19571
Defending Health, Life and Liberty🇺🇸 Natural News is a science-based natural health advocacy organization led by activist-turned-scientist Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. https://t.me/NaturalNewsChat
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Pearce's observation that "Vaccination as at present practised is a mockery" resonates with those who argue that the COVID-19 vaccines were rushed to market without sufficient long-term safety data. His concerns about the contamination of the vaccine lymph find a parallel in the debate over the ingredients and potential side effects of modern vaccines.
Moreover, Pearce's emphasis on the ethical implications of compulsory vaccination is relevant to the ongoing debate over vaccine mandates. His argument that "vaccination is a crime against nature, and ought not to be enforced" speaks to the heart of the issue: protecting the balance between individual freedom and the insane demands of public health collectivism, hellbent on repeating medical interventions that do more harm than good.
As we reflect on the history of the smallpox vaccine, it is clear that the debate over vaccination has been going on for over a century. Pearce's essay, though written over 150 years ago, offers a powerful critique that continues to resonate today. His work challenges us to question the narratives surrounding vaccination and to consider the broader implications of mass vaccination campaigns.
In the end, the question remains: are vaccines the saviors they are often claimed to be, or are they part of a larger, more complex story? Instead of medical professionals putting vaccines on a pedestal, it's time for medical responsibility and true informed consent on every issue of vaccination. The real history of vaccination needs to be told, and skepticism is needed, not blind worship.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Legacy and accountability
Many of these experiments remained classified for decades, only coming to light through Freedom of Information Act requests and investigative journalism. While some victims and their families have sought justice, most received no compensation or acknowledgment from the government.
These unethical experiments raise critical questions about medical ethics, government transparency and human rights. They serve as a grim reminder of what can happen when scientific research is conducted without oversight or consent – a warning that remains relevant today as new technologies and military strategies emerge.
Watch this video about the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
https://www.brighteon.com/0ce10ab6-77a7-429c-8eea-b53c5ce1cdc8
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Multidrug-resistant Candida auris: The SILENT KILLER in America’s hospitals
In the shadowy corridors of America's healthcare facilities, a new and deadly threat is silently spreading. Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus, is rapidly becoming one of the most formidable adversaries faced by health officials today.
Described by some medical professionals as akin to "having cancer," this insidious pathogen is not only resistant to most treatments but is also spreading at an alarming rate, posing a significant risk to public health.
First detected in U.S. hospitals in 2016, C. auris initially seemed like a minor concern with only 52 cases reported across four states. However, the situation has since spiraled out of control. By 2023, the number of infections had skyrocketed to 4,514, affecting 38 states.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared it an "urgent threat" in 2023, but the situation has only worsened. States like Georgia and Florida are now experiencing a rapid increase in cases, raising the alarm bells even louder.
C. auris is a type of yeast infection that is notoriously difficult to treat. It is resistant to most standard disinfectants and antifungal drugs, making it a formidable foe in hospital settings.
This resistance extends to common antifungal medications like Diflucan, and even second-line treatments such as Mycamine are ineffective in 10 percent of cases. The fungus can colonize the skin and survive on surfaces like medical equipment and bedrails for weeks, making it a persistent threat.
The consequences of a C. auris infection can be devastating. The fungus can enter the body through cuts or medical devices such as breathing tubes and catheters, leading to severe infections.
Identifying an infection can be challenging as symptoms often mimic those of other infections – including fever, chills and aches. In some cases, infected wounds may show redness, warmth and pus. The fungus can also cause infections in the bloodstream and vital organs, which can be fatal if not treated promptly.
Once it spreads to the bloodstream, it can cause life-threatening conditions. Approximately one in three people who contract C. auris succumb to the infection. Those with prolonged hospital stays or who require invasive treatments are particularly vulnerable.
The spread of a lethal superbug
The fungus is not only spreading within hospitals, but is also beginning to affect the community. Nevada health officials have warned that C. auris may be spreading beyond healthcare facilities for the first time in U.S. history. This development is particularly concerning given the fungus's ability to survive on surfaces and its resistance to many common disinfectants.
The threat of C. auris is not confined to the United States. Since its discovery in Japan in 2009, it has spread globally, causing outbreaks in hospitals and long-term care facilities worldwide. Meanwhile, the Public Health Agency of Canada has labeled it a "disease of public health significance."
Researchers are working tirelessly to develop new treatments and improve detection methods. Healthcare facilities are adopting more stringent cleaning protocols, using specialized disinfectants designed to kill the fungus. Dr. Timothy Connelly of Memorial Health in Savannah, Georgia, emphasizes the importance of using "List P" disinfectants, which are specifically designed to combat C. auris.
C. auris represents a significant challenge to global health. Its resistance to treatment, coupled with its ability to spread easily in healthcare settings, makes it a formidable adversary. However, with continued research, improved infection control measures and heightened awareness, it is possible to mitigate its impact and protect vulnerable populations.
Watch this news report about deaths from C. auris infections in 2021.
https://www.brighteon.com/78ff7851-11a2-47c2-a1ff-590c96436784
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
German researchers find link between mRNA vaccines and GENETIC CHANGES that precede CANCER and AUTOIMMUNE DISORDERS
The mRNA scandal leads to cancer and autoimmune disease explosion
In the wake of the COVID-19 scandal, a groundbreaking study by 19 German scientists has shed new light on the potential long-term risks associated with mRNA vaccines. Published in the prestigious journal Molecular Systems Biology, the research reveals that these vaccines may cause persistent genetic alterations, leading to an increased risk of cancer and autoimmune disorders. This revelation has ignited a firestorm of debate, raising critical questions about the safety and ethical implications of these widely administered vaccines.
The study focused on the effects of mRNA vaccines on macrophages, immune cells that play a vital role in defending the body against pathogens. The researchers found that the vaccines altered a key component of these cells' chromosomes: the histones. Histones are DNA-binding proteins that give DNA its three-dimensional structure, a fact emphasized by Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at Children's Health Defense. "Most scientific studies on histone modification primarily focus on the manifestation of disease," Jablonowski noted.
The study identified a specific change known as "histone 3 lysine 27 acetylation" (H3K27ac), which was observed in the macrophages of vaccinated individuals. This alteration, according to journalist Alex Berenson, is linked to several types of cancer and has been the subject of increasing scientific scrutiny. The researchers found that these changes persisted for many months after vaccination, suggesting that similar alterations may be occurring in monocytes, a type of white blood cell that produces macrophages.
Berenson highlighted the significance of these findings, stating that the alterations are epigenetic, meaning they occur around DNA's core and can activate genes in ways that promote tumor growth. "The risk here is, of course, prolonged and excessive inflammation, which might contribute to tissue damage or chronic inflammatory conditions," he explained.
The broader implications
Epigenetics, the study of how behavior and environment can cause changes that affect gene expression, is at the heart of this debate. Immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., emphasized that the study confirms existing concerns about the risks of mRNA vaccines. "Repeat injection leads to a boatload of immunological modifications," she said. "If the systemic reach goes far enough, such as to stem cells, then repeated injection could potentially induce epigenetic changes in these cells."
This is particularly concerning given the role of hematopoietic stem cells, which are known to develop innate immune memory in response to certain stimuli. The potential for these cells to be reprogrammed by mRNA vaccines raises the specter of long-term health consequences, including chronic inflammatory diseases and oncogenic processes.
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher echoed these concerns, stating that the study adds to the growing body of evidence describing the potent immune dysregulating effects of mRNA injections. "This raises serious concerns about long-term immune homeostasis and the potential for chronic inflammatory disease, autoimmune sequelae, and even oncogenic processes," he warned.
A call for re-evaluation
The study's findings have strengthened calls for the suspension or withdrawal of mRNA vaccines. A petition filed earlier this year with the FDA by a group of scientists argues that the vaccines are unapproved gene therapies and are contaminated with DNA plasmids. This petition, along with several recent studies, has fueled the debate over the safety of these vaccines.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Budesonide emerges as lifeline for measles patients amidst hospital system turmoil
In a heartening turn of events, a 4-year-old girl named Lyla from West Texas has made a remarkable recovery from secondary pneumonia following a measles infection, thanks to the timely administration of budesonide. This case highlights the urgent need for better-equipped hospital systems and more informed medical professionals in the face of infectious diseases. The story of Lyla's treatment, which took place at Covenant Children's Hospital in Lubbock, exposes the systemic failures and lack of preparedness that have plagued the medical community, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A mother's desperate plea for effective treatment
Lyla was admitted to the emergency room of Covenant Children's Hospital on February 28, suffering from severe breathing difficulties. Her condition was critical, and her parents, MaryAnn and Henry, were deeply concerned. Just two days earlier, another child, a 6-year-old girl, had died from pneumonia following a measles infection at the same hospital. The deceased child had not received any breathing treatments before her untimely death.
