The MAHA Diaries

[onawah]

The FDA Approved Hundreds of Drugs Without Proof They Work
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 09, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=334077789

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...gation-pdf.pdf

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GLjhmII70Cc

"Story at-a-glance
Results of a two-year investigation found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nearly 75% of new drugs between 2013 and 2022 without meeting its own basic standards
Some cancer and Alzheimer’s drugs were fast-tracked using surrogate markers like tumor shrinkage or protein levels, not real improvements in survival, memory, or function
Dangerous side effects — including brain inflammation, hemorrhage, and blindness — were linked to drugs approved on minimal or flawed data, with thousands of deaths occurring each year
The reporters created a searchable database on FDA drug approvals made between 2013 and 2022 — use it to check if any of your prescriptions meet the four scientific standards
Always ask if a drug shows real-world benefits, look up its approval history, wait on new drugs, review your prescriptions, and work with a doctor who questions the system

Every year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates $3.9 trillion worth of products, operating with a budget of approximately $6.9 billion (based on 2024 data)1 — it’s one of the most powerful agencies in the country today. Medications (and medical devices) make up a significant portion of the products the FDA regulates and, once green-lit, pharmaceutical companies rake in billions of dollars in profits.
However, there’s one significant dilemma about this system — many of these medications passed FDA approval based on flimsy, incomplete, or nonexistent evidence.

Most FDA-Approved Drugs Did Not Meet the Agency’s Basic Criteria
A two-year investigation conducted by The Lever and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism uncovered a disturbing pattern within the FDA — In nearly a decade, the agency approved hundreds of prescription drugs without requiring substantial and robust proof of their effectiveness.2

These findings were based on various evidence, including “government reports, internal FDA documents, investigators’ notes, congressional testimony, court records and more than 100 interviews with researchers, federal officials, and patients,” the Children’s Health Defense reports.3

•The FDA relied on four essential standards to assess a drug’s effectiveness and safety — According to the authors of the report, while these criteria don’t confirm “sound scientific evidence,” they do provide the minimum standard that determines drug manufacturers have given “substantial” evidence to back up their claims. These include:

◦Control group — Patients were tested versus a control group that received a placebo treatment or comparator drug.

◦Replication — There must be at least two “well-controlled” trials that also prove the drugs work as they should.

◦Blinding — The subjects and their physicians must not be aware which among the participants are receiving the drug and which ones are in the control group.

◦Clinical endpoint — Instead of relying on surrogate markers like lab results, the studies must show a significant effect on the patients’ survival or function.

However, after an intensive analysis, the reporters found that the majority of the FDA-approved medications failed to meet these basic criteria.

•Nearly 3 out of 4 new drug approvals did not comply with these criteria — Among all the drugs approved by the FDA between 2013 and 2022, 73% failed to meet these foundational standards that prove the drugs work as expected.4 “Fifty-five of the approved drugs met only one of those four standards, and 39 met none of them,” the CHD notes.

•Drugs were green-lit despite insufficient data presented by manufacturers — The Lever found that more than half of approvals were based on preliminary data — without considering sound evidence, such as if the patient experienced fewer symptoms, had improved function, or lived.

•Particularly concerning are cancer drugs — Based on their findings, of the 123 FDA-approved cancer medications, only 2.4% met all four of the FDA’s scientific criteria. On the other hand, 29 of these drugs tested (23%) did not meet a single criteria.

To ensure transparency and accuracy, the investigative report was guided by a 14-member advisory committee composed of “physicians, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, a patient advocate, an FDA insider, and an FDA advisor.” Many of them were shocked by this investigation’s findings. Diana Zuckerman, founder and president of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit National Center for Health Research and one of the advisers, said:

“I’ve been discouraged about the FDA before, but the last few years have been the worst. The scientific bar is often so low it would be impossible to lower it much further.”5

FDA Fast-Tracked Approvals and Lowered Standards Due to External Pressure
The FDA wasn’t always so lax on drug approvals; in fact, its system was established based on hard-won scientific standards set by Congress after several medical tragedies occurred. “These new laws, sometimes called “super-statutes” because they are so far-reaching, authorized the agency to require drug companies to provide evidence that their drugs are safe and effective before they could go on the market,” the report said.6

•AIDS — the worldwide crisis that changed it all — When AIDS became a pandemic during the 1980s, killing 46,000 people and leaving 37,000 with a novel condition, activist groups turned to the FDA, seeking access to new drugs. These groups partnered with drug makers, who were only too eager to sell their products.

“Together, the activists and companies argued before the FDA that the compassionate, lifesaving strategy would be to loosen scientific standards for establishing the efficacy of drugs,” the report said.

•The agency caved in to immense pressure — Aside from a lack of reviewers to verify new drugs that are coming in, the FDA knows that drug trials can take years to complete. To provide a solution to the growing need for AIDS drugs, the agency created an “accelerated pathway” in 1992. This allowed manufacturers to provide preliminary evidence that their AIDS drugs were effective.

•Companies were allowed to use “surrogates” to track patient outcomes — Through the new guidelines set by the FDA, manufacturers only needed to provide laboratory tests, or imaging studies like CT scans. These evidence “don’t themselves track quality or quantity of life, but are hypothesized to be reasonably likely to predict a so-called ‘clinical benefit.’”

•Relying on surrogate outcomes allowed companies to get approval — Drugs were fast-tracked despite having shorter and cheaper studies. The expectation is that the companies would provide more substantive evidence of the drugs’ effectiveness after they were allowed to be sold on the market. However, not only do surrogates fail to correlate whether the drug truly improves a patient’s quality of life, but they also don’t reflect if a drug is causing harm.

•AZT (zidovudine) is one example of how surrogate outcomes are unreliable — When it received approval in 1987, this AIDS drug was expected to be a “raging success,” according to results that measured T-cells — these are disease-fighting cells that the virus attacks.

However, less than two years later, researchers who studied 365 patients treated with AZT reported disappointing results;7 not only did the patients’ T-cell levels return to pretreatment levels, but they also became prone to infections, malignancies, and even death.

Fast-Tracked Prescription Drugs Often Come with Alarming Side Effects
The fast-paced approval that allows drugs to become quickly available on the market may appear like a life-saving tactic, but in reality, it’s putting consumers in harm’s way. Every year, an estimated 128,000 people in the U.S. succumb to the side effects of prescription drugs8 — even though they are properly prescribed.

“Drug companies have been allowed to market hundreds of prescription drugs to doctors and sell them to unsuspecting patients despite glaringly inadequate evidence that they offer any benefit and in many cases amid clear signs that they pose a risk of serious, often irreparable harm,” The Lever said.9

The featured report, which is published as a two-part article series, highlights some of the most notable pharmaceutical failures — and their devastating, harmful consequences on people’s lives.

•The dangers of FDA-approved Alzheimer’s drugs — Published in January, the first part of the report tells the story of Genevieve Lane, a senior with advancing Alzheimer’s disease who partook in the study trials for the experimental drug Leqembi. Lane received a placebo during the trial, but then began receiving the actual drug as part of the study’s extension phase — she was dead in six weeks. The cause? Severe cerebral inflammation, likely a result of taking Leqembi.10

•Lane’s case was not an isolated case — Others were also harmed while taking Leqembi. Out of 714 participants during the study’s extension phase, four deaths occurred. During the main trial, two patients were left disabled after using Leqembi, while 22% developed brain hemorrhage or swelling — more than double of those on the placebo (10%).

I’ve also previously written about the dangers of Leqembi — read this article for more information “FDA Gives Accelerated Approval for Risky Alzheimer’s Pill.”

•Alzheimer’s drugs were developed based on the amyloid hypothesis — The theory was that the disease occurs due to a buildup of amyloid beta protein in the brain. But although amyloid deposits are present in the brains of patients with this disease, some people with amyloid never become demented. What’s more, there’s no definitive proof that this protein causes the disease rather than being a byproduct of it.

•In fact, a “landmark” Alzheimer’s study has been recently retracted — An Alzheimer's study that pointed to a specific form of amyloid beta protein as a major driver of memory has been retracted due to manipulated images, as proven by forensic analysis. Read more about it in “Landmark Alzheimer's Study Retracted After Evidence of Data Manipulation.”

•A prescription drug for your bladder is leading to blindness — In the second part of the report, the researchers told the story of how a pharmaceutical drug is causing blindness. Dr. Nieraj Jain noticed the symptoms in his patients — their vision was becoming blurry and it was becoming difficult to see in bright sunlight or at night.

•Jain pinpointed a common denominator against his patients — Elmiron, a drug prescribed for a bladder condition called interstitial cystitis, was affecting his patients’ eyes by causing odd patches of pigment to form on the retina. Jain and his colleagues even published a study on this condition, dubbing it “pigmentary maculopathy.”

•However, it wasn’t the only side effect — The FDA has also received reports of dozens of patient deaths attributed to Elmiron. Some patients were also hospitalized due to severe colitis.

