Tag: vaccines

Canadian gov’t admits it kept data on COVID jab deaths from public over ‘privacy’ concerns

The Canadian federal government has tacitly admitted that key death data relating to the mRNA-based COVID injections were withheld from public reporting, citing supposed privacy concerns.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is defending its decision to withhold the data relating to how those who received the COVID shots and died as a result were tracked.

The revelations come from Conservative MP Dean Allison’s Order Paper Question Q-849. The health agency said it did not publish weekly COVID death counts, as connected to one’s jab status. The agency claimed the numbers were low and posed “privacy” risks.

Because of this, Canadians were denied key information which could have better informed them on the risks associated with the COVID shots, which were heavily promoted at all levels of government.

The Public Health Agency said it tracked COVID jab outcomes from the start, in December of 2020, when the shots were officially approved. This means that the raw data of those who died or were injured following the COVID shots should exist.

Canada’s public health officials claimed that the December 2020 date provided a “consistent starting point” for tracking jabs.

Despite this, the agency instead chose to showcase statistical modelling, through the federal COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, when comparing non-vaccinated people to those who had taken the jabs.

The agency claimed that it followed the World Health Organization and U.S. public health authorities’ guidance models, instead of utilizing and sharing Canada-specific data.

Canada’s government continues to purchase the COVID shots, although its own data show that most Canadians are refusing a COVID booster injection.

Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) recently took over the nation’s vaccine injury compensation program, changing the name from the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) to the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program (VIAP). The agency had admitted the COVID shots have caused harm to no less than 10,000 people.

Keep reading

FOIA Data Reveal Adverse Event Patterns in New RNA Dog Vaccine

Details from a FOIA request to the USDA have revealed severe adverse events following injection of the Nobivac NXT canine flu H3N2 vaccine, the first self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine widely used in the US for pets. The aftermarket reports received by The HighWire show the first 1,012 pages of 1,888 total pages of adverse events from September 2024 through July 2025. There were 296 cases involving the Nobivac RNA vaccine as a suspect product: 152 were adverse reactions, and 76 were listed as cases of lack of efficacy, meaning the dogs developed respiratory illness or cough after receiving the vaccine.

The dataset shows that there were four canine deaths and one feline death following vaccine administration, but two of the dog cases had significant confounding factors. The other two cases involve dogs that collapsed shortly after receiving the vaccination. In addition, three dogs were euthanized following the vaccine.

-41 cases involved neurological issues

-30 cases of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity

-52 cases involved vomiting

-19 cases had an injection-site mass/lump/panniculitis/fibrosis/surgery

-26 cases of diarrhea

-5 cases of collapse/shock-type presentations

-4 cases of bloody diarrhea

A 4-year-old golden retriever collapsed 10 minutes after the vaccination, before going into complete cardiac arrest and dying. Merck added anaphylaxis to the report later. A 7-year-old Yorkshire Terrier collapsed 70 minutes after receiving the vaccine, and life-saving care was attempted, but the dog passed away. Diphenhydramine and dexamethasone sodium phosphate were given to the terrier because of previous unspecified vaccine reactions. In addition to the Nobivac flu shot, the 7.33-pound terrier received the Nobivac Canine 1-DAPPvL4 and Nobivac Intra-Trac3 vaccines.

An 8-year-old Shih Tzu was lethargic and vomiting shortly after receiving the vaccination. She was diagnosed with renal failure six days later and euthanized. The event narrative explains that she had received several vaccinations before, including non-Nobivac flu vaccines, but had never received the Nobivac NXT canine influenza vaccine, which is the first approved saRNA vaccine in the country. Merck evaluated this case and said the vaccine was unlikely to be the cause.

saRNA vaccines have limited long-term safety data, much as mRNA vaccines did before they were rolled out to the general public in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These vaccines are marketed as “innovative, adjuvant-free, non-live vaccines” by Merck.

The first vaccine of its kind was approved by the USDA in 2024 and received limited coverage, but Nicolas Hulscher, MPH of the McCullough Foundation, criticized the lack of safety testing and the manufacturer’s level of transparency.

“It appears that Merck is attempting to camouflage the fact that this product is self-amplifying,” Hulscher wrote. “The primary product description only indicates that it uses ‘revolutionary RNA particle technology.’ However, the novel platform works by RNA particles targeting dendritic cells, where they self-replicate and result in sustained antigen production.“

Keep reading

Application Denied: Another Dive into the Failures of Military Bureaucracy and COVID-19 Mandate Relief

On September 23, 2021, an active-duty Air Force officer who has served for 18 years submitted a request for a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 shot mandate. Four and a half years later, there is still derogatory paperwork in his personnel file, leaving him ineligible or significantly disadvantaged for all career advancement and more.