MaryAnn and Henry, who chose not to vaccinate their children due to concerns about vaccine injuries, had been using natural remedies to support their children's recovery from measles. However, when Lyla's respiratory issues worsened, they knew they needed more than natural remedies. "I started noticing she wasn’t breathing as well," MaryAnn recalled. "She was breathing very heavy on her chest and her fever was coming back."
Desperate for help, MaryAnn contacted her former doctor at Covenant Medical Center, who had saved her life 12 years earlier. "I trusted you with my life 12 years ago, and I trust you with my daughter’s life now," she pleaded. The doctor arranged for Lyla to be airlifted to Lubbock Covenant Children's Hospital, where she would receive the care she desperately needed.
Hospital System failures exposed
Upon arrival at the hospital, Lyla's parents faced a series of distressing encounters with hospital staff. Henry recounted an exchange with a head nurse who questioned his knowledge of his daughter's condition, asking, "Are you a doctor?" in a condescending tone. When Henry offered to show photos of his children with measles, the nurse demanded proof, revealing a troubling lack of trust and empathy.
Even more alarming, hospital staff denied Lyla food and water for nine hours, citing concerns that she might vomit if her condition worsened. This decision left Lyla hungry and thirsty, adding to her parents' distress. Henry questioned the decision, asking the ER doctor, "Is there any medical reason that this child shouldn’t eat or drink?" The doctor responded, "No. Why would we deny this child anything? She needs to eat and drink as much as she wants to get better."
Budesonide: A game-changer in respiratory treatment
Lyla's turnaround came when Dr. Richard Bartlett, a West Texas emergency room physician with extensive experience in treating respiratory inflammation, intervened. Bartlett, who had successfully used budesonide during the COVID-19 pandemic, persuaded Lyla's doctor to try the treatment. "I’ve never lost anyone with COVID," Bartlett told the doctor. "Can we try it on this patient?"
Budesonide, a generic, widely available inhaled corticosteroid, has a long history of safety and effectiveness in easing respiratory inflammation. After just three treatments, Lyla's condition improved dramatically. Her oxygen levels rose, and she was able to go home within 36 hours of her first budesonide treatment.
Lyla's story is a testament to the power of basic, effective treatments like budesonide, which can be used for any infectious disease affecting the respiratory tract. It also underscores the need for hospital systems to be better prepared and for medical professionals to be more informed about the full range of treatment options available.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
How the Vaccine Industry escaped accountability for nearly FOUR DECADES, endangering children’s lives for false hopes of protection
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), enacted in the late 1980s, was designed to shield the vaccine industry from legal liability and financial ruin, rather than protecting children from harm caused by vaccines. Signed into law under the guise of ensuring vaccines remain accessible, the act established a unique federal compensation system that places blame solely on parents of vaccine-injured children. This system, criticized for its unfairness, redefines vaccine injuries in a way that makes it nearly impossible for families to receive justice. While the act claims to prioritize the well-being of children, critics argue it prioritizes corporate interests over public health and parental rights.
The origins of the NCVIA stem from a time when the vaccine industry faced mounting lawsuits over vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Instead of addressing the root causes of these harms, the act created a no-fault compensation program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Parents of vaccine-injured children are directed to a bureaucratic system, often referred to as a "kangaroo court," where the burden of proof is stacked against them. The strict definitions of vaccine injuries and convoluted criteria for compensation leave countless families denied the justice they deserve, burying their stories under a system designed to protect industry profits.
Key points:
• The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 granted vaccine manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, shielding them from accountability for injuries caused by vaccines.
• The act funnels vaccine-injured families into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a flawed system that rejects nearly half of claims and denies justice to countless children and families.
• This law prioritizes industry profits over child safety, allowing poor-quality vaccines to flood the market without rigorous safety standards.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has emerged as a leading voice in the fight to reform this corrupt system, advocating for stricter safety measures and accountability for vaccine manufacturers.
The legislative shield that continues to harm children four decades later
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was not established to protect children but to protect vaccine manufacturers from legal accountability. This law, championed by Congress and the pharmaceutical industry, created a false narrative of public health triumph while quietly enabling Big Pharma to evade responsibility for vaccine-related injuries, deaths, and long-term health consequences. Since its inception, this corrupt system has left thousands of vaccine-injured children without justice, funneling their cases into a flawed compensation program that rejects the majority of claims. As the vaccine industry continues to profit from a liability-free environment, the call for systemic reform grows louder.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was born out of a series of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers in the 1980s, particularly over the Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTP) vaccine. Parents of injured children began winning significant settlements, threatening the financial stability of pharmaceutical companies. Rather than addressing the root cause of the injuries, Congress sided with Big Pharma, passing the NCVIA to grant manufacturers unprecedented legal immunity.
Under this law, injured individuals are forced into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a bureaucratic nightmare that rejects more than half of claims. Families seeking justice are met with a labyrinth of red tape, arbitrary criteria, and a grossly insufficient compensation fund. Meanwhile, vaccine manufacturers operate with impunity, free from legal consequences regardless of the harm their products cause.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
The NIH reckoning: Battling censorship and restoring free speech in health research
Amid intensifying scrutiny over government involvement in influencing public discourse, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched an internal inquiry that could reshape how it funds research with implications for free expression. This move comes as the agency braces for a free-speech reckoning under its new chief, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
An urgent call for transparency
According to STAT News, agency officials, in preparation for the swearing-in of incoming director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, recently directed staff to identify any existing contracts potentially linked to "any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another related to health outcomes." The request, which carried a deadline of noon Wednesday, signaled a sweeping reassessment of federally funded messaging campaigns.
Included in the NIH’s internal email were instructions to flag agreements tied to vaccine promotion or public health narratives emphasizing the “dangers of Covid or not wearing masks.” The directive also advised employees to search for terms such as “media literacy,” “social media,” “social distancing,” and “lockdowns” — all terms frequently associated with the suppression of dissenting viewpoints during the pandemic.
Canceling grants for "vaccine hesitancy"
This review comes on the heels of similar actions that preceded abrupt funding withdrawals. Earlier in the month, NIH notified researchers that at least 33 grants aimed at combating “vaccine hesitancy” would be canceled, with another nine slated for reduction or revision.
Hours after NIH director Bhattacharya was confirmed, the agency tackled one of his priorities — ending ‘censorship’ in science. The early morning email, marked “URGENT,” asked contracting officers at the NIH to respond by “noon today” with information on any contract that “may be related to any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another related to health outcomes.”
Dr. Bhattacharya’s journey
President Donald Trump’s selection of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health signals a renewed commitment to transparency, scientific freedom and reform. A Stanford professor with dual training in medicine and economics, Bhattacharya has long emphasized data-driven decision-making and compassionate public health policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he became a national figure for challenging the dominant narrative on lockdowns and mandates, arguing they caused unintended harm.
Bhattacharya’s advocacy came at a cost. He was censored on major social media platforms and became a plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit alleging that the federal government colluded with Big Tech to suppress dissenting views on public health. Internal documents revealed that his views were intentionally downranked or hidden, despite being grounded in credible research and expertise. Rather than backing down, he fought back — defending not just his own speech, but the principle that science must remain open to challenge.
In October, Jay Bhattacharya posted on X: “If you favor government control of misinformation, you are an enemy of free speech.” This statement underscores his commitment to free expression and scientific integrity.
Why this matters today
The NIH’s internal inquiry and the cancellation of grants targeting "vaccine hesitancy" are significant steps in a larger battle for free speech and scientific openness. This issue gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, when dissenting views on public health measures were often silenced or marginalized. Critics argue that such censorship not only stifles scientific debate but also erodes public trust in health institutions.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
European Court of Justice: Healthcare professionals who promoted or administered COVID-19 vaccines are CRIMINALLY LIABLE for any harm caused
In a groundbreaking decision that could reshape the medical landscape, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that healthcare professionals who promoted or administered COVID-19 vaccines are civilly and criminally liable for any harm caused. This ruling, announced in early 2025, underscores the profound implications of medical professionals who participated in the mass vaccination campaign, a move that has long been a source of controversy and debate within the medical community.