This Searchable Database Allows You to Check if Your Drugs Work
As part of the joint investigative report, The Lever and the McGraw Center created a searchable database11 including all 429 drugs approved by the FDA from January 2013 to December 2022. They also provided evidence from the manufacturers on the drugs’ safety and effectiveness, and gave each drug a rating using the basic criteria:12

•Drugs with 4 points are marked green — All four scientific standards were met. However, this does not guarantee the drug’s effectiveness or safety; it only means the findings are more likely to support the manufacturer’s claims.

•Drugs with 3 points are marked yellow — One of the four minimal standards was not met; it suggests that the submitted evidence was not optimal.

•Drugs with 2 to 0 points are marked red — Two, three, or all of the standards have not been met. This means the evidence submitted is insufficient to verify claims of efficacy and safety.

If you are taking any pharmaceutical drug or have been prescribed one in the last few years, I recommend checking the database to see how it stacks up — and what the supporting research says about its effectiveness and safety.

Get Smarter with Every Prescription
Fast-tracked drug approvals are now rampant within the FDA, which means you must be more critical whenever you’ve been prescribed certain medications in order to make smart health decisions that protect you from this highly flawed system. These five steps will help you stay in control and avoid becoming a test subject for drugs that were never proven to help anyone.

1.Ask one simple question before starting any new drug — Before you agree to take any medication, ask your physician: “Is this drug proven to help with real-world outcomes, like survival or quality of life — or was it approved based on a lab result or surrogate marker?” If your doctor doesn’t know, that’s your cue to dig deeper. You need to know if the benefit you’re chasing is real — not just a shift in a blood test or a scan.

2.Look up the FDA approval history yourself — Go directly to the FDA’s Drugs database or search for the medication’s approval letter. You’ll often see whether the drug was approved under the Accelerated Approval pathway and what evidence was used. If it’s based only on surrogate endpoints like plaque reduction or tumor shrinkage, and not clinical improvement, that’s a red flag. Don’t assume a drug is effective just because it’s on the shelf.

3.Use the power of timing to your advantage — If a drug is new to market, wait. Most serious adverse effects show up after approval, once thousands of people are using it in the real world. If you’re not in an emergency situation, give it 12 to 24 months to see what post-market data reveals. History shows that many of these drugs never prove themselves once follow-up studies are done — and those studies often show risks that weren’t public before.

4.Limit polypharmacy if you’re over 50 or managing multiple conditions — If you’re someone dealing with multiple prescriptions — especially for chronic or age-related conditions — review every drug you’re on with a focus on whether it’s still necessary. The more medications you take, the higher your risk for interactions, especially when drugs were approved on weak evidence.

Start with the newest medications and work backward. Anything fast-tracked without proven long-term benefits should be first on your review list.

5.Work with a healthcare provider who prioritizes results over protocol — You want someone who thinks critically, not someone who simply follows pharmaceutical guidelines without question.

If your provider is quick to prescribe a brand-new drug that’s all over the news, ask what real outcomes it improves and what they’d recommend if the drug didn’t exist. Their answer will tell you whether they treat patients or promote products. You always deserve someone on your side who puts your outcome above a company's sales pitch.

These steps put the power back in your hands. When you understand how drugs get approved — and how often the process is broken — you stop being a passive recipient and start becoming an informed decision-maker. That’s how you protect your health in today’s system.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About FDA Drug Approvals
Q: How many FDA-approved drugs fail to meet basic scientific standards?

A: Nearly 73% of all drugs approved by the FDA between 2013 and 2022 did not meet the agency’s own minimum scientific criteria for proof of effectiveness. Many lacked control groups, replication, blinding, or meaningful clinical endpoints.

Q: What does it mean when a drug is approved using a 'surrogate marker'?

A: A surrogate marker is a lab result or scan — like tumor shrinkage or protein level — that suggests a drug might work. But these markers don’t prove a drug actually improves symptoms, survival, or quality of life.

Q: Are fast-tracked drugs safe and reliable?

A: Not always. Drugs pushed through Accelerated Approval often lack full evidence at launch. In many cases, follow-up studies are delayed or inconclusive. Some of these drugs have been linked to severe side effects, including brain hemorrhage, blindness, and death.

Q: How did the FDA’s drug approval standards become so relaxed?

A: The FDA lowered its scientific standards starting in the AIDS crisis of the 1980s to speed access to experimental drugs. This policy shift, combined with industry pressure and limited oversight, opened the door to widespread approval of under-tested drugs.

Q: What can I do to protect myself from unsafe or ineffective drugs?

A: Start by checking the FDA drug database to see how your medication was approved. Ask your doctor whether the drug improves real-world outcomes — not just lab results. Be cautious with new drugs and regularly review all prescriptions, especially if you're taking several at once. "


- Sources and References
1 FDA at a Glance, October 2024
2, 5, 6, 9 The Lever, June 5, 2025
3, 4 Children’s Health Defense, June 5, 2025
7 The Lancet, December 03, 1988, Volume 332, Issue 8623, Pages 1297-1302
8 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Fall 2013, Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 590-600
10 The Lever, January 28, 2025
11, 12 The Lever, Do Your Drugs Work? A Searchable Database

[Jaak]

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1946218711741792452

See new posts
Conversation
MJTruthUltra
@MJTruthUltra
HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️

🚨 RFK JR Sounds the Alarm on the WHO IHR Amendment's — A “Trojan Horse” is Quietly being Installed to implement Digital Health ID's and a Global Health Database

• he expresses concerns about the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and their potential to "open the door" to "that kind of system of health IDs," suggesting a pathway to broader surveillance and control mechanisms.

• He says the WHO is laying the groundwork for a CENTRALIZED Medical Database for every human being

• He connects the potential for digital health IDs to broader issues of surveillance and industry influence. He Mentions Mass "surveillance" and he refers to "industry influence," implying that these IDs could be part of a larger mass surveillance framework that benefits certain industries while encroaching on individual privacy and freedoms.

• Kennedy's concerns are framed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where he believes critical information and criticisms were suppressed. He suggests that the amendments could perpetuate similar dynamics, potentially using digital health IDs as a tool for narrative management and censorship, as seen during the pandemic.

- His overall stance is that such measures, including digital health IDs, could jeopardize civil liberties and national sovereignty. He argues that the U.S. should not sign over authority that could lead to lockdowns and other public health measures without thorough consideration, especially when these measures might invite a system that undermines individual rights.

What’s next?

- Proposal and Adoption Process: The amendments were proposed and negotiated through the World Health Organization (WHO) processes, in an agreement by the World Health Assembly in May 2024 [World Health Assembly, 2024]. However, the implementation of these amendments is not automatic and requires further steps.

- Opt-Out Period: There is a specific window for member states to opt out of these amendments. The U.S. and other countries have until NEXT WEEK, to formally reject the amendments.

This opt-out period is crucial because it allows countries to decide whether to be bound by the new regulations.

https://rumble.com/v6wcj34-rfk-jr-so...ll-digita.html



https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1946249380094156960

The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox
·
1h
WOW: RFK Jr. says the WHO treaty would pave the way for MASS censorship through “risk communications” and “unified public messaging.”

This is dangerous....and Secretary Kennedy sees exactly where it leads.

“To make matters worse, the new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the W.H.O. unprecedented power.”

“They require countries to establish systems of ‘risk communications’, so that the W.H.O. can implement unified public messaging globally.”

That’s not public health. That’s global narrative control.

“That opens the door to the kind of narrative management and propaganda and censorship that we saw during the Covid pandemic.”

“We don’t want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further.”

And it gets even worse:

“The agreement also contains provisions about global systems of health IDs, vaccine passports and a centralized medical database. It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being.”

The warning signs are there. RFK Jr. is sounding the alarm.

[mountain_jim]

Dr. Simon Goddek

@goddeketal
🚨 BREAKING: The FDA has just fully approved Moderna’s mRNA COVID shot for use in CHILDREN (!!!).

WHAT THE ****?!

Is there a single person left in this administration who isn’t a total sellout? Or are they all bought or blackmailed?

Shame on you, @SecKennedy!

now more on this story.

https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1947029160230019383

MJTruthUltra
@MJTruthUltra
·
1h
HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️

On July 10th, the FDA approved a new Moderna Covid shot for children 6 months to 11 years old

Dr. Robert Malone just revealed HHS officials went behind RFK Jr.’s back while on vacation to approve the Moderna shots.

RFK Jr. received no briefing and gave no sign-off on the decision.

Heather Flick Melanson (Chief of Staff) and Hannah Anderson (Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy) were FIRED!

These vaccines are now subject of having the approval revoked…

I knew it… something was not right.



https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1947031541206396969

https://www.malone.news/p/moderna-sp...da-post-mortem

Moderna Spikevax-FDA Post Mortem

Next stop, CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Robert W Malone MD, MS


< snip >

Who knew, What and When, and were there larger strategic and tactical considerations
I have limited visibility into these questions. The unfortunate facts are that this decision about FDA/CBER Spikevax authorization “for children aged 6 months through 11 years who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease” was made public by Moderna when both the Secretary of HHS (JFKjr) and his trusted deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were on vacation. And Moderna certainly made hay while the sun was shining on them.

