Vaccine Crimes

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/210...105207908?s=20

The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox

A 35-year-old man who received three Pfizer mRNA shots, two of them from “E batches.”

Within a few months, the man developed a heart tumor that doubled in size EVERY 10 DAYS.

When surgeons removed the tumor, it measured 9 x 7 x 5 centimeters, nearly the size of a baseball.

This is unheard of. It usually takes more than 900 days for a sarcoma to grow that big. This one was found just 170 days after his first shot.

The tumor had fragments of Pfizer’s spike DNA all over it.

@NicHulscher: "This is literally the smoking gun of turbo cancers."

https://x.com/NicHulscher/status/210...669325/video/1

[onawah]

‘Feeling the Heat’?: Pharma Spent Record $456.9 Million Last Year on Lobbying — With No Signs of Slowing Down
by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
September 30, 2026

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...-slowing-down/[B][SIZE="4"]"

(Podcast at the link. Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"Highlights:
Big Pharma set a lobbying record in 2025, with the pharmaceutical and health industry spending $456.9 million on federal lobbying — a 16.7% increase from 2024.
Pharma’s spending shows no signs of slowing in 2026, with drugmakers and industry groups already reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures this year.
Industry trade group PhRMA is a major force behind the spending, bringing in more than $520 million in 2024 and retaining more than 40 lobbying firms despite having just 30 members at the time.
PhRMA’s decision to hire former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as its next CEO highlights the organization’s effort to bring high-level political and policy expertise to its lobbying operation.
Industry lobbying extends beyond legislation to FDA decisions and executive-branch policy, with reporting pointing to efforts to influence drug approvals, pricing policies and regulatory decisions under the Trump administration.
Big Pharma set a new record for lobbying spending in 2025 — and 2026 is shaping up to be another year of big spending, as the industry seeks to influence U.S. healthcare policy.

The pharmaceutical and health industry combined spent $456.9 million on lobbying expenses in 2025, according to OpenSecrets, up 16.7% from 2024. According to The Boston Globe (citing STAT), it was the largest-ever single-year increase in lobbying spending.

This spending was part of what OpenSecrets called a “record” $868 million in lobbying outlays by the healthcare sector in 2025.

Big Pharma’s leading trade group — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) — led the way, spending nearly $38 million on lobbying last year, a 22% increase from 2024, according to Politico. PhRMA was joined by “nine of the 13 U.S. drugmakers on the Fortune 500,” who reported “their highest spending in at least a decade” on lobbying.

There are no signs of a slowdown. OpenSecrets data show the pharmaceutical industry has reported $245.7 million in lobbying expenses so far this year, part of the $459.3 million the health sector overall has spent in 2026.

PhRMA spent a reported $19.8 million in lobbying expenses in 2026, ranking third among business and trade organizations this year — a position it also held in 2025, when it spent $38.19 million.

Among drugmakers, Eli Lilly has spent over $7 million on lobbying this year. Pfizer has spent $6.62 million, and Merck has spent $6.58 million.

According to OpenSecrets, PhRMA’s record spending bucked the overall trend, in which “some of Washington’s biggest spenders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, cut back from their 2024 lobbying expenditures.”

Big Pharma ‘using its enormous profits to influence politicians’

The Congressional Times described the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying spending in 2025 not as an “aberration” but as “the apex of a sustained, institutionalized expenditure pattern stretching back more than two decades” in which the industry sought to capture policymakers and federal regulatory agencies.

Daniel O’Connor, president and founder of TrialSite News, said the lavish spending points to a broader issue of representation and industry influence in Washington.

“The problem is bigger than Big Pharma. Washington has built a system where money buys access, access buys influence, and influence can shape the rules governing American healthcare,” O’Connor said.

For Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Big Pharma’s big lobbying spending shows the industry may feel threatened by Kennedy’s presence in the nation’s top health post and the health freedom movement’s growing momentum.

“First, with Secretary Kennedy in office, more scrutiny is being applied to the drug industry than ever before. Second, with the growing health freedom movement, more focus has been directed towards the drug industry’s products,” Manookian said.

Manookian cited a 2025 poll showing 90% of American voters are concerned about the pharma’s corrupting influence. She said the “pharmaceutical drug industry is feeling the heat and using its enormous profits to influence politicians.”