A prophetic warning
Back in 2020, Dr. Vernon Coleman, a noted medical writer and health freedom advocate, issued a stark warning. He foretold that doctors who prescribed the then-experimental COVID-19 vaccines would face severe legal consequences, including lawsuits and potential imprisonment. Dr. Coleman's warning was grounded in his belief that the vaccines could cause significant harm, a stance that was met with skepticism and criticism from mainstream medical institutions.
"Back in 2020, I warned that doctors who prescribed the then-new and experimental covid-19 vaccine would likely be sued (and also imprisoned) if it turned out, as I expected, that the vaccine caused harm to those who were injected," Dr. Coleman wrote in his new book, The End of Medicine. "I warned that doctors' insurers would not be able to cope and that thousands of doctors would go bankrupt."
The European Court of Justice ruling
The ECJ's recent ruling validates Dr. Coleman's predictions. The court determined that healthcare professionals had the autonomy to refuse the vaccines and, therefore, bear full responsibility for their actions. This decision has far-reaching consequences, not only for individual doctors but also for the broader healthcare system.
According to the ruling, doctors who urged people to be vaccinated or who administered the vaccines are both civilly and criminally liable. The court emphasized that physicians were not compelled to prescribe or administer the vaccines and thus must take responsibility for their choices. This ruling could exonerate those doctors who opposed the vaccines or criticized them and faced disciplinary actions.
"This ruling could result in those doctors who were subject to disciplinary proceedings because they opposed vaccinations, or because they criticized the vaccines, being exonerated," Dr. Coleman noted.
The financial implications
The financial ramifications of this ruling are staggering. If patients claim severe and permanent damage from the vaccines, the potential damages could run into millions of pounds, dollars, or euros per patient. Dr. Coleman estimates that the total financial burden could bankrupt the vast majority of doctors in countries such as the U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and the EU.
"It seems likely that the sum per patient could run into millions of pounds/dollars/euros," Dr. Coleman stated. "I doubt if doctors' insurance companies would have enough money to satisfy millions of claims (with each patient demanding millions of pounds) and so the vast majority of doctors in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia, the EU etc., etc., would go bankrupt."
Accountability and the Media
The ECJ's ruling also raises questions about the accountability of other entities that played a role in the vaccination campaign. Dr. Mike Yeadon @DrMikeYeadon, a former Pfizer executive, has been vocal about his belief that the COVID-19 vaccines were "deliberately designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Decentralize TV: Dr. Leonard Coldwell reveals shocking, heavily censored truths about CANCER, healing and the medical mafia complex
Renowned holistic health expert and cancer patient advocate Dr. Leonard Coldwell revealed shocking truths about the medical-industrial complex, the root causes of disease and the innate healing power within each individual during his appearance on "Decentralize TV."
His discussion with the Health Ranger Mike Adams and Todd Pitner, the program's hosts, exposed how the system profits from keeping people sick rather than curing them.
Coldwell, whose personal journey began when his mother was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer, shared how he defied medical predictions and healed her naturally – even extending her life by nearly five decades. His experience led him to develop the Instinct-Based Medicine System (IBMS), a revolutionary approach that identifies and eliminates the root causes of illness rather than merely suppressing symptoms.
"Cancer is not really an illness," Coldwell explained. "It's a condition. It's an accumulation of symptoms."
Coldwell, who holds the title of the most blocked healer from social media, continued that chemotherapy and radiation only mask symptoms while destroying the body. True healing, he added, comes from addressing the root cause – often chronic stress, emotional trauma or self-sabotage. Cancer and other autoimmune diseases stem from internal conflict, where the body attacks itself due to unresolved emotional or psychological distress.
The medical mafia's deadly agenda and the power of self-healing
Coldwell didn't hold back in condemning the pharmaceutical and medical industries. He cited Dr. Gary Null's seven-year study that concluded that modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the Western world.
"The main cause of illness is the pharmaceutical industry," he said. According to Coldwell, Big Pharma doesn't want cures for people – only repeat customers.
He also debunked the germ theory as "fraudulent," explaining that so-called viruses are actually exosomes – the body's natural detoxification process. When a cell becomes toxic, it expels waste in tiny sacs. Given this, sickness is just the body cleaning itself – but modern medicine calls these sacs "viruses" to sell fear and vaccines.
Ultimately, Coldwell asserted that only the individual can cure themselves. He explained to Adams and Pitner that the same person who made you sick – you yourself – is the same one who can heal you. Coldwell also stressed the importance of instinct, calling it "God talking to us" and urging people to trust their intuition rather than blindly following medical authorities.
Debunking the lies about nutrition and toxins
Coldwell also tackled dietary myths, explaining that processed foods, fluoride and artificial medications poison the body. Nicotine itself isn't addictive, but the chemicals in cigarettes create dependency.
He also noted that coffee is anti-aging and prevents dementia; Coldwell himself drinks eight to 12 cups daily. Sugar cane juice in its raw, organic form can reverse cancer in just 21 days.
Ultimately, Pitner raised a critical point: Fear is the real pandemic. Coldwell agreed, noting that the media, governments and Big Pharma use fear to control people. In turn, demons and evil entities feed on this fear and become stronger.
His solution? Reject fear, embrace self-confidence, and take control of your health. True healing comes from within – through instinct, self-love and natural remedies.
Watch the full interview between Dr. Leonard Coldwell, Todd Pitner and the Health Ranger Mike Adams on "Decentralize TV" below.
https://www.brighteon.com/98e29c8e-f4f8-43a1-b632-214cce0d7581
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
COVID-19 scandal linked to CANCER SURGE: Billionaire researcher sounds alarm
The COVID-19 Scandal and its cancerous aftermath
In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a transplant surgeon and biotech billionaire, issued a stark warning that has sent shockwaves through the medical community. He posits that the COVID-19 scandal, marked by medical tyranny and mass iatrogenic error, may be responsible for a surge in aggressive cancers, particularly among younger individuals. This alarming assertion has sparked a heated debate, with scientists and policymakers scramble to address the potential link between mRNA vaccines and an unprecedented rise in cancer cases.
Dr. Soon-Shiong, a pioneer in cancer immunotherapy and the founder of ImmunityBio, has spent decades studying the human immune system's response to cancer. In the interview, he shared harrowing anecdotes of encountering metastatic cancers in children and young adults — cases he described as "terrifyingly aggressive." These observations, he argues, are unprecedented in his five-decade medical career.
"I never saw pancreatic cancer in children," Dr. Soon-Shiong recounted during the interview. "The greatest surprise to me was a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer." He also cited instances of young children diagnosed with colon cancer and ovarian cancer in women in their 30s — phenomena he attributes to the COVID-19 scandal.
The science behind the scare: inflammation and immune suppression
Dr. Soon-Shiong's hypothesis hinges on the idea that both the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could be driving an increase in cancer cases by triggering chronic inflammation and immune system exhaustion. The virus is known to cause a massive inflammatory response, which some cancers exploit to grow and metastasize.
Furthermore, he points to emerging research suggesting that the spike protein in the virus and vaccines might interfere with critical cellular processes, potentially suppressing tumor-suppressor proteins. While these findings are preliminary, they add a layer of biological plausibility to his concerns.
The broader health crisis: excess deaths and disabilities
Independent research firms, such as Phinance Technologies, have identified worrying trends in post-COVID health outcomes. Their data reveals a significant increase in excess deaths and disabilities among working-age populations, particularly those who received vaccines. Between 2021 and 2022, the U.S. saw a 23% rise in excess deaths among 25-64-year-olds and a 24.6% increase in disabilities in the workforce—statistics that raise eyebrows, especially since these groups are typically healthier than older populations.
Edward Dowd, co-founder of Phinance Technologies, notes a concerning correlation between the vaccine rollout and these adverse health outcomes. "The healthiest segment of the population… saw a greater relative increase in disabilities after Q1 2021," he observed, suggesting that the vaccines may have had unforeseen consequences.
While some oncologists, such as Dr. Angus Dalgleish from St. George’s, University of London, echo Dr. Soon-Shiong's fears, others remain skeptical. Infectious disease experts argue that there is insufficient evidence linking vaccines to cancer, though they acknowledge the need for further research into long-term health effects.
In a statement to FactCheck. org, one expert dismissed the claims, stating, "There isn't evidence to date that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or lead to worsening cancer." However, this dismissal overlooks the increasing anecdotal reports from clinicians who have observed cancer progression in patients post-vaccination.
Has medical tyranny become the New Normal?