Neither Sec HHS nor his deputy Chief of Staff (dCOS) were briefed or read in on this decision. Did the FDA Commissioner know? Did (ex) HHS Chief of Staff Heather Flick know? Did POTUS or his COS know? I do not know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that shortly after the HHS Secretary and his dCOS returned from vacation, a major reorganization of HHS leadership occurred. And that POTUS and his COS were briefed on this decision. There is now a new HHS Chief of Staff. The dCOS for policy was walked off the premises and was so upset that she crashed her car into the Secretary’s government-provided vehicle. And I hear drumbeats in the distance signaling that the natives believe additional organizational changes will be forthcoming.

For those, including myself, who insisted that there be consequences for failing to brief the chain of command regarding this disappointing critical decision by the FDA/CBER director, there is solace in knowing that there were prompt consequences. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, I hope that all can understand that the federal bureaucracy must recognize that there will be consequences for failing to brief their command chain on politically sensitive decisions. A short, sharp shock was precisely what the doctor recommended.


Regarding Strategy and Tactics

The narrative on MAHA Twitter after the FDA approved Moderna’s SPIKEVAX vaccine for high-risk children is that this was a betrayal by Secretary Kennedy. But this is the OPPOSITE of what transpired. The Secretary was on vacation and not even briefed on the decision. It was a working vacation, and I have personal confirmation that he took many calls, briefings, and was constantly managing strategic and tactical decisions during his much-needed and well-earned vacation. He (and his beloved wife) have not had a vacation since launching his Presidential campaign.

The reality is that CBER Director Vinay Prasad overruled the FDA regulators who had recommended that all three COVID vaccines currently under the standing EUA be approved for all age groups, including healthy children. Which begs the question, why do we still have an Emergency Use Authorization for these products when there is clearly no medical emergency?

Prasad’s justification for this denial should be reassuring to the entire medical freedom movement. He said in his justification letter:

Is there substantial certainty of a net clinical benefit to vaccinating healthy children with this mRNA vaccine? The Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (OCD) within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) answer is, at the present time, with best available information, no.

Moderna has never shown a reduction in severe COVID-19, hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized study in children.

Moderna has not shown that COVID-19 vaccination reduces long COVID or transmission in any setting at any age with high-quality data. Neither has the applicant nor a third party shown fewer missed days of school with high-quality data.

Vaccinating these individuals (healthy kids with natural immunity) carries massive uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh risks.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been given to billions of individuals and the harms have been studied in depth, no one knows if these products have harms that only materialize 10 or 20 years later, as such is a necessary limit of time. It is ignorant to claim that unknown long-term risks are not possible.

Antibodies are not gold standard science, and one cannot be certain of net clinical benefit merely because antibodies are increased. Vaccine doses can increase antibodies, but fail to further improve clinical outcomes.

Randomized trials measuring clinical outcomes will be required to approve these products for healthy individuals.


< much more at link >

FDA is ultimately accountable to the American people, and Americans have overwhelmingly stated that they feel the evidence to vaccinate a healthy child with a COVID-19 mRNA product is not enough to compel them to act. CBER OCD, after careful examination of the scientific evidence, agrees with the vast majority of Americans.


////////////


Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
@drawandstrike
·
19m
WHOA...!

This appears to be legit...

They made that Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine approval WITHOUT informing HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy while he was away on vacation.

And when he came back he promptly FIRED BOTH OF THEIR ASSES.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ervices-aides/

[onawah]

What a relief to hear this news!

Posted by mountain_jim (here)

Dr. Simon Goddek

@goddeketal
🚨 BREAKING: The FDA has just fully approved Moderna’s mRNA COVID shot for use in CHILDREN (!!!).

WHAT THE ****?!

Is there a single person left in this administration who isn’t a total sellout? Or are they all bought or blackmailed?

Shame on you, @SecKennedy!

now more on this story.

https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1947029160230019383

MJTruthUltra
@MJTruthUltra
·
1h
HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️

On July 10th, the FDA approved a new Moderna Covid shot for children 6 months to 11 years old

Dr. Robert Malone just revealed HHS officials went behind RFK Jr.’s back while on vacation to approve the Moderna shots.

RFK Jr. received no briefing and gave no sign-off on the decision.

Heather Flick Melanson (Chief of Staff) and Hannah Anderson (Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy) were FIRED!

These vaccines are now subject of having the approval revoked…

I knew it… something was not right.



https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1947031541206396969

https://www.malone.news/p/moderna-sp...da-post-mortem

Moderna Spikevax-FDA Post Mortem

Next stop, CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Robert W Malone MD, MS


< snip >

Who knew, What and When, and were there larger strategic and tactical considerations
I have limited visibility into these questions. The unfortunate facts are that this decision about FDA/CBER Spikevax authorization “for children aged 6 months through 11 years who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease” was made public by Moderna when both the Secretary of HHS (JFKjr) and his trusted deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were on vacation. And Moderna certainly made hay while the sun was shining on them.

Neither Sec HHS nor his deputy Chief of Staff (dCOS) were briefed or read in on this decision. Did the FDA Commissioner know? Did (ex) HHS Chief of Staff Heather Flick know? Did POTUS or his COS know? I do not know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that shortly after the HHS Secretary and his dCOS returned from vacation, a major reorganization of HHS leadership occurred. And that POTUS and his COS were briefed on this decision. There is now a new HHS Chief of Staff. The dCOS for policy was walked off the premises and was so upset that she crashed her car into the Secretary’s government-provided vehicle. And I hear drumbeats in the distance signaling that the natives believe additional organizational changes will be forthcoming.

For those, including myself, who insisted that there be consequences for failing to brief the chain of command regarding this disappointing critical decision by the FDA/CBER director, there is solace in knowing that there were prompt consequences. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, I hope that all can understand that the federal bureaucracy must recognize that there will be consequences for failing to brief their command chain on politically sensitive decisions. A short, sharp shock was precisely what the doctor recommended.


Regarding Strategy and Tactics

The narrative on MAHA Twitter after the FDA approved Moderna’s SPIKEVAX vaccine for high-risk children is that this was a betrayal by Secretary Kennedy. But this is the OPPOSITE of what transpired. The Secretary was on vacation and not even briefed on the decision. It was a working vacation, and I have personal confirmation that he took many calls, briefings, and was constantly managing strategic and tactical decisions during his much-needed and well-earned vacation. He (and his beloved wife) have not had a vacation since launching his Presidential campaign.

The reality is that CBER Director Vinay Prasad overruled the FDA regulators who had recommended that all three COVID vaccines currently under the standing EUA be approved for all age groups, including healthy children. Which begs the question, why do we still have an Emergency Use Authorization for these products when there is clearly no medical emergency?

Prasad’s justification for this denial should be reassuring to the entire medical freedom movement. He said in his justification letter:

Is there substantial certainty of a net clinical benefit to vaccinating healthy children with this mRNA vaccine? The Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (OCD) within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) answer is, at the present time, with best available information, no.

Moderna has never shown a reduction in severe COVID-19, hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized study in children.

Moderna has not shown that COVID-19 vaccination reduces long COVID or transmission in any setting at any age with high-quality data. Neither has the applicant nor a third party shown fewer missed days of school with high-quality data.

Vaccinating these individuals (healthy kids with natural immunity) carries massive uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh risks.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been given to billions of individuals and the harms have been studied in depth, no one knows if these products have harms that only materialize 10 or 20 years later, as such is a necessary limit of time. It is ignorant to claim that unknown long-term risks are not possible.

Antibodies are not gold standard science, and one cannot be certain of net clinical benefit merely because antibodies are increased. Vaccine doses can increase antibodies, but fail to further improve clinical outcomes.

Randomized trials measuring clinical outcomes will be required to approve these products for healthy individuals.


< much more at link >

FDA is ultimately accountable to the American people, and Americans have overwhelmingly stated that they feel the evidence to vaccinate a healthy child with a COVID-19 mRNA product is not enough to compel them to act. CBER OCD, after careful examination of the scientific evidence, agrees with the vast majority of Americans.


////////////


Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
@drawandstrike
·
19m
WHOA...!

This appears to be legit...

They made that Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine approval WITHOUT informing HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy while he was away on vacation.

And when he came back he promptly FIRED BOTH OF THEIR ASSES.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ervices-aides/

[mountain_jim]

ZH coverage with more details

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...hs-aides-fired

FDA Approved Moderna COVID Shot For Kids Behind Kennedy's Back - Two HHS Aides Fired

by Tyler Durden
Monday, Jul 21, 2025 - 10:35 PM
Authored by Jon Fleetwood via JonFleetwood.com,

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly granted full approval to Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 injection for children while Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was on vacation - and without his knowledge or consent.