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, agreed. He said the COVID-19 pandemic was the pharmaceutical industry’s “high-water mark in policy influence — but could also prove to be its downfall.”

“The industry might be panicking about growing public resistance,” Tucker said.

Pharma lobbying group a ‘behemoth of an organization’

To appreciate Big Pharma’s financial might, one has only to examine PhRMA’s financial health.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that despite having “just 30 members in 2024,” PhRMA “brought in more than $520 million in revenue” that year, citing the organization’s most recent publicly available IRS 990 tax form.

According to the Post, PhRMA — which the Post described as a “behemoth of an organization” — also has “more than 40 lobbying shops on retainer.”

With its current 34 members — including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi — PhRMA describes itself as an organization that advocates for “public policies that encourage the discovery of important, new medicines for patients by biopharmaceutical research companies.”

On Tuesday, PhRMA signaled its intent to use its influence to shape policy when it announced the hiring of former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as its next president and CEO, effective Nov. 9, according to Reuters.

Cantor, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2000 to 2014 and was majority leader between 2011 and 2014.

According to the Post, Cantor played a key role in helping shape healthcare policy and bipartisan legislative efforts related to healthcare during that period.

The Post cited Merck CEO Rob Davis, PhRMA board chair, who said Cantor’s “unique combination of global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”

For O’Connor, Cantor’s hiring is a sign of legislative capture in Washington. “Patients, independent physicians, scientists and smaller innovators cannot compete with that machinery,” O’Connor said. “PhRMA’s hiring of Cantor only underscores the power of Washington’s revolving door.”

Did Big Pharma pressure the Trump administration to oust health officials?

Press coverage of Cantor’s hiring suggests that he and PhRMA will focus on pressures to “lower prices” and “navigate the Trump administration’s drug-pricing policies and continued scrutiny from Congress about high drug prices.”

In February, STAT reported that “industry groups have also spent big on messaging tailored to the administration,” including “promoting American dominance in biopharmaceutical innovation.”

But does PhRMA seek more than a stronger focus on drug pricing policy or incentives for drug manufacturing and innovation?

None of this year’s top 10 most lobbied-for bills directly pertain to Big Pharma, researcher and author James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., told The Defender. But “a bill count captures only part of lobbying activity,” he said.

Lyons-Weiler said lobbying may also focus on executive-branch rules, regulations, program implementation and U.S. Senate-confirmed nominations. The “absence of an obviously pharmaceutical bill from a top-10 list therefore does not establish that the spending lacks pharmaceutical policy targets,” he said.

The February STAT report said lobbyists involved in “broader” efforts to influence the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have incorporated an “added political strategy” to their efforts.

These efforts include trying to influence the Trump administration on drug approvals, STAT reported at the time.

STAT cited Disc Medicine, a pharma company that “received an unfavorable decision” from the FDA — and promptly “hired its first lobbying firm” in January to “lobby lawmakers about ‘FDA approvals for rare diseases.’”

In an April interview, Kennedy said then-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary “made the correct decision” in rejecting the drug — but “everybody goes after him because the [pharmaceutical] industry’s so powerful.”

STAT also cited the FDA’s “flip-flop on Moderna’s application for its new flu shot.” The FDA rejected the application in February — but quickly reversed course. The reversal “seemed to only confirm the wisdom” of pharma lobbyists’ new strategy, STAT reported.

During a February interview with podcaster Theo Von, Kennedy said the FDA “was owned by Big Pharma and Big Food, and Marty Makary has changed that now.”

However, by May, Makary was ousted — as were other key FDA figures, including Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., who served as the agency’s top drug regulator, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who resigned from the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in April — for the second time.

Pharma pressure may have also led to Prasad’s first resignation, last year.

Prasad had signed off on the rejection of Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine two months earlier. But within two weeks, the FDA accepted Moderna’s application to license the vaccine. In June, an FDA advisory committee unanimously approved the shot.

Last year, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a leading biotech industry trade group, denied any knowledge of a leaked document purportedly containing the minutes of a meeting during which they plotted Kennedy’s potential ouster.

