Tag: vaccines

Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Strip Vaccine Manufacturers of Nationwide Liability Immunity

On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced federal legislation that would dismantle the long-standing liability protections shielding vaccine manufacturers from civil lawsuits in the United States.

CDC data confirm millions of injury reports submitted following vaccination, though an HHS–Harvard Pilgrim analysis concluded the agency’s vaccine tracking system captures fewer than 1% of adverse events.

The bill, S.3853, formally titled “A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to end the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers, and for other purposes,” was introduced on February 11, 2026, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).

The measure is cosponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).

If enacted, the legislation would amend federal law to remove legal protections that have insulated vaccine manufacturers from product-liability lawsuits since 1986.

The Legal Structure Targeted

The liability shield stems from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

Under that framework, individuals claiming vaccine-related injury must generally pursue claims through a federal compensation system rather than through traditional civil litigation.

Manufacturers are broadly protected from design-defect claims and most tort actions in state courts.

The legal architecture was justified at the time as necessary to prevent vaccine market collapse amid rising lawsuits.

S.3853 would directly amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate those protections.

Although the full statutory text has not yet been published, the bill’s title makes clear that its purpose is not procedural reform but termination of the federal liability shield itself.

Keep reading

Moderna threatens American jobs after FDA snubs mRNA flu shot, trial looked ‘scientifically lax’

For years before he became director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, epidemiologist Vinay Prasad openly railed against what he perceived as the shoddy design of drug trials and the deference regulators gave them, sending biotech stocks tumbling when Commissioner Marty Makary appointed him.

A vaccine maker that hit the federal jackpot during COVID-19 acted caught off-guard when the former University of California San Francisco medical professor put his gripes into practice, halting its FDA application for a new mRNA flu vaccine based on what he considered weak trial design.

Moderna accused Prasad, who described his predecessor Peter Marks as a “bobblehead” for drug approval, of changing the rules in the middle of the game by refusing to review its biologics license application (BLA) without citing “specific safety or efficacy concerns.”

Prasad’s Feb. 3 “refusal to file” letter – which Moderna posted a week later on its COVID resources page for some reason – says the FDA warned the company before it even started the mRNA flu trial that the proposed design raised red flags.

“CBER does not consider the application to contain a trial ‘adequate and well-controlled’ and the application is therefore, on its’ [sic] face, inadequate for review,” because the control arm “does not reflect the best-available standard of care in the United States at the time of the study,” Prasad said, which was “consistent with FDA’s advice” before the study.

This was just the agency’s “preliminary review of the application and is not indicative of deficiencies that would be identified later,” when the FDA conducts a “substantive review,” Prasad emphasized, implying fresh hurdles for Moderna even if it runs a new trial.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel responded with his own thinly veiled threat against Prasad, who had already left the administration once under assault from populist and corporate conservatives who blasted his avowed support for progressive policies and more regulation before Prasad joined the administration. 

CBER’s decision, which Bancel reiterated “did not identify any safety or efficacy concerns with our product, does not further our shared goal of enhancing America’s leadership in developing innovative medicines,” said the billionaire Frenchman, who came to Boston-based Moderna from French diagnostics company BioMerieux.

“We look forward to engaging with CBER to understand the path forward as quickly as possible so that America’s seniors, and those with underlying conditions, continue to have access to American-made innovations,” Bancel said, hinting the company would take jobs overseas if the FDA continued its current trajectory.

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Just the News Moderna ignored “very clear FDA guidance from 2024 to test its product in a clinical trial against a CDC-recommended flu vaccine to compare safety and efficacy.”

Keep reading

Judge Weighs Whether To Block Vaccines Changes From CDC, RFK Jr.

A federal judge weighing whether to block changes to U.S. vaccine guidance and an advisory panel did not immediately rule Feb. 13 after hearing from attorneys representing medical groups and the government.

Lawyers for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and other groups told U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Boston that recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule and the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel violate federal law and will reduce vaccination rates.