As head of the department overseeing the FDA, Kennedy should have been directly informed of any decision involving pediatric mRNA shots—especially one as politically and medically sensitive as full approval for children as young as six months.

On July 10, Moderna, Inc. announced the FDA approved the supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Spikevax®, the Company’s COVID shot, in “children 6 months through 11 years of age who are at increased risk for COVID-19 disease.”

The approval was made despite Moderna’s own scientists’ admission that there are “unacceptable toxicity” levels in mRNA vaccines, and that “lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns.”

It was also made without Secretary Kennedy’s knowledge.

According to multiple sources, neither Kennedy nor his Deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were briefed or consulted ahead of the decision, raising alarm over internal operations at one of the nation’s most powerful health agencies.

Only July 16, White House correspondent and media host Emerald Robinson reported on Twitter/X that FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary “did not inform @RobertKennedyJr (who was on vacation) or his office that FDA was going to approve the mRNA shots for children,” citing sources familiar with the matter.

On July 17, CNN reported that Secretary Kennedy had fired two of his top aides “in an abrupt shakeup of the leadership at the nation’s sprawling health department,” also citing unnamed sources.

“Kennedy’s chief of staff, Heather Flick Melanson, and deputy chief of staff for policy Hannah Anderson left HHS after only a handful of months on the job, following internal clashes that culminated in both of their removals this week,” the report explained.

The CNN article didn’t connect the firings to the FDA’s decision to approve Moderna’s jab for kids.

However, the MAHA PAC (Make America Healthy Again Political Action Committee)—a pro-Trump super PAC founded by RFK Jr.’s former staff to promote his health-focused agenda—corroborated Robinson’s account and connected the firings to the FDA’s Moderna decision.

On July 20, MAHA PAC cited Dr. Robert Malone—now serving on the newly restructured ACIP vaccine panel—as confirming that neither Kennedy nor Spears were informed of the FDA’s decision regarding Moderna and that a major HHS leadership purge unfolded upon their return.

“The unfortunate facts are that this decision… was made public when both the Secretary of HHS and his trusted deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were on vacation,” said Dr. Malone, citing insider knowledge. “Neither Sec. HHS nor his deputy Chief of Staff (dCOS) were briefed or read in on this decision.”

The move apparently set off a chain reaction.

According to Malone, shortly after Kennedy and Spears returned, “a major reorganization of HHS leadership occurred.”

Anderson was “walked off the premises and was so upset that she crashed her car into the Secretary’s government-provided vehicle.”

Melanson, a veteran of the Trump-era HHS, claimed she resigned voluntarily.

CNN sources say otherwise, alleging she was fired after Kennedy lost confidence in her leadership following the dismissal of Anderson.

A spokesperson for HHS said that Matt Buckham, the department’s White House liaison, will serve as acting Chief of Staff.

The FDA’s end-run around Kennedy not only signals potential deeper insubordination within HHS, but also highlights a promising shift under his leadership—one where incompetence, secrecy, and disloyalty are no longer tolerated, and where restoring integrity, transparency, and public trust could be the new standard.

< more links and post images at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1947675019842126295

Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga
·
31m
🚨🚨🚨HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System

This is a press release from HHS, dated July 21, 2025

Secretary Kennedy Threatens Closure of Deficient Organ Procurement Organization

WASHINGTON—July 21, 2025— The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. today announced a major initiative to begin reforming the organ transplant system following an investigation by its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that revealed disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said.

“The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”

HRSA directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to reopen a disturbing case involving potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient by the federally-funded organ procurement organization (OPO) serving Kentucky, southwest Ohio, and part of West Virginia. Under the Biden administration, the OPTN’s Membership and Professional Standards Committee closed the same case without action.

Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HRSA demanded a thorough, independent review of the OPO’s conduct and the treatment of vulnerable patients under its care. HRSA’s independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous OPTN Board of Directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review.

HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed. It found:

103 cases (29.3%) showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.

At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated—raising serious ethical and legal questions.

Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases.

Vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. In response to these findings, HRSA has mandated strict corrective actions for the OPO, and system-level changes to safeguard potential organ donors nationally. The OPO must conduct a full root cause analysis of its failure to follow internal protocols—including noncompliance with the five-minute observation rule after the patient’s death—and develop clear, enforceable policies to define donor eligibility criteria. Additionally, it must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise.

Secretary Kennedy will decertify the OPO if it fails to comply with these corrective action requirements [PDF].

HRSA also took action to make sure that patients across the country will be safer when donating organs by directing the OPTN to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level. Under HRSA’s directive, data about any safety-related stoppages of organ donation called for by families, hospitals, or OPO staff must be reported to regulators, and the OPTN must update policies to strengthen organ procurement safety and provide accurate, complete information about the donation process to families and hospitals.

These findings from HHS confirm what the Trump administration has long warned: entrenched bureaucracies, outdated systems, and reckless disregard for human life have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is restoring integrity and transparency to organ procurement and transplant policy by putting patients’ lives first. These reforms are essential to restoring trust, ensuring informed consent, and protecting the rights and dignity of prospective donors and their families.

HHS recognizes House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie’s (KY-02) bipartisan work to improve the organ transplant system and looks forward to working with him and other issue-area champions in Congress to deliver reforms.

End Press Release

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/EndTribalism/status/1949872441024540963

You don’t hate mainstream media enough.

The Washington Post hates RFK Jr. so much, they’re now publishing articles in support of pharmaceutical ads.

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) July 28, 2025

[onawah]

Vaccine Liability is On the Table
Secretary Kennedy Makes a Stunning Announcement
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Jul 29, 2025

https://popularrationalism.substack....kV6ZdBVK4dy0Cg

"The national conversation on vaccine injury and accountability has returned—this time from within the halls of power. On July 28, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a blistering rebuke of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), calling it a morass of inefficiency, favoritism, and outright corruption. His statement follows decades of criticism from researchers, patient advocates, and injured families who have watched the program drift further from its original mission: to compensate those injured by vaccines swiftly and fairly, in exchange for protecting manufacturers from lawsuits.

But now, the call is coming from inside the building—and so are the corroborating accounts. I speak from personal experience.

A System Designed to Protect Industry, Not People
Established in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the VICP was sold to the public as a compromise. Vaccine makers would be shielded from product liability lawsuits, but a special court would hear injury claims and disburse funds from a trust financed by a 75-cent surcharge on every dose. The result was a legal anomaly: a taxpayer-funded compensation system adjudicated by government attorneys and so-called Special Masters, immune from civil discovery, unbound by the rules of evidence, and utterly inaccessible to traditional tort remedies.

It is, in every material sense, a system rigged against the injured.

More than 12,000 petitioners have received compensation totaling over $5.4 billion, but this figure hides more than it reveals. The average payout may hover around $450,000, but cases can drag on for years. Worse, over half of all claims are denied—often without genuine examination of mechanistic plausibility or patient history.

And contrary to public assumption, most of these awards are not for injured children, but for adults—many of them harmed by influenza vaccines and other products routinely administered to working-age populations. This pattern directly undercuts the common refrain that VICP is merely a safeguard for pediatric vaccination. It is not. It is a backdoor bailout system for manufacturers—deliberately kept quiet, procedurally opaque, and inaccessible to public scrutiny.

My Departure: Bribery, Aluminum, and the End of Trust
I left my role in the VICP process after a Special Master attempted to bribe me.

During sworn expert work on behalf of a petitioner, I had prepared testimony linking aluminum adjuvants to autoimmune conditions via well-established immunological pathways, including molecular mimicry, the use of aluminum hydroxide to induce autoimmunity reliability and reproducibility in animals, and chronic inflammatory cascades. The science is robust—rooted in animal models, systems biology, and translational studies.

Instead of rebutting the data, the Special Master took another path: off the record and improper. The plaintiff was informed that the VICP had already determined that aluminum was not a problem (a violation of the rule of not citing precedent), and they were told —explicitly—that unless I softened or removed my statements on aluminum's causal role in the development of post-vaccination autoimmune disease, the Special Master was not likely to want to compensate me for further testimony. It was implied that my future participation in the program and reputation within the Court system would be accommodated.

My response was to put the attempted bribe on the record in my next expert statement, withdraw all of my invoices in protest, and to depart the program.

That recording is in the possession of the plaintiff, multiple attorneys and myself. Its contents will, when considered by the AG office, obliterate any illusion that the VICP operates under the rules of ethics or law. The incident does not stand alone. It is the tip of a very large iceberg—one built on procedural fraud, scientific suppression, and judicial strong-arming.

Secretary Kennedy: Course Correction from Within
RFK Jr. made clear that reform will not be cosmetic. He criticized the VICP for prioritizing the solvency of the HHS Trust Fund over the duty to compensate victims, and called out the agency for denying plaintiffs access to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)—the most robust adverse event surveillance system in existence.