Dr. Soon-Shiong's warnings raise profound ethical and moral questions. What are the limits of medical innovation, especially when it involves unprecedented interventions like mRNA vaccines? Can we afford to overlook potential long-term health consequences in our haste to combat a global crisis?
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
As Attkisson noted in 2023: "You probably haven’t heard much about these incendiary findings." Why? Because admitting failure would collapse a $6 billion flu vaccine industry. How many more buried studies will it take before we stop trusting "experts" who refuse to follow the science?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Watch Dan Hartman talking about his fight for answers about his son's untimely demise with Dr. Chris Shoemaker in this clip.
https://www.brighteon.com/21743a88-b8c4-446f-940e-35656cb30387
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Woman contracts WORLD’S DEADLIEST VIRUS after unknowingly being given the WRONG VACCINE
In yet another careless misstep of the Vaccine Industrial Complex, a woman was jabbed with the wrong dirty vaccine and ended up with a severe case of the world’s deadliest disease. She walked into a clinic to get an MMR jab, if that’s not toxic enough, but the medical practitioner shot her up with the dirty tuberculosis stab, and it took the woman SIX MONTHS to recover from the TB infection she got directly from the dirty jab.
The toxic TB jab is injected into babies right after they’re born, making horrific adverse events quite popular for the little ones. Many of these babies get life-threatening lesions in the lungs, spleen or liver, plus inflamed bones and widespread infection from the dirty TB jabs.
Dirty Vax recipient developed deadly abscess with oozing pus and deathly TB-causing bacteria spread throughout her body from the dirty TB jab
Walking into any hospital is a roll of the dice with your health and safety, even in America. Unless you have a severe wound, deadly infection, or are having a baby, you might want to weigh your other options. The BCG vaccine for TB contains bacteria and can easily be injected incorrectly or administered to the wrong patient. Healthcare professionals often misread the label on the vaccines, because they are careless. Sometimes surgeons will cut off the wrong arm or leg or operate on the wrong organ for this same reason.
The TB vaccine (BCG) contains weakened Mycobacterium bovis and is meant to be injected just below the skin to trigger a localized immune response without spreading. Unlike viral vaccines (e.g., MMR), the bacteria in BCG must be carefully controlled; injecting it into the muscle can allow uncontrolled spread, leading to severe complications.
This case involved a healthy 30-year-old woman who developed an arm abscess after a misplaced BCG injection into her deltoid muscle. Other similar errors have occurred, such as an eight-month-old girl who developed a thigh abscess after an incorrect intramuscular BCG injection. The slow-growing M. bovis infection formed a mass that required drainage. While localized abscesses are rarely fatal, untreated systemic infections can be deadly in up to 80% of cases.
Doctors emphasize that injection errors are the primary cause of severe reactions, which may include abscesses, lymph node inflammation, bone pain, or systemic infections. This case, published in the American Journal of Case Reports, highlights the importance of proper vaccine administration, even in healthy adults. Most complications occur in pediatric or immunocompromised patients, making this an unusual occurrence.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
RFK Jr. slashes HHS bureaucracy, saves taxpayers $1.8B while refocusing on chronic disease epidemic
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced sweeping reforms that will eliminate 10,000 federal jobs, consolidate redundant divisions, and save taxpayers $1.8 billion annually in a bold move to streamline government inefficiency and refocus on America’s worsening health crisis.
The restructuring, which was unveiled this week, will reduce HHS’s 28 divisions to 15 and shift the agency’s priority toward combating chronic diseases by emphasizing clean food, water, and environmental toxin elimination. This marks a notable departure from the bloated administrative structures that have long plagued the department, especially under the Biden administration.
While critics in the mainstream media are predictably claiming that the cuts could jeopardize public health, Kennedy and supporters argue that this important overhaul will enhance efficiency, root out waste, and ultimately deliver better health outcomes for Americans.
Streamlining a bloated bureaucracy
Kennedy’s plan targets redundant offices, merging overlapping functions into a newly created Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which will centralize key health initiatives. Regional offices will be halved from 10 to 5, and core operations—including human resources, IT, and procurement — will be unified to reduce waste.
“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy stated. “This Department will do more — a lot more — at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”
Specific cuts include 3,500 jobs at the FDA (19% of workforce), 2,400 at the CDC (18%), 1,200 at the NIH (6%), and 300 at Medicare/Medicaid Services (4%). The reductions follow 10,000 voluntary departures since the start of the Trump administration, which brings HHS’s total workforce down to 62,000 in a 25% reduction.
Shifting the focus to America’s health crisis
Rather than maintaining a sprawling bureaucracy, Kennedy’s reforms prioritize tackling chronic illnesses linked to environmental toxins, processed foods, and contaminated water. The AHA will absorb agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ensuring a coordinated approach to prevention.
Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro praised the move, calling it “a more streamlined and effective approach to addressing the tsunami of chronic diseases now affecting most Americans.”
Meanwhile, Sayer Ji, co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, argued HHS had long been “a key architect of policies that have harmed countless individuals” and that restructuring was “long overdue.”
Media backlash vs. taxpayer wins
Despite the clear cost savings and mission refocus, outlets like NBC News warned the cuts risk “jeopardizing public health” — a claim Kennedy’s team dismisses as fearmongering. Karl Jablonowski, a senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, countered: “None of [the job numbers] are a metric of success. Secretary Kennedy’s tenure will be judged by the improvement of America’s health.”
The reforms also introduce an Assistant Secretary for Enforcement to combat fraud in federal health programs and an Office of Strategy to improve research coordination.
A leaner, more effective HHS
Kennedy’s overhaul marks a decisive break from business-as-usual in Washington. By cutting waste and refocusing on preventable health crises, HHS is poised to deliver tangible results rather than perpetuate bureaucratic bloat. As Kennedy declared: “Our goal is to Make America Healthy Again.”
For taxpayers and health advocates alike, that mission is long overdue.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
The cancer fear industry: How big pharma profits from panic—and what natural alternatives offer
In a revealing interview, health advocate Mike Adams and researcher Sylvie Beljanski expose the "cancer fear psyop" used to push aggressive treatments while suppressing natural alternatives. Beljanski highlights plant extracts like Pau Pereira and Rauvolfia vomitoria, which selectively target cancer cells without toxicity—contrasting sharply with chemotherapy’s collateral damage. Adams critiques the financial conflicts in oncology, citing cases like Dr. Farid Fata, who falsely diagnosed patients to profit from chemo. Both urge a shift toward prevention, detoxification, and non-toxic lifestyle choices to combat rising cancer rates.
The Suppression of Natural Cancer Solutions
Sylvie Beljanski’s journey into integrative cancer research was born from tragedy. Her father, Dr. Mirko Beljanski, a molecular biologist at Paris’ Pasteur Institute, pioneered research on plant extracts that selectively target cancerous DNA without harming healthy cells. His work showed promise—until it threatened the pharmaceutical industry’s profits. After treating French President François Mitterrand’s advanced prostate cancer (extending his life against medical predictions), Beljanski’s lab was raided, his research destroyed, and he was poisoned, dying of leukemia without access to his own remedies.
“This wasn’t about justice,” Sylvie explains. “It was about erasing evidence.” She later won a landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights, but the victory couldn’t undo the systemic suppression of non-toxic alternatives.
Plant Extracts vs. Chemo: A Stark Contrast
Beljanski’s research focuses on two potent botanicals: Pau Pereira (an Amazonian plant with antiviral properties) and Rauvolfia vomitoria (an African plant that regulates hormones). Unlike chemotherapy, which indiscriminately attacks cells, these extracts selectively inhibit cancer DNA replication. Under microscopy, healthy cells remain untouched while malignant ones are destroyed.
Recent studies at Kansas University Medical Center revealed even more startling results: mice injected with aggressive breast cancer stem cells showed zero metastasis when treated with Beljanski’s extracts. “Chemo shrinks tumors, but leaves behind resistant stem cells that cause relapse,” Sylvie notes. “Our approach targets the root.”
Mike Adams, a longtime advocate of natural therapies, emphasizes the hypocrisy of oncology’s financial incentives. He cites Dr. Farid Fata, a Michigan oncologist who falsely diagnosed patients to bill for chemo. “The system profits from panic,” Adams says. “Patients aren’t told their doctor earns $20,000 per prescription.”
Detox, Not Fear: A Path Forward
Both experts agree: cancer prevention begins with lifestyle, not luck. Adams avoids processed foods, synthetic chemicals, and wireless radiation; Beljanski advocates for clean skincare (her organic line uses cancer-fighting ginkgo and green tea extracts). “Your skin absorbs toxins in 26 seconds,” she warns. “Why slather on carcinogens?”