Manookian said these are signs that Big Pharma still holds tremendous sway. “I fear the Trump administration in general — not the Secretary of HHS — is far too deferential to industry, and the secretary’s hands are often tied in many ways.”

“At some point, Americans must ask: Is healthcare policy being written for patients — or for those who can afford the most influence?” O’Connor asked.

PhRMA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment by press time. "

Related articles in The Defender

FDA Ousts Another Top Official: Who’s Behind the Shakeup — and Why?
White House Plans to Fire FDA Chief Marty Makary, Sources Tell WSJ
Breaking: Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy
Are Pharma Lobbyists Behind Vinay Prasad’s Ouster from FDA?
Vaccine Lobbyists Deny Calling RFK Jr. ‘Direct Threat to Public Health,’ Declare Support for MAHA
‘Key to Revolving Door’: FDA Tells Staff Who Leave for Pharma Jobs They Can Work ‘Behind the Scenes’ to Influence Agency

[Ashiris]

This is really creepy.

https://x.com/ouradamicrace/status/2072440577040306220

[onawah]

Gates, Bourla on Trial in Netherlands Accused of ‘Great Reset’ Scheme at Vaccine Injury Hearing
by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
October 23, 2026

(Podcast at the link. Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here. )

"Highlights

Seven Dutch plaintiffs sued Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants over alleged COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Two plaintiffs have since died.

At a hearing this week, plaintiffs’ attorney Peter Stassen alleged that the pandemic and vaccines were part of a coordinated “Great Reset” project involving deception and violations of individual rights.

https://x.com/CoviLeaks/status/21133...eset-scheme%2F

Fiona Rose Diamond
@CoviLeaks
Follow
“Choose your side!”

🔴BREAKING: Attorney Peter W.H. Stassen receives a hero’s welcome outside the District Court of the Northern Netherlands following the substantive hearing on the merits which took place today.
“They know we have crucial evidence that the whole Covid-19 Show more
11:23 AM · Oct 22, 2026
10.1K

Defense attorneys maintained that the vaccines were safe and effective and saved millions of lives, while challenging the plaintiffs’ allegations and witnesses’ qualifications.

The court limited the plaintiffs’ four expert witnesses to video statements rather than in-person testimony, drawing objections from Stassen and others quoted in the article.

A ruling is expected as early as December, though it could be delayed until February 2027.

An attorney for seven Dutch plaintiffs in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit against Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla accused Gates and others of orchestrating the pandemic to help usher in the “Great Reset,” a global economic, political and social system promoted by the World Economic Forum.

During oral arguments Thursday, attorney Peter Stassen told a packed courtroom that the COVID-19 vaccines were akin to a bioweapon, developed as part of a broader global effort to strip democratic and individual rights.

Speaking outside the courthouse in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Stassen said Thursday’s hearing “was about publicly telling what is happening in this courtroom and what is the real case. The real case is that COVID-19 was not a disease but was a project.”

He accused Gates and Bourla of participating in that project, which he said was coordinated and undemocratic. He also accused the defendants of using censorship and propaganda to hide their intentions while promoting the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective.”

COVID-19 vaccines were developed and procured as military countermeasures, bypassing the standard development and approval pipeline for such products. By developing the shots as military countermeasures, they bypassed traditional safety regulations, leading to widespread injury, Stassen said.

Stassen said that while this is a civil case, he believes the defendants’ actions constitute serious criminal offenses that violate global treaties and the Nuremberg Code.

For their part, attorneys for the defendants “claimed the shots saved millions of lives and that they were safe and effective,” said Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist, critic of the mRNA shots and one of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs.

“They basically said, like a parrot, that all of Stassen’s accusations were either conspiracy theory or based on medical reports that are from people who are not neutral in this case,” said Ido Dijkstra, a Dutch journalist and the editor-in-chief of De Andere Krant, who attended the hearing.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst said the defense did not respond to Stassen’s assertions that COVID-19 was a project. “There was no response to that at all, nothing.”

Journalist Penny Marie, who has reported on the case, told The Defender that Stassen’s arguments “mirror what so many people worldwide say and have experienced and investigated.”

The defendants’ legal team did acknowledge that they were “touched” by the suffering of the vaccine-injured plaintiffs. Terhorst said the five living plaintiffs face “immense problems” with their health.