This story provides an update on developments from September 2025 and March 2026, reinforcing J.M. Phelps’ assertion that the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) is “ineffective” and frequently highlights the widespread “bureaucratic malfeasance” within the military institution, providing little more than a “half measure” to service members, as in the case of Air Force Captain Anthony Monteleone.

Furthermore, concerning Air Force BCMR (AFBCMR), the situation underscores how their decisions are a direct affront to the goals of President Donald Trump and Department of War (DOW) Pete Hegseth to restore the military.

Case in point: On April 3, 2026, AFBCMR issued a “finding” that flatly denied any relief whatsoever to Capt. Monteleone. Given the overwhelming mountain of evidence reviewed by J.M. Phelps and provided to the Board, one can only conclude that the Board continues to undermine the efforts of President Trump and his appointees within the Department of War. This bureaucratic obstruction appears aimed at continuing the denial of mandated relief to those who suffered under the military’s unlawfully enforced COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023.

Mr. Richard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserves, representing the AFBCMR and operating under the full delegated authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, stated that when it comes to Capt. Monteleone’s case, “the [AFBCMR] determined there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice. Accordingly, your application is denied.”

Sadly, for the author of this article, Mr. Anderson’s statement brings to mind the idiom, “If I had a dollar for every time I heard that.”

The Board’s stated reasoning behind this decision was that, although the entire mandate was ruled unlawful, the guidance from Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony Tata, to the branch BCMRs did not specifically state that all [emphasis mine] service members harmed by the entire COVID-19 mandate must be granted relief. Instead, in their interpretation [emphasis mine], his guidance indicates that only those punished for solely refusing the order to take the shot itself were eligible for remediation under the guidance.

Keep reading

Appeals court upholds West Virginia vaccine mandate, denies religious exemption

A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia can enforce its school vaccine mandate without offering religious exemptions, overturning a lower court decision that had allowed an unvaccinated student to remain enrolled in an online public school.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the state’s vaccination requirement does not violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The case was brought by Anthony and Krystle Perry on behalf of their daughter, who was enrolled in West Virginia Virtual Academy but was later disenrolled after officials determined she was not fully vaccinated. The parents argued vaccination conflicted with their Christian beliefs and sought a religious exemption, which state law does not provide.

West Virginia is one of a small number of states that do not allow religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.

A lower court had previously sided with the family and issued an injunction allowing the child to continue attending school while the case proceeded. The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling the parents are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claim.

Legal experts cited in the case said the ruling does not reflect what they describe as a shifting legal landscape around religious exemptions. They pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that they say require courts to apply a higher standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” when evaluating such claims.

Keep reading

Pro-Vaccine Panelists: ‘We’re Losing the PR and Communications Battle’

The medical industry is losing control of the vaccine narrative, according to participants in a webinar moderated by Chelsea Clinton and organized by Unity Consortium — a group of pharmaceutical companies and pro-vaccine organizations.

Vaccine makers GSK, Merck and Sanofi, along with Big Tech platforms Reddit and Snapchat, and Spanish-language media giant Televisa Univision sponsored Wednesday’s event: “Who Influences Young People’s Health Choices? The New Conversations About Vaccines.”

Unity Consortium lists Pfizer, Merck, GSK and Sanofi among its members. Vaccine inventor Dr. Paul Offit is a member of its board of directors.

During the hour-long conversation, Clinton and the panelists criticized the growing number of parents and teens who are starting to question the safety of vaccines. They blamed the trend on increased access to what they characterized as online “misinformation” — and on organizations like Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

“What’s different today … is that people have access to a lot more information,” said Dr. Margot Savoy, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “The part that makes me nervous is that, more and more, we’re getting into this odd space where people are feeling a little more polarized.”

Jessica Steier, founder and CEO of Unbiased Science and author of “The Playbook Used to ‘Prove’ Vaccines Cause Autism,” said pro-vaccine voices are “losing the PR and communications battle.”

Elisabeth Marnik, Ph.D., executive director of The Evidence Collective and author of “I Grew Up Unvaccinated. Now I’m an Immunologist,” said the circulation of and public access to such information is “one of the hardest parts about social media.”

“The more somebody sees these false claims circulating, the more likely they are to start to question their own understanding. And that’s one of the dangers of social media,” Marnik said. She said that parents’ decisions not to vaccinate their children are “a product of [this] information ecosystem.”

Clinton suggested that the ecosystem acts as a barrier to sustaining trust in the medical profession and public health. “The algorithms are part of the challenge of both … the corrosion of trust and … the barriers to replenishing and sustaining that trust,” Clinton said.

According to Marnik, the public health establishment is losing public trust because “public health and science aren’t always good storytellers.” The “anti-vaccine side” is “really good at spreading these stories that are really compelling and very scary and [that] can motivate people in ways that are harmful.”

Keep reading

There are no exemptions to informed consent

On 16 March, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Centre (“NVIC”), gave a presentation on informed consent ethic to Florida Department of Health employees. 