They also debunk the “genetic doom” myth. Only 5% of cancers are purely hereditary; the rest are triggered by environmental toxins and poor diet. “Genes load the gun, but lifestyle pulls the trigger,” Adams says.
The solution? Education and empowerment. Beljanski’s upcoming Integrative Cancer Conference (April 25–27, Austin) will spotlight natural therapies suppressed by mainstream medicine. “Fear is the industry’s tool,” she says. “But we have alternatives—if we dare to look.”
Final Thought: As Adams puts it, “We’ve been lied to for decades. Cancer isn’t inevitable—it’s an industry.” The question remains: Will we keep funding its fear machine, or choose the science they tried to bury?
Watch the full episode of the "Health Ranger Report" with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and Sylvie Beljanski as they discuss cancer therapy breakthroughs that are suppressed by world governments.
https://www.brighteon.com/a84f272d-a573-402e-bf9b-215db6556159
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
The smallpox vaccine was not a medical miracle – its history was marred by scandals
The questionable legacy of the smallpox vaccine
In the annals of medical history, few debates have been as contentious as the one surrounding the smallpox vaccine. In 1868, Dr. Charles T. Pearce, an English physician and early opponent of mandatory vaccination, published a 120-page essay titled "Vaccination: its tested effects on health, mortality, and population." This essay, available in the Wellcome Collection, offers a damning critique of the smallpox vaccine, questioning its efficacy, safety, and ethical implications. Pearce's arguments, rooted in meticulous observation and data analysis, resonate with contemporary skepticism towards vaccines, particularly in light of the COVID-19 scandal.
Pearce's skepticism towards the smallpox vaccine stemmed from his observations of high mortality rates among vaccinated individuals. He noted that "a great number [of vaccinated people] being cut-off in the flower of their age, while those, belonging to the same families, having had small-pox arrived at maturity." This observation led him to conclude that vaccination, while potentially preventing smallpox, increased the risk of death from other diseases.
Pearce's concerns were not unfounded. He highlighted the case of Jenner's own son, who died of tuberculosis (then known as consumption) after being vaccinated. "It is a remarkable fact that Jenner’s first child, his eldest son, on whom he experimented, died subsequently of consumption," Pearce wrote. He also pointed out that "another of his subjects, the man Phipps, whom Jenner vaccinated, also died of consumption."
Pearce's investigations led him to believe that the smallpox vaccine was not only ineffective but also dangerous. He argued that the lymph used in the vaccine, transferred from person to person, was often contaminated. "The puling, sickly infants, the offspring of the debauched, the diseased, of the ill-fed and ill-clad poor of London, who are brought in crowds to the public vaccinator to receive a blessing," he wrote, "are too often, instead of a blessing, the recipients of the seeds of disease and of premature death."
Compulsory vaccination was a public health disaster back then, too
Pearce's critique extended to the compulsory vaccination policies of his time. He argued that these policies were not only ethically questionable but also detrimental to public health. "Since the Compulsory Vaccination Act came into force [in 1853] there has been an excess of 254,000 in infant mortality in seven years," he wrote. This alarming statistic suggested that compulsory vaccination was doing more harm than good.
Furthermore, Pearce noted a significant increase in deaths from measles and scarlet fever following the introduction of compulsory vaccination. He presented data from the Registrar General’s Report, 1865, showing a rise in annual deaths per million from these diseases. "In the years 1850-1854, annual deaths were 1,296.8 per million, rising to 1,515.6 during 1855-1859 and rising yet again to 1,668.0 for the years 1860-1864," he wrote.
Pearce's findings raise important questions about the unintended consequences of mass vaccination campaigns. His work suggests that the focus on eradicating one disease may have inadvertently exacerbated others, a concern that remains relevant today.
History repeating itself
The parallels between the smallpox vaccine controversy and the COVID-19 scandal are striking. Both situations involve widespread vaccination campaigns, government mandates, and significant public resistance. Pearce's criticisms of the smallpox vaccine echo the concerns of many who question the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
The dark legacy of the U.S. government’s UNETHICAL medical and military research
The history of medical and military research in the U.S. is marred by a series of unethical experiments conducted on unwitting human subjects. From secret radiation exposure to biological warfare tests on civilian populations, these disturbing experiments reveal a pattern of disregard for human rights in the name of scientific advancement and national security.
Early experiments: Cancer, syphilis and malaria
In 1931, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations conducted experiments in which human subjects were deliberately infected with cancer cells – without their knowledge or consent. Around the same time, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of government and civilian hospitals, began exposing patients to high doses of radiation to study its effects. Rhoads later became a key figure in the U.S. biological weapons program.
One of the most infamous cases of unethical medical research was the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which began in 1932. The U.S. Public Health Service recruited 600 African American men, 200 of whom had syphilis, under the false promise of free medical care.
Researchers withheld treatment – even after penicillin became the standard cure in the 1940s – to observe the disease's progression. The study continued for 40 years, only ending in 1972 after public outcry.
In 1940, 400 prisoners in Chicago were infected with malaria to test experimental drugs. These inmates were subjected to painful symptoms without proper medical oversight, highlighting the exploitation of vulnerable populations in medical research.
Biological and chemical warfare testing on civilians
Between 1949 and 1969, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies conducted secret biological warfare tests in at least 239 populated areas – including New York City (NYC); Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; and St. Louis. These experiments involved releasing harmful bacteria and chemical agents into the air to study their dispersal patterns.
One of the most alarming incidents occurred in September 1950, when the U.S. Navy released Serratia marcescens, a potentially pathogenic bacterium, off the coast of San Francisco. The bacteria spread through the city, leading to multiple infections and at least one death.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conducted aerosol dispersion tests using the toxic compound zinc cadmium sulfide over populated areas in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. In 1953, 36 tests were performed on citizens of Winnipeg in Canada's Manitoba province, where the chemical was sprayed to assess its potential to induce cancer.
Military experiments on public spaces
The Vietnam War era saw some of the most brazen biological experiments. In one instance, the U.S. Army sprayed a bacterial mist at unsuspecting travelers in Washington, D.C.'s Ronald Reagan National Airport to test the effectiveness of biological agents in crowded spaces.
Government scientists also placed Bacillus globigii, a bacterium linked to food poisoning and infections, inside light bulbs and dropped them into the NYC and Chicago subway systems. The goal was to study how pathogens could spread in urban environments – without informing the public of the risks. The military also tested B. globigii in Hawaii, deploying it from a submarine into the port of Oahu to simulate a biological attack on a naval base.
In another shocking case, the U.S. military and the CIA released dengue fever-carrying mosquitoes in Georgia and Florida, leading to outbreaks of the debilitating disease. Similar tests were conducted in Puerto Rico, where civilians were exposed to biological agents without their knowledge.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
A 2023 preprint study detected levels of synthetic DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots that were 18 to 70 times above regulatory limits. Similarly, a December 2024 peer-reviewed study supervised by FDA scientists found synthetic DNA contamination levels in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that were 6 to 470 times above regulatory limits.
These revelations have prompted a reevaluation of the regulatory framework surrounding mRNA vaccines. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the creation of a sub-agency within the CDC dedicated to investigating vaccine injuries, a move that underscores the growing recognition of the potential risks associated with these vaccines.
The history of vaccine development is fraught with challenges and controversies. The rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 scandal, while hailed as a scientific triumph, have also raised ethical and safety concerns. The rush to vaccinate the global population has outpaced the traditional safeguards of long-term safety studies, leaving many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of these vaccines.
Jablonowski expressed his dismay at the findings, stating that the "unintended reprogramming of progenitor cells" is not something to be celebrated but feared. "With every advancement in knowledge of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, we are again reminded of our own complacency about the blinded rush to push these products into every American," he lamented.
As the debate over mRNA vaccines continues, the question of trust in regulatory bodies and scientific institutions looms large. The findings of this study, and the subsequent calls for suspension or withdrawal of the vaccines, highlight the need for transparency, rigorous safety testing, and ethical considerations in the development and deployment of medical technologies.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
As The Defender previously reported, Dr. Ben Edwards attempted to get the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to issue a statement on budesonide as a possible treatment for respiratory issues following a measles infection. However, the state's medical director, Dr. Scott Milton, stated that the DSHS's only recommendation for measles was the MMR vaccine, and he did not believe the health authorities would "go for" promoting budesonide.