Dijkstra said the presiding judge on the three-judge panel appeared to “support the mainstream narrative,” but “gave the impression that she wanted to understand Stassen’s reasoning.”

Thursday’s hearing stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines — including two who have since died — against Gates, Bourla and 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.

According to Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not connected to the case but attended the hearing, none of the defendants appeared in court.

A ruling is expected as early as December but may be delayed until February 2027.

COVID Justice Resolution: Sign the Resolution

Expert witnesses barred from testifying in person

During oral arguments, Stassen addressed the court’s refusal to allow his team’s expert witnesses to testify in person. Earlier this week, the court limited the witnesses to video statements presenting their arguments.

Defense attorneys attacked the credentials of some of the witnesses. For instance, they claimed that Sasha Latypova — a former pharmaceutical research and development executive — has only a bachelor’s degree and is unqualified to provide testimony on scientific and medical matters.

Latypova disputed the claims, telling those gathered outside the courthouse that she has a “graduate degree from Dartmouth College and 25 years of pharmaceutical R&D and regulatory experience” — including interacting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Japanese regulators “on behalf of my clients.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and another of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, told The Defender that Bourla’s attorneys questioned the credentials of another witness — Mike Yeadon, Ph.D. Fitts said she was “surprised” by their claims.

“Yeadon served as vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit and worked for many years at Pfizer. Does Pfizer make it a practice to staff the company with unqualified people in senior positions? Does this explain why Pfizer appointed a veterinarian to be the CEO?” Fitts asked, referring to Bourla.

Terhorst said it is “very strange” for Dutch courts to not allow oral testimony by plaintiffs’ witnesses, as otherwise, “it is not easy to substantiate your claims.”

Despite the limitation, Terhorst said the witnesses bolstered the plaintiffs’ case. “The case is important based on the evidence provided by key witnesses,” she said.

“I think we [gave] a very clear sign to the court that there can be not justice if the court is not willing to look further at this expert evidence, because you can come to a judgment based on truth and a real discussion between the parties,” Stassen said during the press conference.

Vaccine-injured were ‘misled’ about safety of COVID shots

In an interview with journalist Fiona Rose Diamond earlier this week, Stassen said the plaintiffs “felt misled” by the Dutch government and by those who promoted the COVID-19 shots in the media.

“They felt misled by the whole system … And they were misled because they were told that this was a safe and effective vaccine, and in fact, the only way out of [the] crisis,” Stassen said.

At Thursday’s press conference, Stassen added that the plaintiffs sued not just because of their injuries, but because “they want the truth.”

Fitts highlighted the significance of the case, noting that under the Dutch legal system, the vaccine-injured can file lawsuits in response to their injuries — contrasting this with legal restrictions the injured face in the U.S.

“The PREP Act has made it impossible for such lawsuits to be brought in the United States,” Fitts said, referring to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005. Under the PREP Act, anyone who produces or administers emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots, is shielded from legal liability.

Terhorst noted that the vaccine-injured in the Netherlands face other obstacles.

“Vaccine injury is not even recognized in the Netherlands,” she said. She noted that some vaccine-injured people briefly received treatment under public health programs that the Dutch state earmarked for long COVID patients. However, this treatment was later “terminated.”

Terhorst said lawyers for the Dutch state “said nothing” during the hearing about offering compensation to these victims, including the plaintiffs and their families.

This is one of several obstacles the plaintiffs have faced as this case has progressed. Last year, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state.

Terhorst said van Kessel spent seven months imprisoned in a high-security prison, lost his license to practice law, is not allowed to leave the country and was fitted with an ankle monitor — which was removed Thursday, in parallel with the hearing."

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and host of "The Defender In-Depth" on CHD.TV.

Related articles in The Defender

Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit
3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates
Judge Rules Bill Gates Must Face Vaccine-Injured in Netherlands Court
Bill Gates Investing Heavily in mRNA Technology — Are Taxpayers Helping Him?
Bill Gates — After Reaping Huge Profits Selling BioNTech Shares — Trashes Effectiveness of COVID Vaccines
Pfizer Vaccine Bonanza Slows — But Bill Gates Sold Early, Made Huge Profits