Titled ‘The Informed Consent Principle: A Guide for Public Health Policy and Medical Ethics’, Loe Fisher began her presentation with a video of a debate she had with a medical doctor from Johns Hopkins University about mandatory vaccination in 1997.

The text of her presentation has been published on the NVIC website HERE. The following are some highlights from the presentation.

The 1997 debate Loe Fisher had with a medical doctor was the first time the subject of informed consent to medical risk-taking was discussed on national television.  It was also the first time it was suggested that there is a possible link between the administration of multiple vaccines in early childhood and increases in chronic disease and disability among children.

The US vaccine safety and informed consent movement was launched in 1982 by parents of DPT vaccine-injured children.  The world of vaccines has changed dramatically since 1982: there are more college-educated parents today who conduct their own research and so are aware of the risks of vaccination, particularly during the response to the covid pandemic, where they were exposed to lockdowns, mandatory masking, online censorship about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and mandatory use of an mRNA biological product that was labelled a vaccine.

The covid vaccine not only failed to prevent infection, but it is also associated with an enormous number of suspected injuries.  The covid vaccination campaign resulted in over 1.6 million covid vaccine adverse event reports, including heart and brain inflammation and death, being made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”), Loe Fisher said.

Despite this, many doctors still dismiss vaccine reactions as “normal” or “coincidental” and unrelated to the vaccination just given.

It’s no surprise then that there isa serious crisis of trust in public health policy and law, with public perception of the safety and effectiveness of vaccination and the wisdom of mandatory vaccination laws being challenged at the grassroots level.

It’s not just covid vaccines that are being eyed by the public with scepticism.

“There are questions about whether atypically manipulating the immune system to mount inflammatory responses over and over again by giving multiple doses of vaccines in early childhood and throughout life could be an important co-factor in the rise in chronic disease and disability in our society,” Loe Fisher said.

“There are unresolved issues discussed in the medical literature, such as asymptomatic infection and transmission of pertussis and measles in highly vaccinated populations that give evidence for waning immunity and also the evolution of microbes into vaccine-resistant strains.

“These facts are being debated even as efforts by-industry backed corporations to censor those conversations in the digital public square continues in this country and in Europe.”

She then explained why measles vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, which we haven’t gone into here.  You can read about this beginning with the section of her presentation titled ‘Reported Cases of Measles: There’s More to the Story’.

Keep reading

Biden FDA Knew About COVID Vaccine Stroke Risk And Kept Americans In The Dark

Senate investigators spent months reviewing roughly 2,000 pages of federal records. What they found is damning. FDA and CDC officials under the Biden administration identified a significant stroke risk tied to Pfizer’s COVID-19 bivalent booster in seniors – and never breathed a word to the public.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a formal letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laying out the evidence. He wasn’t speculating. He was citing the government’s own files.

“HHS records show that as early as October 2022, federal health officials identified a potential connection between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent booster and ischemic stroke for individuals over the age of 65,” Johnson wrote.

An ischemic stroke means a blockage of blood to the brain. Between November 2022 and March 2023, seven separate analyses of incoming data flagged the same stroke signal — specifically in adults over 65. CDC data cited by Johnson shows 226 stroke cases reported between August 2022 and February 2023, with additional cases surfacing throughout 2023 and 2024.

Despite the risk, the Biden administration issued no formal warnings. No Health Alert Network message. No changes to booster recommendations for seniors. Nothing.

Instead, in February 2023, HHS quietly hired a private contractor, Lukos LLC, to conduct a deeper internal investigation, dubbed “The Stroke Project.” Publicly, officials kept insisting the vaccines were safe.

“From the initial detection of the safety signal in late 2022 … health officials continued to say the vaccine was safe while simultaneously searching for evidence to support that assertion,” Johnson said.

It gets worse. Federal officials drafted a communications plan about the stroke risk that included a “Tough Questions and Answers” section prepared for President-ish Biden and his White House team. During final edits, the description of the stroke signal was quietly changed from “moderately elevated” to “slightly elevated.” Who made that change? Nobody knows. The language softened, the edit went unattributed, and the public remained in the dark.

The pattern is consistent. Senate investigators previously established that Biden officials also downplayed the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis and kept that from the public. This wasn’t a one-time failure. It was a system.

Here’s what makes this cover-up even more infuriating. The Biden administration showed it was more than willing to pull the plug on a vaccine when it wanted to. 

Keep reading

New York Times does it again, pushing pro-vaccine narrative over journalism

A recent New York Times article examining Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and developments at the CDC is drawing criticism over what some describe as one-sided vaccine coverage.

The article, published March 23, relied heavily on interviews with former CDC officials and presented commonly cited claims that vaccines are safe and effective, while offering little perspective from those who question that view.

It also highlighted Kennedy’s work and advocacy, including claims that he has spread misinformation about vaccines.

