  Air National Guard Technical Sergeant Tony Oslin reveal the Department of Defense’s current disdain for service members seeking religious accommodation or medical exemption for the flu shot.

Has VA been more forgiving with its employees, given that they are more frequently in contact with the elderly compared to the typical service member?

The Gateway Pundit spoke to whistleblower Sonny Fleeman, who emphasized his opinions are entirely his own and do not reflect the views of the United States Government, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or any organization he is currently or has previously been associated with.

When Fleeman submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Veterans Affairs in February 2025, the agency was still requiring COVID-19 and flu shots for its healthcare employees.

“I wanted to see how many of those on the inside—the doctors, nurses, and staff who actually live with the consequences—were requesting exemptions,” he explained. “That number would reflect the real sentiment of healthcare workers rather than a tightly controlled narrative being sold to the public,” he suspected.

“To sharpen the comparison,” Fleeman also asked about flu shot exemptions, and “the results were shocking.” In 2024, close to 100,000 VA healthcare workers—approximately 25 percent of its total staff—were granted exemptions from the flu shot mandate for medical or religious reasons.

“That’s one in four employees across the largest healthcare system in the United States, and possibly the world, yet the VA still functioned,” he pointed out. For him, “The data shatters the military’s claim that mandates were ‘operationally necessary.’”

Keep reading