In his words, There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply... Special Masters dismiss over half of the cases... the government lawyers do not allow children attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Whether one agrees with Kennedy politically is irrelevant. The rot he describes is not ideological. It is institutional. The structural incentives are clear: HHS defends HHS. DOJ attorneys defend HHS. Special Masters are selected and paid under HHS. The CDC owns the VSD but hides its data from plaintiffs. The DOJ has an incentive to dismiss claims to protect the trust fund balance. This is not a court—it is a closed circuit.

Reader Reactions: The Three Americas
In response to the Seeking Alpha article covering RFK Jr.'s announcement, readers offered unfiltered insight into public sentiment. Three distinct worldviews emerged.

First were the Realists, who support vaccines generally but are appalled by the injustice baked into the VICP. As one commenter put it, Sunshine is a good disinfectant. Another added, If it is a societal good to mandate immunizations and shield companies from liability, then we should be willing to compensate those with adverse reactions.

Second came the Defenders of the Shield, who insisted that removing liability would collapse vaccine innovation. One commenter claimed, There would be no vaccines in the US once that happened, ignoring the fact that other nations without liability shields still fund, develop, and manufacture vaccines. Others leaned on the misleading statistic that adverse effects are rare—failing to mention that injuries are underreported, dismissed without evidence review, and often not tracked in any meaningful long-term way.

Third came the Disillusioned, who questioned the ethics of an industry so entwined with the state that corruption is normalized. Some accused RFK Jr. of fronting for trial lawyers. Others saw the pandemic response itself as evidence that vaccine policy is less about science and more about political obedience.

Whether extreme or reasoned, these perspectives highlight a growing truth: the VICP no longer commands public trust.

Legal Immunity is the Enemy of Innovation
The claim that loss of immunity will halt vaccine development is not only false—it is dangerously backward. In fact:

Loss of immunity will force vaccine makers to innovate.

Without accountability, companies have no incentive to improve adjuvants, reduce contamination, study long-term risks, or design surveillance systems that detect harm in real time. The current regime has enabled stagnation. Nearly all pediatric vaccines on the schedule are based on decades-old platforms. The most rapid innovation—mRNA—was released under EUA without liability and now shows signals of myocarditis, menstrual irregularities, and other systemic effects the courts may never adjudicate.

In no other industry is this tolerated. Heart valve makers, prosthetics manufacturers, and psychiatric drug developers all face liability. They still operate. They still innovate. They improve because they must.

Shielding vaccines from legal challenge has not increased safety—it has buried it.

Reform or Repeal: What Comes Next?
RFK Jr.'s proposals may be only the beginning. True reform requires:

Open public access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink

A neutral body—independent from HHS—to adjudicate claims

The restoration of civil discovery and standard evidentiary procedure

Time limits on case resolution

Repeal of liability protections for any vaccine added under emergency use or without full pre-licensure safety trials

The American public has paid the price for blind trust in captured systems. The VICP is not broken because of incompetence—it was designed to serve institutional solvency over justice. That design must be reversed.

Conclusion: The Shield is Cracking
For decades, vaccine liability has been off-limits, protected by layers of legal abstraction and media silence. Now, with a reformer at the helm of HHS and credible insider testimony—mine included—exposing bribery within the program itself, the silence is breaking.

The VICP cannot be patched. It must be reimagined—or replaced entirely. The goal is not to dismantle public health. It is to restore it through accountability, transparency, and respect for those who paid the price in silence.

That silence ends now. Vaccine liability is back on the table.

Full Kennedy Post (on X):

“The 1986 Vaccine Act gave vaccine makers immunity against lawsuits by children who suffer vaccine injuries. The statute, and numerous subsequent court decisions, recognized that vaccines, like all medicines, are, in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics case, “unavoidably unsafe,” and that a percentage of vaccinated children will suffer injuries or death. Congress, therefore, simultaneously created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which obliged HHS to compensate injured children. In the words of then Labor and Public Welfare Committee Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy, “when ... children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate [g]overnment will assist them in their hour of need.”

Under the VICP, vaccine victims can petition for compensation to the so-called “Vaccine Court,” which pays out awards from a trust fund endowed by a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine. Congress intended that injured children be compensated “quickly and fairly” for injuries, “either presumed or proven to be causally connected to vaccines,” with doubts about causation resolved in favor of the victim.

To date, the Vaccine Court has paid out $5.4 billion to 12,000 petitioners. But the VICP no longer functions to achieve its Congressional intent. Instead, the VICP has devolved into a morass of inefficiency, favoritism, and outright corruption as government lawyers and the Special Masters who serve as Vaccine Court judges prioritize the solvency of the HHS Trust Fund, over their duty to compensate victims.

The structure itself hobbles claimants. The defendant is HHS, not the vaccine makers; and claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government represented by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, most of the Special Masters come from government, legal, or political posts, and typically display an extreme bias that favors the government side. There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply. The government lawyers do not allow children’s attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded CDC surveillance system that houses the best data on vaccine injuries. Attorney compensation is in the hands of notoriously biased Special Masters and often hostile government attorneys, who can leverage this power to turn petitioner attorneys against their clients' interests.

The VICP routinely dismisses meritorious cases outright or drags them out for years. Instead of “quickly and fairly” awarding compensation, Special Masters dismiss over half of the cases. Most of those that proceed typically take 5+ years to resolve, with many languishing for more than 10 years as parents struggle to care for children suffering with often extreme disabilities. Petitioners’ attorneys complain that the Special Masters make punitive downward adjustments to attorneys’ fees and medical expert fees to punish effective advocacy. Expert witnesses for injured children complain that they suffer intimidation and even threats that they will lose professional status or NIH funding if they testify for injured children. The government pays its own medical expert witnesses promptly while simultaneously slow-walking payments for petitioners’ experts—sometimes for years.

The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it. I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals.

I am grateful to be working with @AGPamBondi and HHS staff to fix the VISP.

Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original Congressional intent.”

Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication."

[onawah]

‘Deceitful Propaganda Stunt’: RFK Jr. Breaks Down Danish Study on Autism and Aluminum in Vaccines
by TrialSite News
August 4, 2025
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...tm_id=20250804

"From excluding high-risk children to ignoring the authors’ financial conflicts of interest, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laid out the flaws in a study hailed by the media as proof of aluminum’s safety. A closer look “reveals a study so deeply flawed it functions not as science but as a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry,” Kennedy said.

On July 15, an intensely ballyhooed study by Andersson et al., published in Annals of Internal Medicine — a journal of the American College of Physicians, claims to find no association between aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and chronic childhood disorders in Denmark.

The slavish, pharma-funded mainstream media, ever eager to defend industry orthodoxies, have triumphantly hailed this study as proof of aluminum’s safety without even a cursory examination of the study’s fatal deficiencies or the financial conflicts of its authors.

But a closer look reveals a study so deeply flawed it functions not as science but as a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry.

The architects of this study meticulously designed it not to find harm. From the outset, Andersson et al. excluded the very children most likely to reveal injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines.

The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels.

These choices suggest an intention to exclude the children at highest risk of harm. The authors, without explanation, deemed these high exposures “implausible,” even though those implausibly high exposures are routine for American children who follow the recommended immunization schedule.

At the very least, the study findings therefore cannot be generalized to children in the U.S. By systematically stripping the dataset of high-risk individuals, the researchers leave behind a survivor cohort to analyze. The name for this logical fallacy is “healthy subject bias.”

Furthermore, the authors inappropriately treated general practitioner visits before age two as a confounder, without assessing whether these general practitioner visits reflected early aluminum-related illness or were predictive of later diagnoses.

This introduced “collider bias” — a distortion that can suppress real associations even to the extent of making aluminum appear protective. It’s like studying whether smoking causes lung cancer while adjusting for coughing or for yellowed fingers — symptoms associated with smoking.

These sleights of hand magnify the potential for allowing the authors to reach their absurd suggestion that higher aluminum exposure is somehow protective against asthma, allergies, and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

These findings clash with mountains of contrary literature documenting the neurotoxicity of aluminum and its association with autoimmune and allergic diseases (Daley, et al. 2023). If the medical establishment truly believed these data, they would be recommending aluminum injections to children as a prophylaxis against neurological and autoimmune diseases.

Andersson and his team initially had a zero-exposure cohort within the study group. But instead of evaluating this non-vaccination group separately and treating these children as the control, they lumped these kids into the least-exposed cohort, diluting any signal of harm.

More broadly, their analysis assumed a linear dose-response, ignoring evidence from Crépeaux et al. (2017) demonstrating that low doses of aluminum can produce non-linear neurotoxic effects in animal models.

While adjusting for birth year can be appropriate in some study designs to account for secular trends, it is not a neutral act in this case. Aluminum exposure from vaccines increased over time, as did rates of chronic childhood disorders. Yet the authors failed to explore whether this correlation might reflect a causal relationship. They did not test this hypothesis but conveniently avoided doing so through this statistical artifice.