“This is a clear and present danger to public health,” said James Oh, a lawyer for the groups.

Oh said the schedule update, which removed the broad recommendation for six childhood vaccines for diseases including rotavirus, influenza and hepatitis A, “set off alarms” in the medical community and occurred without any rational explanation from the agency.

The CDC on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule.

Government officials said in filings that the the reasoning behind the change was in part due to an assessment carried out by senior health officials that analyzed the U.S. childhood schedule against schedules from other countries.

“The U.S. is a global outlier among peer nations in the number of target diseases included in its childhood vaccination schedule and in the total number of recommended vaccine doses,” the officials, Drs. Tracy Beth Hoeg and Martin Kulldorff, concluded.

The plaintiffs, which also include several women who say changes under Kennedy have prevented them from receiving vaccines, are challenging a series of actions. They focused on arguments for and against imposing an injunction blocking that update and the health secretary’s remaking of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

Oh said that the committee is not fairly balanced because it is dominated by people who oppose vaccines, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and urged Murphy to block the committee’s upcoming Feb. 26–27 meeting.

Government lawyers said in a recent brief that the advisory committee members have a variety of employment histories and that the accusation they are anti-vaccine “does not accurately represent the members’ complex and nuanced perspectives and their committee voting records.”

Murphy asked during the hearing whether he could consider the “broader public health impacts” of the changes in vaccine recommendations while weighing the case.

Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer told him health officials were not pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda and welcomed “spirited debate about vaccine policy.”

But he said the Department of Health and Human Services had broad authority to change policy to address a decline in public trust in vaccines following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The court cannot substitute its judgment in place of the agency,” Belfer said.

Murphy did not immediately rule.

With the meeting upcoming, he said he “must make a decision in this case on an uncomfortably tight timeline.”

Keep reading

Key Architect of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ List Resigns After ‘Epstein Files’ Reveal Tangled Web of Censorship

The 2021 publication of “The Disinformation Dozen” list of 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers” sparked efforts to discredit U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sayer Ji and other outspoken critics of COVID-19 pandemic policies and vaccines.

Five years later, the release of the “Epstein Files” has led to the resignation of one of the list’s architects — Morgan McSweeney.

McSweeney, chief of staff to U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, resigned Sunday. In 2018, he co-founded what later became known as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which published the “Disinformation Dozen” list.

McSweeney’s resignation stemmed from his prior support for Peter Mandelson, former U.K. ambassador to the U.S.

Mandelson is implicated in the Epstein Files for his close ties to disgraced financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. McSweeney had advised Starmer to appoint Mandelson to his ambassadorial post.

Starmer removed Mandelson from his post in September 2025, after emails between Mandelson and Epstein were made public. In the emails, Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a child prostitute was wrongful and should be overturned.

The Epstein Files also showed that Mandelson shared sensitive government information with Epstein. The U.K. Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation of Mandelson, while Starmer apologized to Epstein’s sex-trafficking victims.

In his resignation letter, McSweeney took “full responsibility” for advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson.

But Ji, listed as one of the “Disinformation Dozen,” told The Defender McSweeney’s resignation shows that “the architecture behind a decade of political censorship is coming into view.”

“The same political culture that normalized backroom routing of power, deniability, and proxy enforcement is the culture that produced CCDH — and shielded it from scrutiny while it reshaped public discourse on both sides of the Atlantic,” Ji wrote on Substack.

In its early years, CCDH targeted left-wing political figures and independent media outlets in the U.K. with claims of antisemitism. Later, it targeted “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the U.S.

The Biden administration and corporate media used the “Disinformation Dozen” list to discredit figures like Kennedy and Ji. Social media platforms deplatformed those included on the list.

Internal documents leaked in 2024 showed that CCDH sought to launch “Black Ops” against Kennedy and “kill Musk’s Twitter” — now known as X. “Black ops” refers to secret operations carried out by governments or other organizations that hide their involvement.

The Epstein Files don’t contain evidence indicating Epstein was involved in CCDH’s operations, Ji said. But they do reveal an “operational lineage” connecting Epstein to figures like Mandelson and McSweeney, revealing “the hidden origins of CCDH — and the elite networks now illuminated by the Epstein files.”

“The Epstein files help explain why censorship became so aggressive,” said Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “CCDH and similar entities functioned less as neutral watchdogs and more as enforcement mechanisms — protecting systems, not public discourse.”

Keep reading

Leftist Medical Orgs Try To Shut Down Debate On Vaccines

Left-wing medical associations have banded together to block an upcoming federal meeting in an attempt to table vaccine discussion and debate in a public forum.  

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), set to meet Feb. 25-27, is expected to discuss the recently updated childhood vaccine schedule. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its cohorts are attempting to suppress open exchange through a court-ordered injunction scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 13. 

Shouting Down Dissent 

In January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut the number of recommended vaccines for American children from 17 to 11 following an executive order to investigate the vaccine schedule. The comparative report found that the U.S. schedule demands far more injections than other developed nations. Several vaccines on the schedule had never undergone large-scale double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials before being approved by the Food and Drug Administration, safety reviews have been incomplete or nonexistent for decades, and liability protections for vaccine makers incentivize production over protection.  

The update is reasonable, aligning the U.S. with most other developed nations; but the American Academy of Pediatrics responded with outrage, blasting the government’s “dangerous” decision-making and adding another complaint to its 2025 lawsuit against Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The updated recommendations are “causing unnecessary confusion … compromising access to lifesaving vaccines and weakening community protection,” railed American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Andrew D. Racine. A co-plaintiff organization official warned of the threat of “increased illness and suffering by children and their families,” if the updated schedule is enacted.  

None of this is expected based on comparative data, but the American Academy of Pediatrics’ response continues to follow the same pattern — shout down dissent and sue to suppress debate. 

In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics protested HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s removal of all 17 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members, calling Kennedy’s replacement picks “vaccine skeptics” and the overhaul “an escalating effort by the Administration to silence independent medical expertise and stoke distrust in lifesaving vaccines.” 

The group then sued Kennedy for allegedly violating federal law in changing Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, amended the suit multiple times with additional complaints, and filed for an injunction to stop Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices from meeting altogether later this month. 

Keep reading

The Most Unsettling Reality About Modern Medicine

There’s a reason doctors love pushing vaccines. The more they inject, the more money they make.

The foot traffic alone brings in big money, but there’s another perverse incentive, and once you hear it, it will make you angry.

RFK Jr. explains: “Pediatricians who vaccinate 80-85% of the kids in their office, get these giant bonuses… And that’s why they throw you out of the office if you fight back…You’ll lose them their bonuses.”

Sadly, these perverse financial incentives aren’t limited to vaccines but across many areas of medicine.

Dig a little deeper, and another disturbing pattern appears. And once you see it, you’re left gobsmacked by how dark modern medicine has become.

The video below is haunting—not because the doctor in it is malicious, but because she genuinely believes she’s helping.

She’s an MD with a Master’s in Public Health, a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a former leader at Georgetown. Her language is warm. Her intentions seem pure.

Yet this interview perfectly captures how public health has lost its way.

After conquering most deadly contagious diseases, it turned toward chronic illness—and failed.

Instead of questioning why children are getting sicker, it doubled down on vaccinating more, earlier, and without dissent, often dismissing safety concerns as heresy.

Watch this video. Then ask yourself what matters more in modern medicine: children’s outcomes—or institutional certainty.

Keep reading

Scientists Publish ‘Map’ for How Aluminum in Vaccines Can Cause Brain Injury That Triggers Autism

Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines can and likely do cause autism in genetically susceptible babies and children, according to a new scientific review of over 200 peer-reviewed studies.

The review, led by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, lays out the biochemical and physiological framework that explains how aluminum-containing vaccines can cause autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Hooker and his co-authors concluded that “mechanistic, neuropathological, epidemiological, and genetic evidence” show that aluminum adjuvants “can trigger ASD in genetically susceptible individuals” by causing inflammation of the brain.

They published their report on Jan. 31 on the preprint server Zenodo. They plan to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal in the near future.

Review refutes claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’

Hooker called the report “groundbreaking” because it scientifically explains the causal link between vaccines and autism that “has been denied and dismissed for over 30 years.”

In November 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally revised its autism webpage to say there is no evidence supporting the blanket claim that vaccines do not cause autism.

The webpage previously stated there is no link between vaccines and autism and that “vaccines do not cause autism.” It now says: “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”

Hooker’s new paper adds weight to the argument that infant vaccines cause autism. Its authors show how the over 200 studies they reviewed collectively meet all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria for causation.

Keep reading

Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

Florida plans to become the first state to eliminate vaccine mandates, a longtime cornerstone of public health policy for keeping schoolchildren and adults safe from infectious diseases.

State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who announced the decision Wednesday, cast current requirements in schools and elsewhere as “immoral” intrusions on people’s rights that hamper parents’ ability to make health decisions for their children.

“People have a right to make their own decisions, informed decisions,” Ladapo, who has frequently clashed with the medical establishment, said at a news conference in Valrico. “They don’t have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Take it away from them.”

Florida’s move, a significant departure from decades of public policy and research that has shown vaccines to be safe and the most effective way to stop the spread of communicable diseases, especially among schoolchildren, is a notable embrace of the Trump administration’s agenda led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist.

Keep reading

Third U.S. State Introduces Legislation Designating mRNA Injections as Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction

Tennessee State Senator Janice Bowling has just filed Senate Bill 1949, the “mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act,” prohibiting the manufacture, acquisition, possession, or distribution of mRNA injections and products—punishable as a Class B felony under Tennessee’s weapons of mass destruction statute.

Just last week, Arizona Representative Rachel Jones Keshel introduced HB 2974, amending existing statutes to designate modified mRNA injections as biological agents and weapons of mass destruction, and that their manufacture, possession, or distribution may be prosecuted as terrorism, carrying penalties up to life imprisonment if a violation results in death.

Credit to Dr. Joseph Sansone for drafting the “mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act,” now filed in three states.

There are now multiple legislators, international bodies, and peer-reviewed scientific publications declaring that mRNA injections constitute biological or technological weapons of mass destruction:

It’s only a matter of time before these dangerous products are outlawed.

Keep reading

Racketeering Scheme?: Vaccine Makers Profit Twice by Selling Drugs to Treat Vaccine Injuries

A lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) alleges that the AAP’s aggressive promotion of childhood vaccines created a “closed-loop” business model that set up pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccines and from drugs used to treat vaccine injuries.

The lawsuit alleges the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, by running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.

A “racket” exists when a service creates its own demand, according to the complaint.

In this case, the same companies that make pediatric vaccines have also acquired companies that develop treatments for autoimmune disorders, allergies and neurodevelopmental conditions — conditions recognized in vaccine package inserts as adverse events that occurred during clinical trials or in post-marketing studies.

The complaint cites Pfizer’s 2016 acquisition of Anacor Pharmaceuticals for $5.2 billion. Anacor makes Eucrisa, a drug that treats eczema. At the time, Eucrisa was approved for 2-year-olds. It was later approved for babies as young as 3 months.

Post-marketing data have linked vaccines — including GlaxoSmithKline’s ENGERIX-B hepatitis B vaccine — to eczema, according to the complaint. Research studies have also linked the condition to the COVID-19 and measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccines.

In another example, Sanofi in 2020 spent $3.7 billion to acquire Principia Biopharma, developer of an experimental therapy for immune thrombocytopenia, an autoimmune blood disorder.

Keep reading