Lyla's recovery is a beacon of hope in a landscape of medical uncertainty and systemic failures. Her story raises important questions about the state of our healthcare system and the need for a more open-minded, patient-centered approach to treatment. As we continue to face the challenges of infectious diseases, it is crucial that we learn from cases like Lyla's and advocate for better, more accessible treatments.
In the words of Dr. Bartlett, "We need to be open to all the tools in the toolbox." This sentiment echoes the growing awareness and demand for a more comprehensive approach to healthcare, one that prioritizes patient well-being and embraces a wider range of treatment options.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
This system is a stark contrast to other industries. If a defective car or medical device causes harm, manufacturers are held accountable in court. Yet, if a vaccine causes seizures, brain damage, or death, the manufacturer faces no liability. The financial burden of compensating victims falls on a government-managed fund, financed by a 75-cent excise tax on each vaccine dose. Essentially, the public—not the industry—pays for the harm caused by vaccines.
The VICP system is not a safeguard for children; it’s a liability shield for corporations. By shielding manufacturers from lawsuits, the NCVIA removed a critical incentive for ensuring vaccine safety and efficacy.
The lack of safety standards: A dangerous loophole
Vaccines are not held to the same safety standards as other pharmaceutical products. Most vaccines bypass rigorous, long-term, placebo-controlled clinical trials, relying instead on inadequate safety studies with alarmingly short follow-up periods. For example, Sanofi’s IPOL polio vaccine was licensed based on trials that monitored safety for only three days after injection—grossly insufficient to detect serious adverse effects or long-term risks.
The absence of true inert placebos in vaccine trials further exacerbates this issue. Instead, new vaccines are often tested against existing vaccines or their adjuvants, making it nearly impossible to identify safety concerns. This lack of proper scientific rigor undermines the integrity of vaccine safety research and leaves children at risk.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s flawed design also discourages transparency. By funneling claims into a government-controlled system with minimal payouts, the vaccine industry avoids the scrutiny that comes with legal action. This shields them from public scrutiny and accountability while perpetuating a cycle of harm and injustice.
Should the system be reformed or dismantled altogether?
Critics argue that repealing the NCVIA would dismantle the VICP, leaving vaccine-injured families without recourse. However, a hybrid system is possible—one that preserves the VICP for those who prefer it while allowing direct legal action against manufacturers. This approach would reintroduce accountability, forcing vaccine companies to prioritize safety over profits.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has emerged as a leading voice in this movement, advocating for stricter safety standards and legal reforms. As the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy is in a unique position to push for legislative changes. His long-standing criticism of the vaccine industry’s lack of transparency and accountability makes him a bold advocate for reform.
Kennedy has called for vaccines to be held to the same safety standards as other pharmaceutical products, including long-term, placebo-controlled trials. This would ensure that vaccines are proven safe before being mandated for widespread use.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was a grave mistake that must be corrected, the scientific dictatorship disbanded. It’s time to end the protectionist policies that prioritize industry profits over child safety. Holding vaccine manufacturers accountable, enforcing rigorous safety standards, and restoring justice for vaccine-injured families are matters of urgent moral and public health importance.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
For years, Dr. Bhattacharya has been at the forefront of this battle. As a critic of pandemic-era restrictions, he co-authored the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which advocated for focused protection of vulnerable populations rather than broad lockdowns. His efforts have been met with significant resistance, including censorship and personal attacks.
The Biden administration's alleged collusion with social media companies to censor dissenting views on COVID-19 policies, lockdowns, and mask and vaccine mandates has been the subject of multiple lawsuits. In a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Bhattacharya and other plaintiffs were indeed censored, though it remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
Reform and transparency
In his nomination hearings, Bhattacharya committed to changing the culture of censorship at NIH. “Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs,” he said. “Dissent is the very essence of science. I’ll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives.”
He emphasized that scientific progress requires tolerance for a broad range of perspectives. “I want to make sure that all the ranges of hypotheses are supported,” Bhattacharya told committee members. He also highlighted the harms caused by censorship of non-establishment perspectives, including the negative impacts of pandemic-era measures such as lockdowns on child development and the spread of the virus.
The NIH’s recent actions, including the cancellation of grants targeting "vaccine hesitancy," are a significant step in the right direction. However, as Toby Rogers, Ph.D., a scholar at the Brownstone Institute, pointed out, more needs to be done. “Cancelling contracts is a good start. We also need to fire the people responsible, prosecute any criminal actions, repeal any laws or policies that enabled this to happen, and allow the public to access all government records concerning the censorship program.”
The fight for free speech and scientific integrity is far from over, but the NIH’s recent actions under Dr. Bhattacharya’s leadership mark a promising beginning. As the agency continues to reassess its funding practices and promote open scientific discourse, the hope is that it will set a new standard for transparency and accountability in health research.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
"If I was wrong, I would have expected the drug companies whose products I am maligning to have sought and secured a court injunction to stop me repeating these allegations," Dr. Yeadon said. "Neither of those things have ever happened. What has happened instead is that I have been extraordinarily censored and smeared sideways. And I think I offer that to you as strong evidence that I may be 'over the target,' at least in relation to these injectable products that have definitely injured and killed many people."
Dr. Yeadon's testimony adds a layer of complexity to the debate, suggesting that the scientific establishment and media have a role to play in the accountability process. Social media platforms like YouTube and the BBC, for instance, could face legal action for censoring critical voices and suppressing vital information.
The European Court of Justice's ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability and a reevaluation of how medical professionals are held responsible for their actions. As the legal and financial implications unfold, the medical landscape may see profound changes, potentially leading to a future where human doctors are no longer the primary providers of healthcare.
For now, the ruling serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of rush-to-market medical interventions and the importance of careful, evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
World Health Organization in crisis, prepares for DOWNSIZING after U.S. withdrawal and funding problems
The globalist World Health Organization (WHO) is now facing an existential crisis, following funding cuts and U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that Washington will withdraw from the global health body.
A confidential memo obtained by Reuters reveals that the Geneva-based agency under the United Nations is preparing to slash its budget by 21 percent and reduce its workforce. The memo comes after the U.S. – the WHO's largest donor – formally withdrew under Trump in January. Since then, the WHO has desperately scrambled for alternative funding – including a failed public begging campaign.
The internal WHO memo, dated March 28 was signed by Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Tedros bluntly admitted in the document that the organization has "no choice but to reduce the scale of our work and workforce" following the U.S. departure.
According to the memo, the budget for 2026 to 2027 will be cut from an initial $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion. Layoffs are also expected across all levels, including senior leadership in Geneva. The WHO employs 25 percent of its 9,473-strong staff in its Swiss headquarters alone.
Trump justified Washington's withdrawal from the WHO by accusing the global health body of mishandling the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and kowtowing to China. The withdrawal, Reuters mentions, has left a staggering $706 million shortfall in the agency's 2024 to 2025 budget.
The WHO's panicked response was epitomized by Maria Van Kerkhove, its technical lead for COVID-19, who took to social media pleading for public donations. Unfortunately, her public fundraiser with an ambitious $1 billion goal raised a paltry $23,000 – proof that global goodwill toward the WHO has evaporated.
China pays pennies, U.S. blows billions
In an executive order signed shortly after taking office in January, Trump condemned the WHO's "unfairly onerous payments" imposed on the U.S. while letting China contribute a fraction of what America did.
While Washington was expected to provide $442 million in voluntary funding for 2024 to 2025, Beijing pledged a mere $2.5 million. Even in mandatory contributions, the disparity was glaring: The U.S. paid $264 million compared to China's $181 million.
The WHO's credibility has been further eroded by its obsequious deference to Beijing during the pandemic. Despite China's obstruction of investigations into COVID-19's origins, WHO officials initially praised China's lockdowns as "the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history." Later, under Chinese pressure, the agency dismissed the lab-leak theory as "extremely unlikely."
As Van Kerkhove herself admitted to Science magazine in January, China has repeatedly stonewalled requests for information on early cases and lab research. Yet, the WHO continues to shield Beijing from accountability.
The U.S. exit has sent shockwaves through global health programs, particularly those combating HIV, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases, which relied heavily on American funding. But Trump’s order makes clear that Washington will redirect resources to more accountable partners, bypassing the WHO's inefficiencies.
With its budget imploding and its reputation in tatters, the WHO now faces a reckoning. As the agency scrambles to prioritize its dwindling resources, the world is left questioning whether the WHO – a body that prioritized politics over science – deserves to survive at all.