Furthermore, the authors almost exclusively relied on diagnoses from hospital inpatient registers. This gimmick allowed the authors to exclude the vast majority of affected children whose autism and food allergies would most likely be diagnosed and managed outside of hospital settings. This potentially biases the data toward undercounting true cases, particularly among children with milder presentations or less frequent hospital contact.

There were additional problems with this data source. A 2017 analysis by Holt et al. identified substantial misclassification in the Danish National Health Service Registry — the same source used by Andersson et al. to assess vaccine exposure — finding that children’s medical records often documented vaccinations that were absent from the registry.

This casts further doubt on the accuracy of exposure classification in the study. In other words, it’s highly likely that many of the children that the authors classified as not receiving aluminum-containing vaccines actually did.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) routine childhood vaccine schedule is also considerably more aggressive than Denmark’s. For example, while Denmark recommends the aluminum-containing hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine only for infants deemed at risk, the CDC recommends a three-dose series for all newborns starting on the first day of life.

Andersson et al. also neglect to consider susceptible subpopulations of children based on known genetic risk factors, such as mitochondrial dysfunction or environmental co-exposures, such as the synergistic toxicity of mercury and aluminum. This suite of deceptive devices and strategic exclusions seems calculated as an additional flimflam for deliberately excluding or diluting out the most vulnerable children.

Despite all the deceptive devices the authors used to conceal the signals of harm, Andersson et al.’s own supplementary data are a devastating indictment of aluminum-containing vaccines. These data, which they were forced to publish because of public criticism of their analysis, directly contradict the study’s conclusions.

The data show a statistically significant 67% increased risk of Asperger’s syndrome per 1 mg increase in aluminum exposure among children born between 2007 and 2018.

Compared to the moderate exposure group, for every 10,000 children in the highest aluminum exposure cohort, there were 9.7 more cases of neurodevelopmental disorder, 4.5 more cases of autistic disorder, and 8.7 more cases of the broader category of autism spectrum disorder. Yet the authors gloss over these harms to children by claiming they “did not find evidence” for an increased risk.

To reassure readers that infants’ vaccine aluminum exposure is “well below” an established “minimal risk level,” Andersson et al. cite Mitkus et al. (2011). But that U.S. Food and Drug Administration analysis was based on ingested soluble aluminum in adult rodents, making its findings irrelevant to injected particulate aluminum in human infants. To cite this study as proof of safety is scientifically indefensible.

Three of the study’s authors are affiliated with Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut (SSI), a government-owned vaccine company that develops a number of aluminum-containing vaccines. SSI also procures and supplies vaccines for the Danish national vaccination program — a clear institutional conflict given its role in supporting vaccine manufacturing and promoting vaccine uptake.

Yet two of the three authors nevertheless declared no conflicts of interest. The senior author, Anders Hviid, reported funding from sources including the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which is directly linked to the pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk and maintains a substantial investment footprint in the industry.

Such affiliations call into question the study’s independence and underscore the need for raising international standards of gold standard science outlined in the Trump administration’s recent executive order requiring transparency, reproducibility and data sharing. These are standards that will determine with whom the U.S. will collaborate or do business going forward.

The study, in fact, offers the opposite of transparency. For example, there is no table showing how many of the children in each aluminum exposure cohort were diagnosed with each outcome. Consequently, there is no way to independently evaluate the calculations made, leaving readers to place faith in the authors’ opaque modeling decisions at the expense of scientific reproducibility.

Finally, the Annals of Internal Medicine failed to share raw data that is essential for transparency and reproducibility. The disclosures on the Andersson study say “owing to data privacy regulations in Denmark, the raw data cannot be shared.”

Public health policy should not rest on non-reproducible observational studies that are not merely inconclusive but appear to be intentionally designed to find no association between vaccines and health harms.

If the authors are truly committed to science, they should ask the Danish government to waive the requirements of the law and allow full access to their raw data for scientists across the world to verify their findings.

This study does not just suffer from mere methodological limitations. Its design flaws are defining. The only thing this study proves is the thorough corruption of the scientific journals that publish such garbage-in, garbage-out exercises in statistical manipulation.

The Annals of Internal Medicine should immediately retract this badly flawed study.

For years, American parents have been calling for rigorous, transparent and independently conducted science comparing the long-term health outcomes of children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule with those of completely unvaccinated children.

Yet studies like Andersson et al. showed they had the data to make this comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but instead excluded and lumped data that made their insights opaque. These authors squandered an important opportunity to restore trust by animating an international scientific process to develop safer vaccines.

By excluding unvaccinated children from meaningful analysis, obscuring raw data and relying on hidden statistical assumptions, this study exemplifies the kind of institutional obfuscation that continues to erode public trust.

What’s needed is not more statistical modeling designed to bury signals of harm, but independent research grounded in full transparency, methodological integrity and the courage to confront inconvenient truths.

Originally published by TrialSite News."

[TrumanCash]

“This Is a Bombshell”: Dr. Ryan Cole Predicts What’s Coming Next as RFK Jr. Defunds mRNA Vaccines

Kennedy’s defunding of mRNA vaccine technology “is a bombshell,” pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole told Steve Bannon.

Why?

Because “when the money isn’t there, these are going to FIZZLE.”

“This is a bombshell."

“The repercussions,” he says, “are going to be felt worldwide.”

Ryan Cole M.D.: “It’s Not A Ban On mRNA, But It’s A Wind Down Of The Government Investing Through BARDA In These Technologies”

BARDA -- Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority

Full Bannons War Room video: https://rumble.com/v6x6xzu-cole.html...s%2Csrc_v1_s_m

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. dropped a mega bombshell on Tuesday when he announced that BARDA will be CANCELING 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts, saving taxpayers about $500 million in the process.

BARDA and mRNA Vaccines Announcement

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FMLhcACHF_g

This move delivered a major blow to the biomedical industrial complex, which was hoping to make an mRNA vaccine for just about every disease imaginable.

Kennedy also gave legitimacy to what was deemed a “conspiracy theory” for the longest time.

He suggested the COVID-19 shots, marketed as “safe and effective,” could have CAUSED the virus to mutate more quickly and EXTENDED the pandemic altogether.

He explained:

“The [mRNA] vaccine [platform] paradoxically encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics. As the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine, millions of people, maybe even you or someone you know, caught the Omicron variant despite being vaccinated. That’s because a single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective.”

[rgray222]

The only good thing I can say about this article/video is that Colbert has been cancelled. He will have another 10 months on the air, and he will not be replaced.


Stephen Colbert Hits RFK Jr. with ‘Measured’ Response on Vaccine Funding Cut: ‘F*ck You, You Roid-Addled Nepo Carnie!’



Stephen Colbert offered a finger and some salty language in response to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cutting $500 million in vaccine contracts.

On Thursday’s The Late Show, Colbert railed against a number of officials from President Donald Trump’s administration, but took particular issue with Kennedy, who announced this week that 22 projects related to developing vaccines using mRNA technology to fight respiratory viruses will be halted.

“To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we’re prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don’t collapse when viruses mutate,” Kennedy said.

Colbert noted on Wednesday that his show is coming to a close soon and he wanted to provide a “measured, non-partisan” response to Kennedy.

“**** you, you roid-addled nepo carnie!” Colbert then said, throwing his middle finger up at the camera, the crowd bursting into cheers.

The comedian compared halting the projects to not using a GPS.

“Bobby Jr. is nixing 22 projects that use mRNA technology. But that’s the latest vaccine technology. That’s like saying, kids, I’m turning off the GPS. We’re going to make our way to Six Flags by using the stars,” he said.

Colbert has used his show as a platform to promote vaccines in the past, getting pushback from vaccine critics by putting on a song and dance number to promote the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.

Colbert tore into Kennedy with more personal insults on his show, warning him he’s going to “kill” people with his decision.

“**** you, you roadkill munching, red-eyed, human Slim Jim. You’re going to kill people. Why would you say that mRNA vaccines don’t perform well against upper respiratory infections? The National Institutes of Health said they prevented an estimated 14.4 million deaths. Why on Earth is RFK Jr. so anxious to fill our streets with dead bodies?” he said.

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/st...d-nepo-carnie/

[mountain_jim]

copying here

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1953829526372331996

The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox
·
1h
BREAKING: Another COVID “conspiracy theory” just came true.

A Special HHS Adviser confirmed it, and you could see the pain written all over his face.

This explains why RFK Jr. effectively shut down all mRNA vaccine funding.

🧵 THREAD

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1953831983311696334

The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox
·
1h
Senior HHS Advisor Dr. Steven Hatfill just said mRNA shots induce “BIOCHEMICAL HAVOC.”

He’s likely referring to the new study that found mRNA shots induce severe, long-lasting genetic disruption linked to cancer and chronic disease.

Using high-resolution RNA sequencing on blood samples, they discovered that COVID-19 “vaccines” SEVERELY disrupt expression of THOUSANDS of genes—triggering mitochondrial failure, immune reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that can persist for MONTHS to YEARS post-injection.