The coverage pointed to a 2025 measles outbreak in a Texas community with low vaccination rates, attributing reported deaths to measles. Other accounts cited by Children’s Health Defense have raised questions about those conclusions.

The article also addressed statements about vaccine ingredients, including the use of fetal cell lines in some vaccines. Kennedy has raised concerns about the presence of human DNA fragments, which some individuals cite as a religious or ethical issue.

On autism, the article echoed the widely held view that rising diagnosis rates are largely due to expanded screening and reporting. Critics argue that explanation does not fully account for the increase.

The article further referenced concerns about what it described as “spurious harms” linked to vaccines. However, federal data show billions of dollars have been awarded through the vaccine injury compensation program.

It also cited public health positions on issues such as fluoridated drinking water and routine vaccination schedules recommended by major medical organizations.

The broader debate over vaccine mandates and informed consent was also raised, including whether individuals should have the right to decline vaccines for religious or personal reasons.

The discussion comes as vaccination rates for some vaccines have declined, religious exemptions have increased, and lawmakers consider changes to vaccine policy, including liability protections and exemption laws.

Keep reading

A Critique of the “17 Million Deaths Caused by the Vaccines” Claim

I am a physician-epidemiologist who has consistently questioned the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. In the summer of 2021, I was the lead author on the first major study pointing out the risks of post-Pfizer vaccination myocarditis in adolescents. We found that the potential benefits of full vaccination did not appear to outweigh the risks in healthy adolescent males just looking at post-vaccination myocarditis risks alone. Not long after, I was senior author of another analysis published in BMJ-Journal of Medical Ethics that found the harms of the booster dose in college age students likely outweighed potential benefits by at least 18-fold. What is more, I have written multiple times about the COVID-19 vaccines being implicated in numerous deaths and have a related peer-reviewed paper hopefully coming soon. Finally, I have most recently voiced my concern about the production process of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine and the potential risks of DNA plasmid contamination to the Public Health Integrity Committee.

But if you want to bring attention to safety issues with the mRNA vaccines or other pharmaceutical products, using biased publications or prematurely jumping to conclusions is not the way to do it. We can’t complain about the pharmaceutical industry publishing biased research if we turn around and promote equally, if not more biased research about vaccine side-effects. Not only do we need scientists who are not captured by pharma, we need scientists who are not captured in general – by any ideology. We need scientists who are critical thinkers and can acknowledge limitations in data and identify inappropriate methods and causal inference.

Furthermore, avoiding inappropriately scaring people – be it about Covid or the vaccines – is good public health.

17 million deaths due to the vaccines?

Bret Weinstein (in his fascinating interview) on Tucker Carlson said he “saw a credible estimate of 17 million [deaths] globally from this technology”, meaning the vaccines. Now, this was a bit confusing since they were discussing mRNA vaccines at this moment and it was unclear if he meant all types of Covid vaccines. But I immediately thought: 1) Woah… what percent of vaccinated people would have died and how many people would that mean would have died in little, highly-vaccinated Denmark? (For those who don’t know, I am a Danish citizen). Then I thought: 2) What confounded dataset did he use to get this estimate?

But I also want to point out I found it interesting Bret did not give any sort of range in terms of potential numbers of people killed, how this estimate was arrived at or what kind of residual uncertainty there was about the estimate. 

To answer the second question so you are not scrolling ahead, I quickly learned Bret was referring to this analysis by Rancourt, Baudin, Hickey and Mercier, J.: ‘COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.’

Keep reading

The CDC Was Ordered to Prove the DTaP Vaccine Didn’t Cause Autism… but Their Only Study Showed it Did

For decades, the question of whether vaccines are linked to autism has remained one of the most contentious and widely debated issues in public health.

While major health agencies have maintained that vaccines are safe, critics have continued to scrutinize the data, pointing to gaps, unanswered questions, and the historical record of how these concerns were first investigated.

A video circulating online features attorney Aaron Siri discussing the historical roots of vaccine-related debates, focusing specifically on the pertussis vaccine rather than the more commonly cited MMR vaccine.

According to the caption, Siri traces the issue back to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study a list of injuries that had been frequently reported in connection with the pertussis vaccine. Among those listed for investigation was autism.

In the clip, Siri describes how the Institute of Medicine (IOM) was tasked with reviewing available research on the topic. He notes that in 1991, the IOM concluded it could not determine whether the pertussis vaccine caused or did not cause autism due to a lack of sufficient studies.

He then points to a later review commissioned by the CDC and HRSA in 2012, stating that the IOM reached a similar conclusion after examining the broader body of scientific literature.

According to Siri, the IOM reported that it could not find studies demonstrating that the pertussis vaccine does not cause autism, and that the only study identified showing an association was ultimately excluded because it did not include an unvaccinated comparison group.

Keep reading