Watch WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus falsely claiming that the global health body didn't impose medical tyranny during the COVID-19 pandemic in this clip.
https://www.brighteon.com/a95873ea-3c35-46d6-a7ec-e5f7915069cc
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
As the world grapples with the aftermath of the COVID-19 scandal, questions linger about the true cost of mass vaccination. Are we poised on the brink of another health catastrophe, or are these concerns mere overblown anxieties? The answer may lie in the data: in the rising cancer rates, the excess deaths, and the lingering disabilities that shadow the vaccinated population.
As Dr. Soon-Shiong aptly put it, "This is existential." The narrative of the COVID-19 scandal is far from over, and the pages of history are yet to be written. One thing is clear: the legacy of this era hinges on our ability to confront the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be. The COVID-19 scandal has unveiled disturbing levels of medical experimentation, driving medical systems into a state of perpetual fraud and coverups of iatrogenic error.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Oncologist warns of ‘terrifyingly aggressive’ cancers in children, linked to immune suppression from COVID vaccines
The rise of "turbo cancers" and a medical betrayal
For the first time in modern medical history, children as young as eight are being diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer—a phenomenon so rare it was virtually unheard of before 2021. But now, elite oncologists are breaking ranks, exposing what they call a "global epidemic" of fast-moving cancers directly linked to COVID-19 vaccines. The same medical authorities who once demanded blind faith in these shots have gone eerily silent as the bodies pile up.
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a pioneering cancer researcher who developed the FDA-approved drug Abraxane, recently dropped a bombshell during an interview with Tucker Carlson. "We have to face reality," he said, bluntly connecting the dots between mRNA vaccines and the surge in deadly cancers. His warning follows a flood of reports from frontline doctors witnessing bizarre, rapid-onset tumors in young patients—cases that defy decades of medical understanding.
Meanwhile, Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist from the University of London, has called for an outright ban on mRNA vaccines, declaring they have no place in medicine outside of terminal cancer cases. "The fact that mRNA can integrate [into DNA], even if it doesn’t most of the time, makes it unjustifiable to use on young people, especially children," Dalgleish told the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. His research found mRNA fragments inside tumors, suggesting the shots may be fueling cancer growth.
The scientist elaborated further, explaining that the mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines has been observed to “incorporate” into cancerous cells.
Dr. Dalgleish highlighted that researchers have identified traces of mRNA within cancerous tumors, noting that this genetic material plays a role in their rapid growth and the aggressive spread of these cancers. He asserted, “Cancer caused by mRNA vaccines is a known outcome.” Dr. Dalgleish issued a cautionary note, emphasizing that mRNA vaccines should not be utilized as a preventive measure against cancer, as they are implicated in its causation.
A manufactured crisis and the silencing of dissent
The timing of these cancers is undeniable. Before 2021, childhood cancers like glioblastoma and advanced colon cancer were statistical anomalies. Now, pediatric oncology wards are filling with cases that progress at terrifying speeds—what doctors now call "turbo cancers." Yet instead of investigating, public health agencies and pharmaceutical giants have doubled down on censorship, smearing dissenting experts as "conspiracy theorists" while quietly updating vaccine injury compensation programs to include cancer claims. The term "turbo cancer" isn't even a recognized medical term, yet doctors continue to report terrifyingly aggressive cancer cases, in adults and young children without a history of medical issues.
The parallels to past medical scandals are chilling. Just as Big Tobacco buried evidence linking smoking to lung cancer for decades, the COVID vaccine pushers—from the FDA to Pfizer—are gaslighting the public while children suffer. "We know [the cancer] is caused by [mRNA vaccines]," Dalgleish stated unequivocally.
History repeats itself when profit outweighs ethics. The same institutions that lied about opioids, asbestos, and Agent Orange are now dismissing vaccine injuries as "anecdotal." But with elite doctors like Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish risking their careers to speak out, how long can the facade hold? As grieving parents demand answers, one question burns: If vaccines are safe, why are the architects of this experiment refusing to debate their critics in the open?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
NIH study, buried for decades, reveals that Flu Shots INCREASE elderly deaths, not prevent them
The study they didn’t want you to see
For decades, public health officials have assured Americans that flu vaccines save lives, particularly among the elderly. Yet buried research reveals a shocking truth: mass vaccination campaigns may have increased mortality rates instead of reducing them. A 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) study, later covered up by federal agencies, found no correlation between rising flu shot uptake and declining death rates—despite billions spent on promotion.
In 2006, CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson exposed the NIH’s damning findings. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analyzed 33 years of data (1968–2001) and found that as flu vaccination rates among seniors jumped from 15% to 65%, death rates climbed instead of dropping.
Attkisson interviewed Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study, who admitted: "We realized we had incendiary material... We’ve looked at other countries now, and the same is true."
The NIH blocked lead researcher Lone Simonsen from speaking to CBS—a red flag suggesting institutional suppression. The study’s conclusion was unambiguous: flu shots showed no measurable benefit in reducing mortality in any age group.
The flawed science behind flu shot propaganda
For years, observational studies claimed flu vaccines reduced winter deaths by 50%—a statistic now debunked as mathematically impossible. The NIH study revealed:
• Less than 10% of winter deaths in the elderly are flu-related, making a 50% reduction implausible.
• Vaccinated cohorts were inherently healthier—frail seniors were less likely to get shots, skewing results.
• Immune senescence in the elderly renders flu shots ineffective, yet policymakers ignored this biological reality.
Despite this, the CDC doubled down, expanding recommendations to children in 2006—a move critics argue was designed to boost Pharma profits, not public health.
A legacy of medical tyranny
The COVID-19 scandal exposed how corruption and censorship dominate public health. The flu vaccine fraud is no different:
• High-dose flu shots (with 3–4x more antigen) were introduced post-2005 study, increasing side-effect risks.
• No accountability: Officials like Dr. Walter Orenstein (ex-CDC) admitted flu shots failed but kept pushing them.
• Media complicity: Major outlets ignored the NIH study, perpetuating the "safe and effective" myth.
The promotion of flu vaccines among the elderly raises critical questions about the ethics of public health campaigns. Why have health authorities continued to push a practice that has been proven ineffective?
The answer lies in the interplay of institutional bias and financial interests. Public health experts long assumed flu vaccines were effective, ignoring contradictory evidence—assuming, in essence, that their hypotheses were correct simply because they wanted them to be. This wishful thinking has had deadly consequences.
The government’s response to the NIH findings was particularly troubling. Instead of acknowledging the failure of their policies, officials shifted the focus to vaccinating children and others who might come into contact with the elderly—an admission of defeat cloaked in scientific jargon.
The flu vaccine industry, meanwhile, has doubled down on its flawed approach, creating “high-dose” vaccines with significantly higher antigen content and additional adjuvants. While these changes aim to compensate for the vaccines’ ineffectiveness, they also increase the risk of severe side effects.
History repeats itself—from thalidomide to opioids to COVID-19, the same players prioritize profits over lives. The flu vaccine deception mirrors Big Tobacco’s 50-year cover-up of smoking risks: corporations and governments colluding to sell a deadly product under the guise of "protection."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Ontario judge rules against family of Canadian teen killed by the lethal COVID-19 injection
A judge in Canada's Ontario province has issued a ruling against the family of a teenager killed by the lethal Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) injection.
Blacklock's Reporter said on Wednesday, March 26, that Ontario Superior Court Justice Sandra Antoniani was the magistrate behind the decision. "The plaintiff's tragedy is real, but there is no private law duty of care made out," she wrote. "There is no private law duty of care to individual members of the public injured by government core policy decisions in the handling of health emergencies which impact the general population."
The ruling was in relation to a case filed by Dan Hartman, whose 17-year-old son Sean died after getting the COVID-19 injection. The teenager died on Sept. 27, 2021 – almost five weeks after being injected with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 shot.
According to the magistrate, Health Canada – the federal health department and defendant in the lawsuit – "deemed that urgent action was necessary" to address the pandemic. She further continued that the department's actions "were aimed at mitigating the health impact of a global pandemic on the Canadian public."
"Imposition of a private duty of care would have a negative impact on the ability of the defendants to prioritize the interests of the entire public, with the distraction of fear over the possibility of harm to individual members of the public, and the risk of litigation and unlimited liability."
Five years after the pandemic, the Canadian government is now washing its hands of any responsibility for the injuries and deaths caused by these experimental shots. Ottawa's sweeping mandates, which pressured millions into taking a barely tested medical intervention, now absolve it of any obligation to those who suffered severe consequences.