Differential gene expression analysis compared mRNA-injured patients (cancer, adverse events) to 803 healthy controls — revealing widespread transcriptomic CHAOS.

https://preprints.org/manuscript/202507.2155/v1


https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1953832307246461120

The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox
·
1h
Dr. Hatfill said the data had accumulated to the point where large studies could be conducted. He’s right. The two LARGEST COVID-19 “vaccine” safety studies in HISTORY—covering 184 MILLION people—prove mRNA shots are NOT SAFE for human use.

📍 Faksova et al. (n=99M) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/)

➊ Myocarditis +510% (dose 2)

➋ Brain/Spinal Cord Inflammation +278% (dose 1)

➌ Brain Clots +223% (dose 1)

➍ Guillain-Barré +149% (dose 1)

📍 Karimi et al. (n=85M) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11970839/)

➊ Heart Attack +286% (dose 2)

➋ Stroke +240% (dose 1)

➌ Coronary Artery Disease +244% (dose 2)

➍ Cardiac Arrhythmia +199% (dose 1)

[onawah]

AAP, AMA Booted From CDC Vaccine Advisory Working Groups
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
August 8, 2025
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...8s#btn-share-1

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and six other major medical associations will no longer participate in advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy, Bloomberg reported.

The associations said they were informed via email last week that their vaccine experts were being disinvited from the workgroups that report to the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often. Its recommendations help determine which vaccines will be covered by the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program and insurers, and will be mandated by states for daycare and school attendance.

The medical association members will no longer be invited to participate in the working groups that review data and form policy recommendations. However, they will be able to participate in the open public meetings, like the rest of the public.

They are being eliminated because they are “special interest groups and therefore are expected to have a ‘bias’ based on their constituency and/or population that they represent,” according to one U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) email reported by The Associated Press.

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon confirmed the decision in an email. He said:

“Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence, and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.

“Experts will continue to be included based on relevant experience and expertise, not because of what organization they are with.”

Groups call decision ‘irresponsible, dangerous’ to public health

The organizations responded in a joint statement, claiming the decision is “irresponsible, dangerous to our nation’s health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.” They called on the Trump administration to reconsider the decision.

“We are deeply disappointed and alarmed that our organizations are being characterized as ‘biased’ and therefore barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations that have long helped ensure our nation’s vaccine program is safe, effective, and free from bias,” they wrote.

In addition to the AAP and the AMA, the statement was signed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America and the National Medical Association.

The decision was the latest attempt by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to address the problem of industry influence over ACIP.

In June, Kennedy announced that HHS was retiring all 17 members of ACIP to eliminate conflicts of interest. At the time, most members had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines, or had worked with public health agencies to promote controversial vaccines, including the COVID-19, RSV and HPV shots.

Two days later, Kennedy named eight researchers and physicians to replace approximately half of the members. One nominee declined to participate.

At the first meeting of the new ACIP committee, the members voted to stop recommending flu shots that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative linked to neurodevelopmental disorders. The AAP, which criticized the decision, maintains that thimerosal is “safe.”

The committee also voted to recommend Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody shot for newborns.

Every group kicked out of ACIP takes corporate money from Big Pharma

In July, several of the medical associations removed last week from the ACIP working groups sued Kennedy and other public health officials and agencies over the changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women.

The groups’ lead lawyer, Richard Henry Hughes IV, was vice president of public policy at Moderna from 2020-2022, when the vaccine maker developed and marketed the Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine, which has netted the company billions of dollars over the last four years. He also previously worked for Merck.

Last month, the AAP also called for an end to religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in the U.S.

In an updated policy statement published in Pediatrics, the AAP said universal immunization is necessary to keep children and employees safe. The organization said there is a place for “legitimate” medical exemptions, but nonmedical exemptions — part of the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of religion — are “problematic.”

In addition to working with lobbyists like Hughes, every organization expelled from the ACIP working group is funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

The AAP, the major professional organization representing 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medication of American children over recent decades. It is also a lobbying organization that, over the previous six years, has spent between $748,000 and $1,180,000 annually advocating for its members, according to the government website Open Secrets.

The organization’s funding for that work comes, in part, from annual contributions from corporate sponsors, including vaccine manufacturers Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, Abbott Laboratories, GSK and CSL Seqirus.

The AMA is also funded in part by corporate sponsorships. In the past, it came under fire for taking more than $600,000 from pharmaceutical companies to finance a $1 million campaign to promote ethical guidelines discouraging doctors from accepting expensive gifts from drug companies, The Lancet reported.

AMA funding also comes from the AMA Foundation, which is funded by “Roundtable members” from the pharmaceutical industry. Its largest donor is PhRMA, the primary lobbying organization for the industry — which spent a record $12.88 million lobbying for the industry in the first quarter of 2025.

Other AMA sponsors include Agmen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and others.

The National Medical Association takes funding from Eli Lilly, Gilead, Regeneron, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, AstraZeneca and others.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America partners with Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi and others.

A similar list of Big Pharma companies funds the American Academy of Family Physicians, which also partners with Amazon Pharmacy.

Pharma giants, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, are on the long list of the American College of Physicians’ corporate sponsors, along with Big Food giants Tyson Foods and PepsiCo.

The American Geriatrics Society’s financial disclosure statement shows that it has various corporate sponsors, including Merck and Pfizer.

The American Osteopathic Association also has several corporate sponsors, including Pfizer, Astellas, Merck and Sanofi.

New ACIP committee member Retsef Levi, Ph.D., in a post on X, said that instead of these industry-sponsored organizations, the working groups plan to engage experts from a broader set of disciplines.

The working group participation will now “be based on merit & expertise,” he wrote, “not membership in organizations proven to have COIs [conflicts-of-interest] and radical & narrow view of public health!” "

Related articles in The Defender

Breaking: RFK Jr. Removes All Members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee
RFK Jr. Taps 8 New ACIP Members, Offit Concedes Most ‘Seem Reasonable’
RFK Jr. Hit With Lawsuit Over Changes to COVID Vaccine Policies for Kids, Pregnant Women
Lawyer Leading Lawsuit Against RFK Jr. Over COVID Vaccines Used to Work for Moderna
American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Shut Down Religious Vaccine Exemptions

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/JB_Slear/status/1954742840862581200

JB Slear
@JB_Slear
Conspiracy Theorists correct 10,000 to none
jb

🔥THIS IS MASSIVE - RFK Jr Targets Big Pharma’s Secret Payouts to Push Vaccines

HHS Secretary RFK Jr revealed a sweeping investigation into hidden financial incentives for doctors to promote vaccines, calling the findings “alarming.” He said over 36,000 doctors had Medicare reimbursements tied to childhood vaccination rates — a practice he condemned as coercive and immoral. RFK Jr vowed to eliminate such incentives, insisting medical decisions must be based solely on patient well-being, not government mandates or pharmaceutical payouts.

Sergeant News Network 🇺🇸

[onawah]

Dangers of EMFs-- MAHA overlooked this

Posted by onawah (here)
MAHA overlooked this (so far) - but you don't have to
Email newsletter from: The EMF Guy <np@theemfguy.com>
8/12/25

"Several months ago, the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) report – the one that's supposed to tackle the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic in children - completely fell short when it comes to EMF dangers.

According to this detailed analysis (1) from Children's Health Defense, EMFs got relegated to “one bullet statement on page 44” with basic scientific errors. Meanwhile, they ignored the 2025 WHO study showing “high certainty” that cellphone radiation causes cancer.

Here's what really gets me: EMFs are, according to people who actually studied the issue in depth (2), one of the most pressing health issues of our time.

Yes, microplastics matter. Glyphosate matters. All those other toxins matter too.
But EMFs? They're one of the fastest-growing and most ignored problems we're facing. And most people in the MAHA movement still need to be educated about these dangers.

That's exactly why I'm making this available again.

Remember the 2025 EMF Hazards Summit we ran back in April? The one where over 40,000 people registered, and my inbox got flooded with messages like "This opened my eyes" and "Why isn't this on the news?"

For the first time since April, I'm making the entire summit available again - completely free for 48 hours.

What you'll get access to:

All 18 world-renowned experts who broke their silence on EMF dangers
Swedish journalist Mona Nilsson & Professor Hardell’s shocking 5G case studies (people got sick within days of tower activation - even at "safe" levels)
Ex-Harvard researcher Dr. Martha Herbert on EMFs, brain development, and autism
The disturbing truth about children's lifetime EMF exposure vs. their grandparents
Real solutions to minimize EMFe exposure from AirPods, smartphones, and Wi-Fi routers
Why wireless radiation is being called "the new smoking"

This is your chance to spread this free information and learn about these EMF dangers for our children - information that clearly isn't getting the attention it deserves in mainstream health circles.

The moment you register, your 48-hour viewing window starts. So you can time it perfectly for when you know you'll have time to dive into the content.



===> Get Your 48-Hour Free Access Here: EMF Hazards: Safeguard Our Future:
https://theemfguy.com/op/summit/?oprid=78666&ref=10

The research these experts share is both eye-opening and empowering. No fear-mongering, no tech-shaming - just the facts you need to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Don't wait on this one. When those 48 hours are up, this content goes back to paid access only.

Nick

P.S. - This is exactly the kind of information that needs to reach more people in the “health freedom” movement. If you know someone who needs to see this, now's the perfect time to share it with them.


Sources:
1. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...c-disease-emr/
2. For example, Dr. Tess Lawrie, who spent years diving into EMF research, and told me that she considers EMFs one of the most urgent and important issues out there.

She said, in a recent interview on the MAHA Podcast:

"And if you were to ask me what is the biggest health threat to the American people I would say 5G technologies [Nick's note: And all other sources of EMFs!] [...]

This technology has a massive impact [...] on health."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K4kQify8fwE

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1957693789910225141

John Oliver just released an entire 33 minute segment attacking MAHA saying good health is “out of your control”


The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox
·
11h
John Oliver says failing to fully endorse injecting children with 20 different vaccines by just 18 months old is “really dangerous.”

I wish I were making this up.

[onawah]

What Just Happened Is Terrifying | Whitney Webb
Only The SAVVY
161K subscribers

(It's starting to look like "Make America Sick Again". Susan Monarez, Trump's new CDC Director, is all about vaccines, fluoride, AI, surveillance, transhumanism, etc. )

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BPgbAW_hyB4

********************
Meet Trump’s CDC Director: Susan Monarez
by Max Jones
August 18, 2025
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/08...susan-monarez/



"
A closer look at the CDC director’s history and connections reveal that her government career is closely linked to the intersections of re-branded eugenics, the militarization of healthcare and the expansion of the bio-surveillance state.
MAHA’s “Handpicked” Biosecurity Veteran

As the Trump administration has spent its first few months in The White House constructing the physical and digital infrastructure required for a pre-crime, technocratic police state, little attention has been paid to the ways in which the institutions ostensibly dedicated to “public health” are helping build out this digital control grid. As Unlimited Hangout has been reporting for many years now, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a prominent subgroup of the surveillance state has emerged at the intersection of Big Tech, Big Pharma and the military industrial complex — one that is laying the groundwork to implement the final frontier of mass surveillance: the bio-surveillance apparatus.

During his first term, Trump implemented the notorious Operation Warp Speed, the Pentagon-ran COVID-19 response plan which issued emergency deregulatory measures and massive funding for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Now, his second administration has successfully managed to become associated with COVID-era dissidence. This was primarily accomplished through Trump successfully securing the endorsements of figures who were skeptical of the official line on COVID-19, most prominently comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan and longtime environmental litigator and founder of Children’s Health Defense, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Since taking office, however, the second Trump administration has consistently contradicted this unofficial commitment to the spirit of COVID-era dissent and public health institutional overhaul. Just last week, the President touted Operation Warp Speed as one of the “most incredible things ever done in this country.” The week before, he announced an initiative to enable the vast sharing of individuals’ health data across a myriad of “health systems and apps,” in partnership with Pentagon-contracting Big Tech companies. More quietly, however, Trump nominated a seasoned official of the biosecurity apparatus named Susan Monarez to be the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Monarez, whose background is perfectly in line with this technocratic approach to healthcare that the administration has embarked on, was “handpicked” by Kennedy after the previous nominee, Dave Weldon, withdrew his nomination in March. Monarez had been acting director of the CDC for several months and was confirmed at the end of July with little fanfare.

(This very disappointing post on X from RFK Jr. back in March 2025 got lots of criticism, but apparently that has made little difference, as Monarez was appointed CDC Director on 7/29/25):

Secretary Kennedy
https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/1904...san-monarez%2F
@SecKennedy
X posts that erroneously attribute Biden-era tweets supporting masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc. to my
@CDCgov Director nominee, Susan Monarez, have understandably provoked agita within the MAHA movement. I handpicked Susan for this job because she is a longtime champion of MAHA values, and a caring, compassionate and brilliant microbiologist and a tech wizard who will reorient CDC toward public health and gold-standard science. I’m so grateful to President Trump for making this appointment.
11:23 AM · Mar 25, 2025
1.5M Views

Susan Monarez is a biosecurity veteran who has a long history embedded in what could be described as a gray zone of public governance — one where national security merges with healthcare. These connections and her life’s work suggest that Monarez is a useful tool, knowingly or not, of the biosecurity/surveillance apparatus, a group which has helped expand the sprawling American mass surveillance system under the auspices of wellness, mental health and innovation.

While a lack of a detailed digital footprint makes this exact history difficult to track down precisely, it is likely that her entry into the world of militarized science began at Stanford University when she was carrying out her work as a postdoctoral researcher. The Chair of her department notably boasted deep ties to some of the leading figures in the genetic science boom of the latter half of the 20th century — figures whose research was entangled with the eugenics movement of that era and the increasing securitization of science that occurred in the midst of the Cold War.

From Stanford, Monarez was catapulted into prestigious positions within the domestic parts of DHS, HHS, as well as the White House itself. Notably, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa emerged during Monarez’s tenure in the Executive Branch, and she played an important role in the government response. That outbreak may have marked one of the first times that the US commissioned the pre-crime, mass surveillance company Palantir with conducting biosurveillance during a public health epidemic. It most certainly established a significant step towards the total transformation of the US public health system into a militarized extension of the surveillance state.

Monarez’s time working in agencies such as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) made Monarez a perfect candidate for the position she maintained until she was most recently nominated to be the director of the CDC: the Deputy Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). From its conception, the HHS-housed ARPA-H was meant to serve as a “health” version of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Monarez’s appointment to the CDC, however, indicates further melding of America’s public health institutions with the national security state. While it has been more or less given that most heads of public health agencies in recent years must be supportive of technocratic biotechnology measures, Monarez has presided over significant initiatives and programs that have deepened the militarization of healthcare. She has also been appointed to be the Director of the CDC within the context of the ever-increasing integration of the pre-crime company Palantir, which privatized much of the George Bush-era Total Information Awareness mass surveillance project –– including its “Bio-surveillance” component — into government.

Furthermore, her time as the Deputy Director of ARPA-H may foreshadow the kind of initiatives she will head at the CDC; namely, the blatant digitization of health and acceleration of invasive biotechnology aimed at fracturing the complexity of human biology into observable, consumable and exploitable data points.

As this article will make clear, Monarez’s tenure in government is likely a direct product of the decades-long militarization of academia. Her stints at BARDA, the National Security Council, HSARPA, DHS and most recently ARPA-H are illustrative of the broader technocratic, surveillance-obsessed transformation of public health that has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic. That trend appears poised to persist under the second administration of Donald Trump.

To get a closer look at how Monarez may have entered this world, it is worth first investigating the connections that the Chair of her department at Stanford, Mark M. Davis,1 has to some of the industries and ideologues that, over time, have merged to form the biosurveillance state: eugenicists and the oligarchic technocrats who dominate Big Tech. Davis’s connections capture the biosecurity-focused academic environment where the future CDC director began her professional career as well as the spooky world of military-linked science she subsequently entered.

Stanford University — Where Academia and Defense Meet
Nearly five decades before Monarez attended Stanford’s biology and immunology program, the US military establishment was in a frenzy with its officials trying to figure out how they should respond to the Soviet Union’s successful launch of its small satellite named Sputnik into outer space."

MUCH MORE at the link: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/08...susan-monarez/

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1958010307051160012

Secretary Kennedy

@SecKennedy

This is a screenshot from American Academy of Pediatrics’ webpage, thanking the organization’s top corporate donors. These four companies make virtually every vaccine on the CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule. AAP is angry that CDC has eliminated corporate influence in decisions over vaccine recommendations and returned CDC to gold-standard science and evidence-based medicine laser-focused on children’s health.

AAP today released its own list of corporate-friendly vaccine recommendations. The Trump Administration believes in free speech and AAP has a right to make its case to the American people. But AAP should follow the lead of HHS and disclose conflicts of interest, including its corporate entanglements and those of its journal—Pediatrics—so that Americans may ask whether the AAP’s recommendations reflect public health interest, or are, perhaps, just a pay-to-play scheme to promote commercial ambitions of AAP’s Big Pharma benefactors.

AAP should also be candid with doctors and hospitals that recommendations that diverge from the CDC’s official list are not shielded from liability under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act.

[mountain_jim]

Today is the one year anniversary of this partnership.

https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/1959384962760905050

Thank you, President Trump, for answering my prayers to bring gold-standard science back to HHS and to end the childhood chronic disease epidemic.

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) August 23, 2025


(the video of that moment)

https://x.com/catturd2/status/1959346580240396470

Brick Suit
@Brick_Suit
One year ago today, MAGA and MAHA joined forces.

Watch as the crowd in the back begins to stand... it was ELECTRIC!

And a year later @SecKennedy is in place and making a huge impact.

MAGA + MAHA 4EVA!