Forced to comply, denied compensation
While officials continue to justify their coercive policies as necessary for public health, families like that of Sean are left without justice – their suffering dismissed as collateral damage in the name of pandemic mitigation. Sean's father Dan has been fighting for accountability ever since, only to be met with legal roadblocks and bureaucratic indifference.
The Hartman family's ordeal is far from unique. Canada's Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), established in December 2020, was supposed to provide recourse for those harmed by COVID-19 vaccines. Yet, out of 1,859 claims filed, only 103 have been approved – meaning thousands of Canadians alleging vaccine injuries have been left in limbo.
Denied compensation through VISP, Dan had no choice but take the matter to court – filing a separate $35.6 million lawsuit in October 2023. He accused Pfizer of negligence and misrepresentation. The grieving father also accused the New York-based drug giant of concealed the risks of its vaccine, including myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle).
Dan's legal counsel Umar Sheikh argued in the filing that Pfizer "concealed the fact the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination had severe possible risks and outcomes when administered, including but not limited to myocarditis, pericarditis (heart lining inflammation) and death."
According to court documents, an American doctor determined that Sean's death was caused by the Pfizer shot. The 17-year-old received the vaccine under pressure from his local hockey league.
"They said there is no proof the vaccine killed Sean. There’s also no proof that it didn't," Hartman said at the time. expressing frustration with the system's unwillingness to acknowledge the truth.
Sheikh also mentioned in the lawsuit that Pfizer "owed a duty of care to Sean to accurately inform him of all risks associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination." Unfortunately, the recent ruling by Antoniani reaffirmed that the drug giant isn't accountable to the Hartman family and others who were injured and killed by its lethal vaccine.
North Carolina Supreme Court rules family can sue over COVID-19 force-vaccination of teen without parental consent
A mother’s constitutional rights were violated when her 14-year-old son was force-vaccinated with the deadliest jab in the universe, the blood-clotting mRNA Covid stab, without her consent, and the North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in her favor. It’s no wonder the Supreme Court Justices are NOT paid off by Big Pharma to rule in favor of the Vaccine Industrial Complex, since most cases like this one get thrown out of courts and proxied by the fake kangaroo “court” invented by Pharma that uses slush funds to censor vaccine horror stories.
Emily Happel and her teenage son can proceed suing local school board and medical organization responsible for injecting her teen son with deadly spike prions
Happel’s son, Tanner Smith, was illegally force-injected with a deadly Covid-19 spike prion jab, that creates millions of prions in the blood forever. The vaccine industrial complex and all the vaccine fanatic cultists often do this sort of thing on purpose out of spite and for revenge against what they call “anti-vaxxers.” They’ll often say it was on accident or something like that, but that’s just a cover story. Now, they may be paying a hefty price for their insidious acts of medical malpractice, especially if the boy suffers long-term health damage, like most people are suffering now who got the deadly Fauci Flu stabs.
The lower courts, of course, ruled in favor of the Vaccine Industrial Complex, even though administrators never got consent from Tanner’s parents to stab him with known carcinogens and neurotoxins, claiming the PREP Act allows them to jab any kid anytime with experimental “vaccines” without parental consent.
Steven Walker, an attorney representing Happel and her son, told The Epoch Times in an email: “We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling. While we would have, of course, loved to see the battery claim reinstated as well, we believe that the Court decision was very favorable in the main on the case and have no real complaints. “I believe the case is important even outside the issue of the PREP Act in that the Court gave its clearest explanation to date concerning the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children under the North Carolina constitution,” and Walker continued... “The PREP Act has a purpose, and that purpose is to provide immunity protections in situations when it might be difficult to determine the safety of a countermeasure during a time of crisis. It was never intended to allow the government to trample on the clear constitutional rights of its citizens.”
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Is the vaccine-autism debate reopening? Washington Post sparks controversy with preemptive hit piece on David Geier
On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an article that many are calling a preemptive hit piece on David Geier, a researcher reportedly tapped by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to lead a study on possible links between vaccines and autism. The Post's piece, which cited anonymous "officials," has sparked significant controversy and raised questions about the credibility and intent of such a study.
A contested appointment
David Geier, an experienced data analyst and expert on thimerosal — a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines — has conducted extensive research on the connections between toxic exposures and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. He has published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on these topics and has analyzed the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, a nonpublic database with data on over 10 million patients.
However, the Post and other mainstream news outlets have consistently portrayed Geier as a "vaccine skeptic" who has "long promoted false claims about the connection between immunization and autism." This characterization has been aggressively repeated, despite Geier's extensive scientific background and published research.
Historical context: The vaccine-autism debate
The debate over the link between vaccines and autism has a long and contentious history. In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This study was later discredited and retracted due to serious ethical violations and methodological flaws. Despite the retraction, skepticism gained significant traction, fueled by the emotional and personal stories of parents whose children developed autism after receiving vaccines.
The CDC and the scientific community have repeatedly emphasized that numerous studies have found no causal link between vaccines and autism. However, the issue remains a hot-button topic, with passionate advocates on both sides. Geier’s appointment to lead an HHS study on this topic has reignited the debate, with many expressing concerns about the objectivity and potential biases of the research.
Critics and concerns
Critics of the appointment, including former CDC officials and prominent public health experts, have raised several concerns. Dr. Richard Besser, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting CDC director, called Geier a "deeply irresponsible choice" due to his "no medical degree and a long history of pushing discredited theories about vaccines and autism."
"A growing measles outbreak is spreading in at least three states: Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. As of Wednesday, 377 cases had been confirmed in those states—the vast majority in unvaccinated children in Texas. It’s the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. since 2019. Two people have died, including a 6-year-old girl," Besser stated. "In this context, it is particularly concerning to see resources and attention diverted to rehashing a question that has already been answered."
A call for transparency and credibility
The controversy surrounding Geier's potential role in the study highlights the broader debate over scientific integrity and public trust. Advocates for robust, unbiased research emphasize the need for transparent and credible studies that can provide clear answers to important public health questions.
As of press time, neither the HHS nor Geier had responded to requests for comment. However, the appointment remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate, with many watching closely to see how this story will unfold.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Aluminum, mercury, and the allergy epidemic
Vaccines aren’t just ineffective—they’re immune disruptors. Aluminum, added to provoke stronger reactions, skews the immune system toward allergies. "If a baby eats peanuts around vaccination, their body may tag it as a threat," Humphries warned. When immune responsive cells attack the injection site, aluminum cations from the vaccine are up-taken into the cytoplasm of the immune responsive cells. These aluminum salts are then carried throughout the body, and sometimes across the blood brain barrier, where they cause inflammation. The aluminum cations are then released in unpredictable places throughout the body.
Then there’s mercury. "If a mercury-containing vaccine spills, HAZMAT teams are called," she said. "Yet we inject it into infants." Vaccine production relies on diseased animal tissue (monkey kidneys, cow pus) bathed in antibiotics, heavy metals, and fetal bovine serum.
Somehow "mercury is only ‘safe’ in vaccines, dental fillings, and toxic waste dumps," Humphries quipped, exposing the hypocrisy of vaccine science and toxicology.
Breast milk is the key to child’s immune system
Breast milk is a powerhouse of immunity, offering infants vital protection against infections and diseases. It contains antibodies, primarily secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA), which coat the baby’s mucous membranes, blocking pathogens from entering the body. White blood cells in breast milk further bolster immunity by attacking harmful bacteria and viruses. Additionally, breast milk provides oligosaccharides, which act as prebiotics, nourishing beneficial gut bacteria and preventing harmful microbes from thriving. Lactoferrin, another key component, binds to iron, inhibiting bacterial growth, while lysozyme enzymes break down harmful bacteria. Cytokines and growth factors in breast milk regulate immune responses, reducing inflammation and promoting tissue repair. Colostrum, the first milk, is especially rich in these protective elements. By breastfeeding, mothers also pass on immunity to pathogens they’ve encountered, ensuring dynamic, tailored protection. This natural immunization helps infants build a robust immune system, reducing risks of infections, allergies, and chronic conditions. Treatments such as lyposomal vitamin C and vitamin D supplements are safe to give to children during infectious disease, too.
Humphries’ work dismantles the profit-driven mythology of modern medicine. Polio didn’t vanish because of vaccines—it was redefined. Diseases didn’t decline due to shots—but sanitation and nutrition.
As she told Rogan: "Science isn’t settled—it’s questioned. Until we confront inconvenient truths, we’ll keep trading short-term gains for long-term harm."
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia