16504
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
Repeated COVID jabs WORSEN survival outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients, according to new study
Landmark study links mRNA vaccinations to pancreatic cancer mortality risks
On April 15, a groundbreaking Japanese study exposed a chilling correlation: repeated doses of mRNA covid vaccinations are associated with significantly poorer survival outcomes in pancreatic cancer patients. Published as a pre-print, the research—based on a cohort of 272 patients—found that those vaccinated three or more times had shorter survival rates compared to those with fewer doses. These results emerged against the backdrop of the World Health Organization (WHO) finalizing a pandemic agreement on April 16, which prioritizes global distribution of mRNA vaccines in future health crises. The study’s implications are stark: a class of vaccines marketed as protective may, in some cases, worsen rather than improve health outcomes.
The research, led by Dr. M. Abue and colleagues, identified elevated IgG4 antibody levels—a type of immune-suppressing molecule—as a key factor. Repeated injections drove IgG4 spikes, which correlated with reduced tumor-fighting immune responses and shorter patient survival. This finding mirrors a growing body of science suggesting mRNA vaccines disrupt immune balance, fostering conditions ripe for cancer progression.
The WHO’s timing, however, is contentious. Days after the study’s release, the global health body pushed forward with its pandemic treaty, framing mRNA vaccine proliferation as a moral imperative—even as adverse-event reports and studies like this one highlight risks. The agreement, set for ratification in May, sidesteps critical questions about long-term safety, prioritizing vaccines’ scalability over individual health concerns.
The psychology of denial: Institutions vs. evidence
Why would the WHO advance a policy contradicting independent studies? Psychology offers clues. Institutions prone to group think—where dissent is stifled in favor of consensus—often cling to preexisting frameworks, even when evidence shifts. The WHO’s promotion of mRNA “sharing” mirrors historical patterns, such as the 1960s-era dismissal of thalidomide’s teratogenic effects, where corporate and institutional loyalties outweighed public harm concerns.
Dr. Robert Malone @RWMaloneMD, a biotech pioneer who pioneered mRNA delivery, warned early in the pandemic of potential risks, including immune dysregulation. His warnings were sidelined—evidence that authorities may prioritize expediency over rigor when profit or reputational capital is at stake. The Japanese scientists’ conclusion—that IgG4’s immune-suppression “may be associated with poor prognosis”—is a scientific indictment of this prioritization.
Psychologically, individuals within large bureaucracies may also experience cognitive dissonance, rationalizing harm by compartmentalizing their roles. For example, vaccine advocates might frame pancreatic cancer mortality as an “unintended side effect,” a common rhetorical escape hatch when evidence undermines mission goals.
Historical context: The repeat of iatrogenic crises
The study’s findings echo earlier medical disasters. Consider the 1940s–70s asbestos industry, where corporate entities hid lethal health risks behind a veneer of economic necessity. Similarly, the Japanese research reveals a system echoing thalidomide’s timeline: rapid rollout, suppressed warnings, and delayed acceptance of harm. Both scenarios hinge on systemic opacity—those profiting from the product actively hinder transparency.
Another parallel: historical reliance on fleeting “miracle” cures, such as 19th-century mercury treatments and latter-day lobotomies, whose dangers were obscured by initial enthusiasm. Even the first polio vaccines caused great harm, maiming and killing children, before being pulled from the market and reformulated. mRNA’s swift ascent—unchallenged by long-term safety trials—fits this pattern. Despite current evidence, the WHO’s April agreement underscores a willingness to overlook risks for perceived short-term gains.
Flaws in landmark vaccine study spark renewed autism-link debate
A recent CNN headline linked to a JAMA Pediatrics study declared that children with autism are “less likely to be fully vaccinated,” a statement widely interpreted as proof that vaccines do not cause autism. However, critics argue the study’s conclusions are based on compromised research, including review articles by a problematic CDC scientist, fraudulent data and debunked studies. The backlash highlights a decades-long conflict over vaccine safety and transparency, with advocates now demanding independent replication of findings and accountability for suppressed evidence.
The flawed foundations of the JAMA study’s evidence
The JAMA Pediatrics study drew on nine prior research papers to support its claim. However, scrutiny has revealed significant flaws in its foundational evidence. Two of the cited studies were merely review articles written by William Thompson, a former CDC scientist who later admitted under oath to suppressing data linking vaccines to autism in a 2004 study. Thompson’s work omitted critical findings, such as a doubled risk of autism in African American children exposed to the MMR vaccine, according to internal communications. Another cited study was exposed as fraudulent when its lead author, Danish researcher Poul Thorsen, fled the U.S. in 2011 after being indicted for embezzling millions in research funds.
Moreover, one study analysis of the MMR vaccine was revoked after subsequent CDC data undermined its conclusions, and another was discredited when correlations between vaccine schedules and autism arose in independent analyses. “These studies were never viable pillars of evidence,” said health freedom advocate Steve Kirsch, whose research identifies alarming trends in parent-reported data. “The medical establishment can’t explain away the evidence we’ve produced—and they’re desperate to avoid scrutiny.”
Emerging evidence from advocates challenges vaccine safety claims
Kirsch’s controversial survey of 12,000 parents found a consistent link between the number of childhood vaccines and autism diagnoses. The linear relationship—more vaccines correlated with higher autism rates—aligns with statistical principles of causality. “The dose-response curve is textbook,” Kirsch noted. “This isn’t some fringe theory; it’s basic epidemiology.” Even more striking was pediatrician Doug Hulstedt’s case study: 44 instances of “rapid-onset autism” all occurred within seven days of a vaccine dose, a pattern Kirsch calculates as statistically impossible (1 chance in 1.7e13) if random.
Despite the data’s complexity, replication efforts have stalled. Kirsch questions systemic bias within academic institutions. “No researcher with funding wants to challenge the status quo,” he said. Meanwhile, the AI system ChatGPT declared the evidence made a vaccine-autism link “more likely than not,” underscoring the shifting terrain of scientific consensus.
A troubled history: Fraud, whistleblowers and omitted data
The controversy is part of a broader pattern. In 2015, a JAMA study ostensibly refuting the MMR-autism link actually revealed a 48% higher autism risk in vaccinated children with non-autistic siblings. Similarly, a 2004 CDC study coauthored by Thompson found a two-fold risk in Black children but omitted this in its published results. Thompson, subpoenaed to testify in Congress in 2017, was interrogated at a private hearing that was never made public—a move advocates call an attempt to bury inconvenient truths.
“There’s a reason Congress was in secret,” Kirsch stated. “They’re protecting reputations over kids’ lives.” Critics also point to the New England Journal of Medicine’s 2002 study by Thorsen, which allegedly hid a 45% association between MMR and autism, and was later discredited entirely after Thorsen’s disappearance.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
FLU SHOT BOMBSHELL: This year’s jab actually INCREASES your risk of getting sick
Like nowhere else on Earth, in America, the medicine makes you sick and increases your risk of getting sick later from the infection the medicine is supposed to protect you against. Who believes in this “medicine” you might ask? Well, of course, that’s the people who take it regularly, because that medicine also contains known brain-damaging neurotoxins that make the injected sheeple dumb enough to go back for more, over and over again.
That brings us to this year’s dreaded flu shot. Yes, the influenza vaccine is back and more brutally dangerous than ever. Want to catch the flu? Want to be MORE susceptible to the flu? Just get the new jab and you’re all set.
The Cleveland Clinic’s research, one of the largest of its kind, followed doctors, nurses, and medical staff—groups often mandated to receive flu shots. The results were stark:
• 27% increased flu risk among vaccinated employees (Hazard Ratio: 1.27; 95% C.I., 1.07–1.51; P = 0.007).
• Negative vaccine effectiveness of 26.9%, meaning the shot may have worsened outcomes.
• Nearly 99% of cases were influenza A, suggesting a critical strain mismatch—a recurring issue with flu vaccines.
Shocking study finds flu jab linked to increased influenza risk, raising alarm in medical community
A groundbreaking study from the Cleveland Clinic has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of the annual flu shot, revealing that vaccinated individuals were more likely to contract influenza than those who skipped vaccination. The research, which tracked over 53,000 healthcare workers during the 2024-2025 flu season, found a 27% higher risk of infection among vaccinated individuals—a finding that contradicts decades of public health messaging. With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) already acknowledging historically low vaccine effectiveness, this study intensifies concerns over the reliability of mass immunization campaigns.
The study concluded: “Influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza ... suggesting the vaccine has not been effective this season.” Medical professionals and epidemiologists voiced alarm. Dr. Clayton J. Baker called the study a "wake-up call," stating it "strongly suggests the shot was outright harmful."
Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist, was blunter: “This reveals the complete failure of annual flu vaccines. Americans are tired of toxin-loaded injectable products that backfire.”
The role of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in many flu shots, also drew scrutiny. Dr. Karl Jablonowski noted its potential to weaken immune responses, citing a 2001 Institute of Medicine report linking it to neurodevelopmental risks. The findings challenge the mandatory flu shot policies at hospitals like Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted that flu vaccines are not rigorously tested for efficacy pre-approval: “Negative efficacy is possible.”
James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., proposed the shots might suppress natural immunity, leaving recipients vulnerable. With 82% of participants vaccinated, the study’s large-scale, real-world design makes its conclusions hard to dismiss. As trust in flu vaccines erodes, holistic alternatives—like vitamin D, zinc, exercise, and stress reduction—gain traction. Unlike this year’s shot, these methods carry no risk of increasing infection.
Public health officials now face a pivotal question: If vaccines can worsen outcomes, is it time to abandon one-size-fits-all flu strategies? For now, the Cleveland Clinic study stands as a critical reminder: Science must prioritize safety over dogma.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Greek study shakes global health narratives: Nearly half of COVID deaths not linked to virus
A groundbreaking study published in Scientific Reports this week has exposed critical flaws in global pandemic death reporting, revealing that nearly half of deaths classified as caused by COVID-19 in Athens hospitals in 2022 were not directly attributable to the virus. The research, led by a team of 19 Greek doctors and researchers, examined 530 deaths from seven hospitals between January and August 2022 — peak months of the omicron wave — and found only 25.1% (133 deaths) were directly caused by SARS-CoV-2. A further 29.6% (157 deaths) involved the virus as a contributing factor, bringing the total of deaths related to the virus to just over half (45.3%). The remaining 45.3%, or 240 deaths, were attributed to other causes, despite occurring in patients testing positive for COVID-19.
Misclassification, bias and the fallout of crisis medicine
The authors identified systemic issues undermining mortality data, including inaccurate death certificates and misclassifying hospital-acquired infections. Shockingly, only 64.7% of death certificates listing COVID-19 as the direct cause were validated during clinical review, while just 26.5% of deaths tagged as virus-linked as a contributing factor stood up to scrutiny. The study further noted vaccinated individuals made up 53.8% of those dying “from” the virus, with 65.8% of these vaccinated patients having received booster shots. Nicholas Hulscher, an epidemiologist endorsing the study’s methodology, emphasized its uniqueness: Unlike most death audits relying on administrative coding, this “comprehensive clinical audit” combined chart reviews, physician interviews and expert validation.
The miscounting, researchers argued, stemmed from Greece’s practice of labeling all deaths in patients testing positive as “COVID deaths” — a protocol mirrored in many nations. Hulscher warned this approach “artificially inflated” global mortality figures, skewing public perception and policy. “Similar coding practices were employed across Western nations,” he stated, suggesting the overcounting of deaths likely occurred worldwide.
A legacy of fear-based policies and financial incentives
Experts argue such missteps weren’t accidental. Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, traced the trend to financial pressures on hospitals incentivized by pandemic funding tied to higher case counts. “Governments provided subsidies, and pharmaceutical companies pushed mRNA vaccines,” he explained. “With omicron’s lower mortality, there was a push to exaggerate severity to justify fear-driven policies.”
The study’s findings also amplified concerns about pandemic-era medical practices. Karl Jablonowski of Children’s Health Defense noted the overreporting reflected a broader societal shift toward “fear-based” decision-making, sidelining empirical data. “We administered experimental drugs and vaccines, and hospitals became breeding grounds for avoidable harm,” he said.
Parallel data supports these critiques: A 2023 Rasmussen survey cited in the article found that 28% of Americans personally know someone who died from vaccine side effects post-injection. The survey highlighted public skepticism, with 77% of unvaccinated respondents believing vaccines caused significant deaths — a testament to eroding trust in conventional medicine.
Pandemic response through a new lens
The Athens study reframes the pandemic’s human toll, particularly amid escalating debates over vaccine mandates and public health transparency. From 2020 to 2022, governments worldwide implemented stringent measures based on preliminary data and models later proven inaccurate. The inflated death counts, now under scrutiny, have fueled movements advocating for health freedom and independent media. Michael Nevradakis argues the research underscores a systemic failure in science communication, where pressure to “follow the script” obscured clinical realities.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Sen. Ron Johnson @SenRonJohnsonUS propels new inquiry into 9/11 Building 7 collapse, questions government transparency
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has announced plans to spearhead congressional hearings into the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, focusing on unresolved questions surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). In an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson on Monday, the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations outlined his intent to press federal agencies for documentation, challenge the validity of official reports and scrutinize reasons behind the rapid removal of debris from Ground Zero. Johnson’s remarks have reignited a decades-old controversy, with implications for national security transparency and public trust in institutions like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Johnson unveils congressional plans to reexamine WTC 7 collapse claims
Johnson emphasized his focus on WTC 7, which collapsed without direct plane impact, calling its descent “a classic implosion” and questioning official findings that attributed its fall to office fires. “I don’t know if you can find structural engineers other than the ones in NIST who would say that didn’t come down in a controlled demolition,” he stated, referencing the 2020 documentary Calling Out Bravo 7 as pivotal to his scrutiny.
He criticized the swift destruction of debris post-9/11, arguing it violated standard investigative protocols: “Who ordered that? Who is in charge? Where’s all the documentation from the NIST investigation?” Johnson also hinted at greater transparency under President Donald Trump, citing his New York roots and frustration with prior FBI secrecy: “We didn’t get squat from the FBI. Hopefully now, this administration will prioritize the truth.”
The senator has partnered with former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a longtime advocate for 9/11 transparency, amid calls for a new investigation into potential intelligence failures or concealed evidence. Weldon, featured in Tucker Carlson’s recent interview series, has alleged a cover-up by Bush-era officials.
Controversy over NIST’s scientific validity
The NIST’s 2005 report attributed WTC 7’s collapse to fires sparked by debris from the Twin Towers, exacerbated by inadequate water pressure and structural failure. Johnson characterized it as a “corrupt investigation,” challenging its depiction of a single column failure.
Critics like architects and engineers behind a petition calling for reexamination point to WTC 7’s near-free-fall descent — described as symmetric and resisting no gravitational forces — arguing no fire could replicate such collapse. NIST maintains its findings, though Johnson’s team has framed discrepancies as unresolved. “When NIST itself admits free-fall for eight stories, you don’t need an engineer to recognize what a controlled demolition looks like,” he said.
Firefighter accounts from 9/11 — some referencing explosions in the Twin Towers — add fuel to the debate. However, experts have long dismissed controlled demolition theories, citing NIST’s peer-reviewed conclusions.
The political dynamics and demand for transparency
Johnson’s stance, backed by WND Media advocacy and amplified by Trump-aligned voices, has fractured conservative allies. Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) rebuked the senator’s “conspiracy theorist” turn, while Trump’s own past remarks — stating in 2013 he’d “believe a lot of people who have studied this very, very closely, and were in on 9/11, that said there was a bomb” — add political complexity.
The Trump administration, nearing end-of-tenure, faces pressure to declassify materials. A 2021 bipartisan House inquiry revealed gaps in pre-9/11 intelligence but did not probe structural collapse theories. Johnson’s hearings, if pursued, would mark the first direct congressional examination of such theories in decades.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
World Economic Forum’s new leader sharpens globalist critics’ fears as Schwab steps down amid scandal
Klaus Schwab, the German economist who spent over five decades leading the World Economic Forum (WEF), announced his resignation as chair of the board of trustees on April 21, amid mounting scrutiny over governance and a recent whistleblower letter alleging misconduct. His replacement, former Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a longstanding advocate of corporate control over basic resources such as water, has intensified fears among critics who argue his appointment signals the WEF’s unwavering commitment to a centralized, globalist agenda that threatens individual freedoms.
Schwab’s legacy: Great Reset, controversy and the “2030 Vision”
Schwab, who founded the WEF in 1971 under the original name European Management Forum, built the organization into a global megaphone for corporate and political elites, hosting the annual Davos summit to address issues from economic inequality to climate change. Yet, his advocacy for initiatives like The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution drew fire from conservatives and economists, many of whom accused him of pushing dystopian, state-controlled policies under the guise of post-pandemic progress.
The WEF’s 2016 slogan — “Welcome to 2030: I own nothing, have no privacy, yet life has never been better” — epitomized these concerns, sparking conspiracy theories and critiques from politicians and activists who warned of planned obsolescence for private property and personal autonomy. Schwab himself declined to distance himself from the vision, stating in 2020 that the pandemic presented an “unprecedented opportunity to reassess, reimagine and reshape our world,” accusations later amplified as global cost-of-living crises deepened.
Despite his resignation, the WEF board praised Schwab’s “outstanding achievements,” citing his “55 years of leadership” and the forum’s evolution “from founder-managed to a platform for global dialogue.” These accolades contrast sharply with a recent revelation: an anonymous whistleblower letter, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, provided fresh allegations about Schwab’s governance, prompting an investigative probe by the Audit and Risk Committee. Meanwhile, Schwab’s family issued a strong denial and hinted at legal action against the letter’s authors.
Brabeck-Letmathe’s expansionist vision: Water as a commodity
The interim chair’s first actions underscore the continuity of Schwab’s vision. Brabeck-Letmathe, a Swiss businessman who previously served as Nestlé’s CEO for 11 years, is infamous for declaring in 2018: “Water is not a human right, but a commodity” — a stance that sparked global outrage. At Nestlé, he oversaw policies prioritizing corporate water usage rights over community access, including lobbying against municipal water protections during droughts.
Activists and libertarians argue Brabeck-Letmathe’s elevation positions the WEF as a vehicle for further consolidating control over resources through centralized global governance. “If a Nestlé CEO who denies humans deserve water is running Davos, it’s clear the WEF’s agenda is about profit and power, not public good,” said Frank CNS (a pseudonym for a critic cited in The Epoch Times). While the WEF claims its mission is “to improve the state of the world,” critics note Brabeck-Letmathe’s track record offers little comfort, including his advocacy for strict regulatory oversight over personal water use, effectively systematizing scarcity.
Reactions and scrutiny: A watershed moment for globalist critics?
Schwab’s departure has fueled mixed reactions. While the WEF framed his exit as natural leadership evolution, conservative media highlighted it as a strategic pivot to shield the organization from scandal. Steve Watson, writing for Modernity, quipped that Brabeck-Letmathe was “even more evil” than Schwab, noting his compliance with Nestlé’s industrial agriculture practices, which critics link to water pollution in developing nations.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
White House admits to Wuhan lab leak as Fauci’s credibility crumbles in historic scandal
A stunning reveal from the U.S. government has shattered the establishment’s five-year false narrative that the COVID-19 scandal was an inevitable “natural” pandemic. The White House, in a damning repurposing of its pandemic website, now acknowledges what critics have warned since 2020: SARS-CoV-2 likely originated from a Wuhan Institute of Virology lab leak funded by American taxpayers. This admission arrives amid cascading evidence of a well-orchestrated fraud implicating top scientists, public health officials, and U.S. intelligence agencies. It underscores the catastrophic fallout of a system where Big Pharma, globalist institutions, and compliant media alliances weaponized fear — and genetic engineering — to destabilize societies, vaccinate populations against their will, and erode civil liberties.
Key takeaways:
• The Trump administration’s revamped COVID-19 web portal claims the virus escaped from a Wuhan lab, citing suppressed evidence about SARS-CoV-2’s unnatural traits and faulty “natural origin” narratives.
• Dr. Anthony Fauci and allies colluded to bury lab-leak proof, per Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures, while promoting debunked wet-market theories.
• Congressional reports, FBI analyses, and whistleblower testimonies reveal a global bioweapon cover-up, tying Fauci-funded research to Wuhan labs and the rise of mRNA “depopulation vaccines.”
The case against natural origins
The White House’s 10-page dossier dismantles the myth of a “wet market” origin, citing five irrefutable points:
1. Mutations that don’t occur in nature: The virus’s genetic code lacks markers common in wild coronaviruses, strongly suggesting genetic manipulation.
2. Single human introduction: Every global case traces to a sole, sudden outbreak cluster in Wuhan — statistically impossible under natural spillover.
3. Dangerous lab experiments: The Wuhan Institute’s “gain-of-function” research — funded by U.S. grants, including from Fauci’s NIH—posed known risks highlighted years before the outbreak.
4. Epidemiology defiance: Lab researchers reported flu-like symptoms in October 2019, six weeks before the first confirmed infections.
5. Absence of proof: No animal reservoir or intermediate host has been found despite years of global investigation.
Congressional investigations, led by the House Select Subcommittee, confirmed these facts after unearthing records of Fauci and cronies suppressing whistleblower claims and falsifying safety protocols. Among the disclosed secrets: Fauci’s longtime collaborator, EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak, funded Wuhan lab director Shi Zhengli while co-authoring propaganda in The Lancet attacking lab-leak theories as “conspiracy.” His 2020 anti-conspiracy tract, penned with WHO’s Jeremy Farrar, deliberately omitted his financial stake in the Wuhan research—a conflict of interest rarely addressed by mainstream outlets.
Media censorship & the psychology of control
The lab-leak narrative was once erased from public discourse. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook censored voices questioning the pandemic’s origins, branding critics “conspiracy theorists.” Yet as the evidence weaponized by the White House reveals, these takedowns were tools of behavioral conditioning: shut down dissent, normalize lockdowns, and herd populations toward mRNA injections that tax the immune system while failing to prevent transmission.
“You couldn’t even say ‘lab leak’ without being silenced,” said analyst John Campbell, Ph.D., in a viral interview. “Big Tech and Big Pharma wanted to keep us trapped in their narrative… fear, testing, and vaccines.”
The psychological toll of this coordinated deceit is incalculable. Mandates for masks and lockdowns — even after scientists admitted they worsened outcomes — were orchestrated to prime populations for permanent surveillance and genetic control. “This wasn’t about saving lives — it was about dismantling freedom,” Campbell added.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Consider depression—18% of Americans now take antidepressants, a rise linked to marketing that equates sadness with “chemical imbalances” needing lifelong medication. “You’re not broken,” argues herbalist Sarah Lewis. “The myth that our bodies can’t heal themselves is peddled to sell pills.” Even conditions like ADHD, often traceable to environmental factors or developmental patterns, receive prescriptions before therapy or diet adjustments.
The downstream effects are dire. antidepressants and stimulants alter brain chemistry, trapping users in dependency. For the elderly, polypharmacy (multiple drugs) leads to dangerous interactions, yet pharmaceutical companies incentivize doctors to endorse this chaos. “It’s not medicine—it’s 21st-century snake oil,” says Snyder. Meanwhile, drug recalls, errors, and side effects—like the 1.5 million ER visits annually due to adverse reactions—reinforce a system where profits override patient safety.
A new paradigm emerges: Nature Over pharma
The antidote lies in nutrition-led healing, a shift now urgent in a country where diet-related disease costs $400 billion annually. Phytochemicals in botanicals like turmeric, ashwagandha, black walnut hulls, licorice root, and garlic contain anti-inflammatory and disease-fighting compounds unrivaled by pills. A foundational shift in medical training is critical, demanding doctors assess root causes like gut health, inflammation, and nutrient deficiencies instead of reflexively reaching for scripts.
AI could disrupt this cycle, offering unbiased diagnostics unclouded by Big Pharma’s influence. Yet the path to reform faces hurdles: doctor retraining, public distrust of plant-based therapies, and dismantling policies propping up pharmaceutical interests. “Change requires courage,” says Lewis. “But what’s more courageous than refusing to accept disease as inevitable?”
Meanwhile, grassroots movements champion whole-food diets, clean water, and organic farming, proving prevention is cheaper than pills. Epidemic Solutions, a nonprofit, has shown that communities reducing junk food intake cut diabetes rates dramatically. These successes hint at a future where healers inspire resilience instead of dependency.
A generation raised on ADHD meds and diet culture risks passing these habits to theirs, perpetuating cycles of illness. Yet possibilities linger: restoring trust in nature, remolding medicine, and ending Big Pharma’s stranglehold.
In Snyder’s words, it’s a battle between “healing and capitalism.” The choice is clear—but will we, as a society, step off the pill conveyor belt and reclaim wellness? The answer may determine whether we leave a future worth living.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
In the pharmaceutical sector, the opioid crisis has highlighted the devastating consequences of industry influence. Drugs like OxyContin, which were aggressively marketed despite known risks of addiction, have contributed to a public health emergency that has claimed thousands of lives. The COVID-19 outdid the OxyContin scandal, in terms of scope and mortality, and the FDA continues to approve boosters of the same mRNA vaccine design in the wake of catastrophic devastation to people's lives and livelihoods.
The FDA’s decision to remove pharmaceutical industry representatives from its advisory committees is a crucial step toward restoring public trust and ensuring that regulatory decisions are made in the best interest of public health. As Commissioner Makary noted, “We need to ensure that the FDA’s decisions are based on sound science and not corporate interests.” The success of this policy will depend on the FDA’s continued commitment to transparency and the active involvement of patients and caregivers in the regulatory process. Removing industry insiders is a great first step, but a new, independent FDA will need to immediately go to work at dismantling all the systems and policies that have enabled industry to dominate the government for years.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Trump’s January executive order suspended offshore wind lease approvals and mandated environmental reviews, but the Empowered Wind stoppage is the first major enforcement step. “The administration is drawing lines,” said analyst William Beatty, noting parallels to past rollbacks of environmental regulations for energy projects.
Environmental impact concerns take center stage
While proponents cite offshore wind’s carbon-free benefits, studies underscore risks such as habitat disruption, noise pollution for marine life and sediment disturbance. The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science notes that pile-driving can disturb fish and endangered whales, though turbines may also act as artificial reefs.
Critics argue the Biden team overlooked these issues in its 2023 approvals. “The cumulative environmental effects were merely mentioned,” said Dr. Julia Ford of the center, underscoring gaps in impact assessments. Meanwhile, Trump allies argue the pause allows space to properly weigh development with conservation.
A crossroads for energy policy, economy and ecology
The Empire Wind decision reflects a national reckoning with energy policy: Should the U.S. accelerate renewables at all costs, or prioritize rigorous oversight to protect environment and economic stability? Trump’s critics see this halt as a step backward for climate progress, while supporters view it as a check on executive overreach.
As Equinor prepares legal challenges and New York mobilizes political defenses, the case spells uncertainty for wind energy’s future and underscores how deeply politics now intertwines with environmental and economic agendas. For millions of Americans facing soaring energy costs—and communities pinning hopes on green jobs—this could foreshadow prolonged conflicts between rapid transition and cautious governance.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
FDA to bar pharma employees from advisory committees
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Martin Makary has restricted employees of pharmaceutical companies and other regulated industries from serving as official voting members on the agency's advisory committees.
In a post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, Makary acknowledged the longstanding concerns about the perceived closeness of the FDA to the pharmaceutical industry.
"While the FDA should be partnering with industry to ensure a user-friendly review process, the scientific evaluation of new products should be independent," Makary said. "Industry employees are welcome to attend FDA advisory committee meetings, along with the rest of the American public, but having industry employees serve as official members of FDA advisory committees represents a cozy relationship that is concerning to many Americans."
Under the new rules, which will be effective immediately, the FDA will strengthen the role of patients, caregivers and independent medical experts in advisory committee discussions. Industry representatives can still attend meetings and provide testimony, but they will no longer have voting or decision-making authority unless explicitly required by law.
"Public trust in the healthcare-industrial complex is at an all-time low. We need to restore impeccable integrity to the process and avoid potential conflicts of interest," Makary said.
Makary is fulfilling his promise to curb Big Pharma influence and restore public trust
The decision follows years of criticism from public health advocates, including U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has accused the FDA of acting as a "puppet of Big Pharma and Big Food." The agency has faced scrutiny over regulatory decisions perceived as overly favorable to industry, including fast-tracked drug approvals and lax conflict-of-interest enforcement.
During the confirmation hearing of Makary in March, he already raised concerns about conflicts of interest on FDA advisory panels.
Makary, a British-American surgeon and public health expert from Johns Hopkins University, is known for his work on reducing medical errors and his criticism of certain federal COVID-19 policies, including the dismissal of natural immunity and skepticism toward one-size-fits-all mandates.
In line with this, the Senate asked Makary for his insights about the sudden cancellation of a key FDA advisory committee (VRBPAC) meeting on updated flu vaccine strains. Makary denied involvement, but he criticized the U.S. system for often "rubber-stamping" World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations without independent scrutiny.
Back in 2022, Makary slammed the FDA for not convening VRBPAC before approving COVID-19 boosters, calling it "unconscionable." He declined to commit to reinstating the canceled flu vaccine meeting but promised future advisory panels will operate under stricter independence standards. Makary also raised concerns about conflicts of interest on FDA advisory panels, echoing Kennedy's calls for stricter ethics reviews.
"I want life sciences companies to thrive, but we need to call balls and strikes and to keep that independent scientific review process free of any conflicts," Makary said at the time.
Watch this news clip reporting how the Department of Government Efficiency is planning to layoff 3,600 probationary HHS employees.
https://www.brighteon.com/b65f4932-18fe-410f-a7f9-95241477e0b3
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Manufacturing surge under Trump sparks optimism amid concerns over economic strains
President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff-driven strategy to revive American manufacturing has shown early signs of success, with Federal Reserve data revealing a 5.1% annualized gain in factory output for the first quarter of 2025. The sector grew at a 0.3% monthly pace in March, marking a slowdown from February’s 1% surge, but signaling sustained momentum in reshaping the U.S. industrial landscape. While the White House heralds this as proof of a “manufacturing renaissance,” economists caution that near-term disruptions, inflation risks and structural challenges could temper long-term gains.
Federal Reserve data indicates growth, but at easing rate
The latest Fed report shows manufacturing activity expanded for a second consecutive month in March, albeit at a slower clip, amid a backdrop of aggressive trade policies under Trump. The sector, which accounts for roughly 10% of U.S. GDP, rebounded sharply after contracting in late 2024. A 1% year-over-year increase in factory output underscores Mr. Trump’s emphasis on tariffs and trade reshoring.
President Trump framed these early gains as proof of his strategy’s viability: “I can do it the easy way or the hard way,” he told reporters in March. “The results are going to be 20 times greater. This country’s going to boom.”
The data supports White House claims of a turnaround: February alone saw 10,000 manufacturing jobs added, reversing a trend of 9,000 monthly losses under the Biden administration. The automobile sector led the rebound, adding 8,900 jobs after shedding 27,300 under prior policies.
Administration praises “game-changing” policies, skeptics highlight risks
While the White House credits tariffs — including 145% duties on select Chinese goods — for luring factories back, critics warn of unintended consequences.
“The U.S. economy faces a challenging and likely economically damaging transition period,” said ING analysts, citing tariff-driven cost pressures on consumers and businesses. Slips in small business optimism and consumer sentiment reflect inflation fears, even as broader economic indicators like job growth (228,000 new positions in March) and a cooling inflation rate (2.4%) remain strong.
Economists like Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, argue tariffs risk becoming an “own goal,” hiking production costs for U.S. manufacturers and households. Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that tariffs often shrink overall trade volumes without fixing deficits, which hit record highs during Trump’s first administration and continue to grow.
“The end result is less imports and exports — not a balanced solution,” he said.
Cornell professor Arthur Wheaton criticized the administration’s erratic trade diplomacy, calling it “disruptive” for businesses. “You need more than tariffs to build factories,” he said.
Historical context: Why manufacturing’s comeback is fragile
The U.S. manufacturing decline is decades in the making. At its postwar peak in the 1970s, nearly 20 million Americans worked in factories, producing 25% of total employment. By late 2024, manufacturing employed only 8% of workers.
Automation, globalization and U.S. trade policies accelerated this shift. MIT research shows regions hit hardest by 2000s-era Chinese imports still struggle with job dislocations. “Modern factories don’t need as many workers,” said Oxford expert Abby Samp, noting that reshoring may boost production but not necessarily employment.
Vice President JD Vance and Trump have framed this loss as a social crisis, pushing tariffs as a nationalist remedy. But skeptics argue free trade’s legacy — cheaper goods, higher corporate profits — has deep economic and political roots. “This isn’t a repeat of the past. The world has changed,” said Spectra Markets’ Brent Donnelly.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Pfizer faces legal backlash: Texas, Kansas, and more states begin to challenge Prep Act Immunity Shield
In a bold move to hold pharmaceutical giants accountable, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken his fight against Pfizer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The appeal, filed on Wednesday, challenges the federal court's dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Pfizer of making false and misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. This legal battle is not just about one state; it is a broader challenge to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which has shielded vaccine makers from liability for years, allowing them to operate with impunity.
• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appeals a federal court ruling, arguing that state consumer protection laws should supersede the federal PREP Act's liability shield.
• Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach files a lawsuit alleging Pfizer violated previous consent judgments by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
• Similar lawsuits in Utah and North Carolina challenge the PREP Act's broad immunity, with some courts ruling that certain claims fall outside the act's protections.
Texas appeals, challenging Prep Act immunity
Texas sued Pfizer in state court in November 2023, alleging that the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by misleading the public about the efficacy and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The state claims that Pfizer capitalized on the public's fear and uncertainty, touting the vaccine as a "miracle cure" and leading consumers to make choices they would not have otherwise made. This, the state argues, resulted in billions of dollars in profits for Pfizer at the expense of public trust and health.
In January 2024, Pfizer successfully moved the case to federal court, where it was dismissed in December 2024. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, accepted Pfizer's argument that the PREP Act's liability shield protected the company from such claims. However, Texas is now appealing this decision, arguing that the PREP Act's protections do not extend to consumer protection cases brought by the state.
Texas' brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asserts that the PREP Act's liability shield "only extends to claims 'for loss'" and does not shield against consumer protection cases filed by the state. The state argues that the PREP Act's immunity shield blocks claims involving the "administration" of a covered product to an individual but does not extend to "sovereign consumer protection suits." Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), supports Texas' position, stating, "The Texas District Court’s one-page dismissal is a prime example of the outmoded knee-jerk reaction that anything goes under PREP."
Kansas lawsuit: a stronger case with historical context
Meanwhile, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has filed a similar lawsuit in state court, alleging that Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. What sets the Kansas case apart is the inclusion of three previous consent judgments from 2008, 2012, and 2014, in which Pfizer agreed not to make misleading claims about its products. These agreements, Flores argues, form the "centerpiece" of Kansas' case and provide a stronger legal foundation.
Kobach's lawsuit alleges that Pfizer used "denial and delay" tactics, confidentiality agreements, and an extended study timeline to conceal significant safety concerns and critical data about the vaccine. The lawsuit states, "Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
WHO Pandemic Treaty sparks global debate over sovereignty and Big Pharma influence
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reached a contentious agreement on a legally binding Pandemic Treaty, aimed at unifying global health responses to future crises like the coronavirus pandemic. However, the deal’s rapid approval has ignited fierce criticism from health freedom advocates and nations wary of encroaching on sovereignty or empowering pharmaceutical giants. Officials like Brazilian negotiator Deisy Ventura argue the treaty symbolizes progress in post-pandemic collaboration, but skeptics warn of undemocratic overreach.
The treaty’s objectives and growing backlash
Approved after three years of negotiations, the "International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response" mandates member states to enhance data sharing, strengthen surveillance systems and collaborate on vaccine and drug development. Revolving around equitable access to medical resources and early outbreak detection, the treaty seeks to avoid the inequities of the 2020–2023 pandemic, when wealthier nations cornered vaccines—leaving poorer countries vulnerable.
Yet, critics emphasize the treaty’s problematic ties to entities like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, a major funder of global health initiatives, and pharmaceutical companies influencing its terms. The treaty’s proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), designed to accelerate drug development by streamlining genetic data exchange, alarms privacy advocates. They argue it risks ceding control of medical research to private corporations, exacerbating profit-driven healthcare.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus framed the treaty as a "significant milestone" for multilateralism, citing it as proof nations can coalesce despite geopolitical divides. However, global health consultant Nina Schwalbe acknowledged the deal lacked muscle, with no enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance during crises. "There’s no way to compel nations to share, which means history could repeat itself," she warned, referencing the U.S.’s vaccine hoarding during the 2020 crisis.
Sovereignty and enforcement: The deal’s Achilles’ heel
Central to the backlash is the treaty’s demand that countries relinquish 10% of vaccine and treatment manufacturing capacity to the WHO, with an additional 10% allocated at subsidized rates for poor regions. While intended to ensure equitable access, critics argue this infringes on national production autonomy. Anne-Claire Amprou, France’s global health ambassador, defended the compromise as "a fair give-and-take," but African and Latin American delegates revealed tensions over unequal power dynamics.
Alexandra Finch of Georgetown University underscored concerns about financial obligations, noting developing nations must enact pandemic plans "subject to available resources" — a loophole permitting underfunded countries to ignore them. Meanwhile, the treaty’s reliance on "mutually agreed" technology sharing between nations leaves gaps for pharmaceutical firms to resist transparency. Michelle Childs of DNDi pointed to clauses allowing public health authorities to mandate open-source research for pandemic-related products. Still, absent strict penalties for noncompliance, the system’s success hinges on goodwill—an uncertain prospect in an era of global competition.
The treaty’s proponents frame these terms as pragmatic steps, but opponents like health freedom advocates decry its vagueness. "It’s one-sided," said a source, calling attention to the WHO’s opaque ties with funders like Gates. They view the pact as a Trojan horse for corporate interests, enhancing Big Pharma’s influence in low-income nations.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Autism rates reach 1-in-31 as HHS Secretary Kennedy warns of “unprecedented crisis”
A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows autism now affects 1 in 31 U.S. children by age 8, marking a 16.1% increase from findings two years earlier. The soaring numbers have prompted a fierce debate over causes, with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling the rise an “unprecedented epidemic” and framing it as a crisis “a thousand times more threatening than COVID-19.” At the heart of the controversy is Kennedy’s insistence on exploring potential links to vaccines — viewed as heretical by mainstream scientists — and the growing demands from advocacy groups for transparency and systemic reform.
CDC report reveals steep increase in autism prevalence
The CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network survey, published April 15, 2025, found 1 in 31 children born in 2014 are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by age 8, up from 1 in 36 in 2020. The rise, described as “astounding” by Kennedy, reaches 1 in 20 boys and 1 in 12.5 in California, the highest recorded rate in the U.S. The CDC attributes the surge partly to greater awareness and diagnostic improvements, but Kennedy dismisses this explanation. “Doctors in the past weren’t missing cases,” he stated, accusing authorities of ignoring environmental factors and pharmaceutical influence.
The climb is stark compared to 1992, when ASD prevalence was 1 in 150. By 2000, it was 1 in 150, rising to 1 in 44 by 2018 and 1 in 36 by 2020. Kennedy’s HHS now calls for urgent research into these environmental triggers, including vaccines. “By September, we will know what caused this epidemic, and we’ll eliminate those exposures,” he vowed at a Cabinet meeting earlier this month, pledging to assemble a global team of scientists.
Kennedy’s crusade against vaccine safety paradigms
An outspoken critic of the system, Kennedy has long tied childhood ASD to neurotoxic additives in vaccines, such as aluminum adjuvants. His stance clashes with the scientific consensus, which has repeatedly discredited the vaccine-autism link through multiple studies. Yet his appointment as HHS Secretary — bolstered by President Donald Trump’s directive to investigate ASD origins — has injected urgency into the debate.
Kennedy’s initiatives include revamping the National Institutes of Health to prioritize environmental and genetic ASD research over drug development. “The risks of this crisis are beyond imagine,” he said, citing costs including lost productivity and lifelong care. His team has also launched efforts to reform the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which shielded manufacturers from liability, critics argue, discouraging safety transparency.
Skeptics, however, question his approach. Kristyn Roth of the Autism Society of America warned the "@ EpochTimesHealth" that Kennedy risks “going backward” by resurrecting “debunked theories.” Experts like Dr. Alex Kolevzon, director of Mount Sinai’s Seaver Autism Center, counter that “vaccines do not cause autism” and dispute the “epidemic” framing, noting the rise reflects better detection rather than a true increase in cases.
Advocates push for transparency amid rising parental concerns
Parent advocates, meanwhile, argue the system has failed families like Noah’s mother, who recounted her son’s regression after an MMR vaccine injury. Her journey inspired an autism-focused conference and a nonprofit offering holistic healing solutions, emphasizing diet and environmental detox.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Implications: Why this matters for public trust and health policy
The debate transcends academia. About 51% of U.S. adults express vaccine hesitancy or opposition, according to Autism Investigated. Beyond personal choice, the lack of transparency fuels systemic distrust. “When journals bury data or researchers face gag orders, it erodes faith in public health,” said Dr. Helen Ratajczak, a former CDC contractor.
Kirsch argues that the scientific method itself is under strain: “You can’t prove a negative—like no vaccine-autism link—because that requires infinitely disproving every possible cause.” He urges independent trials using direct parent interviews, a method most institutions avoid.
The CDC has been reluctant to address these concerns. It faces calls—led by advocates—for an open congressional hearing on William Thompson’s role, litigation over data suppression, and voluntary withdrawals of fraudulent research from journals.
Seeking truth in the face of scientific conundrum
As the JAMA Pediatrics study’s credibility unravels, the urgency for honest science grows. With advocates presenting stark evidence and institutions resisting reckoning, the public is left navigating a maze of conflicting claims. “This isn’t just about vaccines,” said Dr. Jessica Rose, a physician quoted in Kirsch’s findings. “It’s about who gets to define truth when children’s futures are at stake.”
Until transparency and independent peer review prevail, the debate—rooted in errors, fraud and buried data—will continue to haunt public health discourse. For now, families, researchers and policymakers remain in limbo, awaiting answers that may demand confronting uncomfortable realities.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
FDA cracks down on Big Pharma influence, but conflicts remain
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to remove pharmaceutical industry employees from its advisory committees in an effort to restore public trust and reduce corporate influence.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary announced the policy shift on Thursday, April 17, framing it as a move toward "radical transparency." But while the change sounds like a win for accountability, critics argue that deep-seated conflicts of interest – from consulting fees to research funding – will still linger.
For decades, the FDA has faced accusations of being too close to the companies it regulates. Advisory committees, which help guide the agency’s decisions on drug approvals and safety, have often included scientists and doctors with financial ties to pharmaceutical giants. While these experts bring valuable knowledge, their industry connections raise concerns about impartiality.
Makary acknowledged this problem, stating that while collaboration with industry is necessary for efficiency, scientific evaluations must remain independent. The new policy bars direct employees of drug companies from serving on these panels, but they can still attend meetings as observers.
Despite the ban, the FDA's announcement leaves room for exceptions. If a committee requires specialized expertise only available from an industry insider, that person may still be allowed to participate. Additionally, some panels are legally required to include non-voting industry representatives under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997.
More troubling, however, are the indirect conflicts. Many committee members – though not direct employees – have received consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from drugmakers.
For example, Dr. Paul Offit – a prominent vaccine expert on the FDA's advisory panel – co-invented a rotavirus vaccine later commercialized by Merck. His hospital holds the patent, which Merck licenses – a financial entanglement that critics say blurs objectivity.
Kennedy's push for cleaner committees
The move aligns with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s broader campaign to root out corporate influence in federal health agencies. Kennedy has been vocal about his distrust of the FDA's relationship with Big Pharma, calling for stricter conflict-of-interest rules.
Earlier this year, he pledged to replace advisory members with financial ties to industry – a promise that may now be gaining traction. Yet skeptics question whether this policy goes far enough.
A 2021 investigation found that every member of the FDA committee that authorized Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines had ties to pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, a recent review of a heart device panel revealed that 10 of 14 doctors had financial connections to manufacturer Abbott.
Public confidence in the FDA has eroded, particularly after controversial decisions during the pandemic. The agency’s abrupt cancellation of a key vaccine advisory meeting earlier this year fueled suspicions of political interference. Meanwhile, whistleblowers have accused the FDA of rushing approvals under industry pressure – a perception Makary hopes to change.
By elevating patient and caregiver voices, the FDA aims to counterbalance corporate influence. But unless it also addresses the web of financial ties among supposedly "independent" experts, critics argue that real reform remains elusive.
Watch Robert Scott Bell and Nicole Mueller-Yuri discussing why a shakeup of the FDA's advisory boards is a good thing in this clip.
https://www.brighteon.com/2c8dc801-1037-4a05-9ad4-7cd1b3613346
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Toward a new era of accountability in public health
As the global health community confronts these revelations, the stakes remain high. The study’s publication in a Nature journal — Springer Nature’s Scientific Reports — signals a potential reckoning for academic institutions accused of prioritizing corporate interests over truth. For critics, it’s a call to overhaul death certification protocols and reassess vaccine policies. Dr. Clayton Baker, an internal medicine physician, summed it up: “The over-reporting being exposed here wasn’t just a mistake — it was a choice that eroded trust in everything from virology to public policy. Now, the pressure to answer for that is undeniable.”
As debates rage over pandemic casualties and the messaging that shaped them, the Athens research stands as a beacon for reform. It challenges institutions to prioritize scientific rigor over compliance, transparency over power and humanity over haste — a lesson for an era still grappling with loss, truth and accountability.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Public advocacy and the architects’ petition
Over 1,500 architects, engineers and scientists have signed a petition demanding scientific reevaluation of WTC collapses. Their claims highlight video evidence of symmetrical collapse, molten steel traces and explosions fitting controlled demolition patterns, which NIST has dismissed as secondary phenomena.
“Public skepticism remains because key evidence was never adequately addressed,” contends Emlyn Thomas, a structural engineer and petition signatory. NIST has rejected reanalysis, citing sufficient data in its original report.
The path forward for 9/11 legacies
As debates over WTC 7 resurface, Johnson’s inquiry underscores the enduring challenge of balancing skepticism with institutional credibility. While supporters argue unprecedented access to documents could resolve lingering doubts, detractors caution against politicizing unresolved historical trauma.
For Johnson, the goal is clear: “The American people deserve the truth.” Others worry this revival risks overshadowing established narratives of resilience and unity. Whether the hearings uncover new truths or rekindle old suspicions, their outcome will shape how future generations view both the events of 9/11 and the government’s transparency. As Mel Gibson succinctly stated in a viral post, “It’s time for the truth.”
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Supporters praised Brabeck-Letmathe’s experience in navigating corporate-government collaboration, but dissenters argue his interim role distracts from urgent issues like supply chain ethics. “This isn’t just a boardroom shuffle — it’s a coup for central planners,” said Scott Stern, a columnist for Breitbart. “Brabeck’s appointment signals that whoever leads WEF, the goal remains the same: global control without accountability.”
The WEF as a nexus of power and controversy
The WEF’s roots trace back to a 1971 gathering of European businessmen seeking to improve corporate strategy. Over decades, it expanded into a platform hosting presidents, central bankers and UN officials, its annual Davos summit dubbed “the annual costume ball for the super-rich” by critics. Yet, its influence grew through the U.N.’s post-1990s sustainability agenda and partnerships with think tanks like McKinsey.
Critics argue the WEF’s evolution mirrored globalization’s tilt toward unchecked corporate power, with leaders like Schwab promoting “stakeholder capitalism” as an alternative to democratic accountability. The “2030 slogan” — though revised as unconnected to Schwab — remains central to its brand, casting doubt on its rhetoric of transparency.
A new era? Vigilance rules
As Brabeck-Letmathe assumes his role, globalist critics contend this transition will neither dilute nor delay the WEF’s overarching agenda. With probes into Schwab’s alleged misconduct and the interim leader’s contentious heritage, the forum faces amplified scrutiny. Yet, the interconnected nature of its flagship projects—including carbon credit schemes and digital ID frameworks — suggests further battles for autonomy over resources and data.
For now, vigilance is the rule: As the WEF prepares for its 2026 summit, the stakes of its vision have never been higher—or more personal.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The future of war crimes & whistleblowers
The White House’s about-face comes too late for millions harmed by the scandal: elderly sent to nursing homes to die, small businesses bankrupted, and freedom of assembly erased. The site now openly blames Andrew Cuomo’s “Send Them to the Nursing Homes” policy for tens of thousands of deaths—a charge critics say pales compared to Fauci’s culpability.
Yet the implications stretch far beyond one administration. The Wuhan lab’s ties to U.S. bioweapon grants, paired with WHO’s brazen cover-up, suggest a globalist agenda to engineer crisis for profit and population control.
The White House's latest admissions are facts that were shared by NaturalNews. com and other independent journalists back in 2020. COVID-19 was a well-planned construct, as evidenced by global coordination on pandemic brainwashing (Event 201), the rollout of PCR testing systems designed to provide material confirmation of a specific disease, lock people down in their homes, and deprive individuals of their civil liberties.
The obfuscation of the origins of COVID-19 were deliberate and planned as well, with leading public health officials around the globe - led by Fauci - mobilizing to claim with scientific certainty that the virus was of natural origins, with no evidence to support their obfuscation. These were people in positions of authority with knowledge on coronavirus gain-of-function. They were behind the development of pandemic messaging and laboratory bioweapons development!
This well-planned pandemic construct was designed to unleash the mRNA genetic experiments, which were already modeled to transcribe the spike protein of the “mystery virus” in human cells, perpetuating a depopulation program further.
These entities failed to implement their vaccine passport system into totality, but pre-planned that as well. Furthermore, the take down and control of medical systems with this pandemic construct messaging, bio-terror propaganda and liability protections for hospitals and vaccine experiments, led to the mass devastation of human lives, mass medical error and wrongful death, covered up by layers of planned mandates and orchestrated confusion through social distancing, shutdowns, and isolation orders.
As the White House’s lab-leak admission takes hold, one question haunts: If our institutions systematically buried the truth about the origin — and aims — of SARS-CoV-2, what other lies have they propagated? What safeguards remain against the next engineered pandemic, or the next injection of genetic code into our children’s cells?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Trump weighs tying U.S. drug prices to cheaper global rates, sparking pharma backlash
The Trump administration is exploring a policy to tie U.S. prescription drug prices to the lower costs paid by other developed nations in a move that pharmaceutical companies are calling an “existential threat.”
With Americans paying nearly three times more for medications than patients abroad, President Trump aims to narrow this gap, reviving a proposal from his first term that could save taxpayers at least $85 billion over seven years. Despite Biden’s drug price negotiations, U.S. costs remain staggeringly higher. For example, the blood thinner Eliquis will cost Medicare $295 per month in 2026, compared to $20 in Japan and $114 in Sweden.
Pharma pushes back amid pricing fears
Industry sources told Reuters that government health officials confirmed the policy is under consideration, with one calling it the “biggest existential threat to the industry and U.S. biosciences innovation.” The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has lobbied against the idea, arguing it would stifle drug development. “I don’t think the administration fully understands the impact that policy could have on innovation in the U.S.,” said one unnamed executive. “It will be disruptive for the entire healthcare market, not just pharmaceuticals.”
A revived Trump-era proposal
The plan mirrors a 2020 effort to implement "most favored nation" pricing for Medicare, which was blocked in court. That proposal sought to peg U.S. prices to those in countries like Canada and the U.K., where governments negotiate directly with drugmakers. Analysts note that even with Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which allowed Medicare to negotiate prices for the first time, U.S. costs remain far higher. For example, of the first 10 drugs targeted under Biden’s program, negotiated prices were still more than double (and sometimes five times higher) than those in other wealthy nations.
The policy would likely be rolled out through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees healthcare programs for 160 million Americans. However, experts warn of logistical hurdles. For example, they claim implementing international reference pricing would require significant manpower, but CMS is facing staffing cuts.
Global comparisons highlight U.S. disparities
Data underscores the severe pricing divide: The U.S. has the highest drug costs globally, despite slower availability in some countries. A 2022 JAMA study found 92% of new medicines were available in the U.S., versus 80% in Germany. But without transparency in foreign pricing because some nations don’t disclose negotiated discounts, U.S. officials may rely on estimates, potentially skewing comparisons.
Critics warn drugmakers could retaliate by raising prices abroad to offset U.S. cuts. For example, they could try to renegotiate contracts with reference countries to bring in higher revenue abroad. Such moves could neutralize the policy’s impact, leaving American patients vulnerable to continued high costs.
The proposal arrives amid broader Trump administration efforts to slash federal spending, including downsizing agencies like the FDA and CMS. While supporters argue these cuts reduce waste, opponents say they undermine healthcare oversight. Juliette Cubanski of KFF noted that while Trump’s focus on drug prices is “reasonable,” tangible results depend on “concrete legislative or regulatory action”, which is something his executive orders alone can’t guarantee.
A test of political will
As the Trump administration weighs linking U.S. drug prices to international benchmarks, the pharmaceutical industry braces for a fight. While the policy could deliver long-sought relief to patients, its success hinges on navigating legal obstacles, staffing shortages, and industry resistance. For now, the gap between U.S. and global drug costs remains a glaring issue.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Dramatic surge in pharmaceutical drug use reveals a nation SUFFERING in a HEALTH CRISIS, mental and physical
Imagine walking into a doctor’s office today feeling healthy only to leave with a prescription in hand. This is the paradox of American healthcare—a system that spends more per capita yet fails to deliver better outcomes. According to a recent KFF survey, 61% of U.S. adults are now on pharmaceutical drugs, a trend fueled by billions in TV ads and a profit-driven industry prioritizing pills over prevention. “The problem isn’t just over-medication—it’s the systemic brainwashing of patients,” explains health activist Dr. Jane Carter, a vocal critic of pharmaceutical trends. As one in five children swallow drugs for ailments like ADHD, and seniors become dependent on powerful medications, the question lingers: How did we let our health become reliant on a cycle of pills, profit, and power?
Main Points
• 61% of U.S. adults take at least one prescription drug, driven by aggressive pharmaceutical advertising and biased medical practices.
• Over $5 trillion annually is spent on healthcare, yet U.S. life expectancy lags behind 30+ nations.
• Elderly Americans are hardest hit, with 89% taking prescription medication, while millions face drug shortages due to reliance on imports from China and India.
• 78% of adults avoid hospitals due to exorbitant costs, yet medical debt plagues 100 million Americans.
• Removing Big Pharma ads on television is a start, but doesn't address Big Pharma's stranglehold on American doctors and medical education, which has a more powerful influence over patients and prescription practices.
The pharmaceutical empire thrives while patients suffer
The numbers are staggering. Pharmaceutical companies spent $15 billion on advertising in 2023 alone, a tactic that has tripled depression diagnoses since 2005. Women, sidelined as “emotional” or “hormonal,” are twice as likely as men to be prescribed antidepressants. Meanwhile, American boys are increasingly medicated for “behavioral issues,” with 23% of 17-year-olds now taking stimulants like Adderall—a categorization linked to schools dismissing normal boyhood energy as a “disorder.” Glenn Beck’s observation that our “feminized education system” pathologizes typical male behavior has gained traction, yet solutions remain elusive.
Worse still, 75% of essential medications are imported, with China and India supplying critical APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients). Reports of forced labor in Chinese factories, as documented by Exiger, add ethical wounds to the system’s already tattered reputation. “What happens when these imports are disrupted?” asks health journalist Mark Johnson. “We’re just one crisis away from a prescription nightmare.”
The system’s financial ambitions fuel its flaws. With healthcare costs surpassing 5 trillion, insurance giants like United Health Group see profits rise while premiums spiral $25,572 annually for families. Patients, saddled with $220 billion in debt, face endless denials and inflated bills—a structure that prioritizes profit over wellness. As Michael Snyder notes in his exhaustive analysis, “This isn’t healthcare—it’s a money machine cloaked in white coats.”
The illusion of symptom relief masks a root-cause crisis
The US’s approach to illness focuses on masking symptoms, not curing disease. Over three billion prescriptions are written yearly, yet chronic conditions like type II diabetes, heart disease, and cancer proliferate. These days, dietary and lifestyle interventions are rare in doctor’s offices, replaced by cocktails of pills guaranteed to generate repeat customers.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
FDA to remove Pharma reps from advisory panels, aiming to restore public trust
In a significant move to address long-standing concerns about industry influence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Thursday that it will remove representatives of pharmaceutical companies from its advisory committees. This decision, made by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, aims to restore public trust in the regulatory body and ensure that its decisions are made with the utmost integrity and independence.
“Industry employees are welcome to attend FDA advisory committee meetings, along with the rest of the American public,” Makary stated in a public announcement. “But having industry employees serve as official members of FDA advisory committee members represents a cozy relationship that is concerning to many Americans. In fact, the FDA has a history of being influenced unduly by corporate interests.”
A history of industry influence embedded in government agencies
The FDA operates 32 advisory committees that cover a wide range of areas, including vaccines, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. While most committee members are federal employees or independent scientific experts, several panels have included representatives from pharmaceutical companies. For example, the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has had representatives from Pfizer and Dynavax at recent meetings.
Critics have long argued that the presence of industry representatives, even as non-voting members, can subtly sway the opinions of voting members. This influence has been particularly evident in the approval of drugs and vaccines, where the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can conflict with public health priorities.
Makary emphasized the urgency of restoring confidence in the FDA’s integrity. “Public trust in the healthcare-industrial complex is at an all-time low,” he said. “We need to restore impeccable integrity to the process and avoid potential conflicts of interest.”
The decision to remove industry representatives from advisory committees is part of a broader effort to increase transparency and accountability within the FDA. This initiative aligns with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to “radical transparency” and the mitigation of perceived industry influence.
Strengthening patient voices, not industry agendas
As part of this new policy, the FDA will prioritize and elevate the role of patients and caregivers, ensuring that their voices are heard in the regulatory process. “While the FDA should be partnering with industry to ensure a user-friendly review process, the scientific evaluation of new products should be independent,” Makary explained.
The agency will continue to allow employees of regulated companies to attend and present their views at advisory committee meetings, but they will no longer serve as official members. Exceptions can be made in rare circumstances, such as when the scientific expertise in a specific area is only available from an employee of an FDA-regulated company, provided that the official strictly complies with applicable ethics requirements.
Examples of industry influence
The history of the FDA is riddled with examples of industry influence that have harmed public health. For instance, the approval of Vioxx, a pain reliever that was later found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, is a stark example of how industry pressure can lead to dangerous outcomes. Similarly, the widespread use of trans fats in processed foods, which were later banned due to their health risks, demonstrates how the food industry can push harmful products through regulatory loopholes. The evidence is everywhere, from a long list of cancer-causing synthetic dyes permeating American food products, to vaccines that are three times more likely to hospitalize children for the very infection that they are supposed to prevent!
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Trump administration halts major offshore wind project amid fears of “rushed” approvals and environmental compromises
The Trump administration has ordered an immediate halt to construction of the Empire Wind offshore wind project off New York’s coast, marking a sharp pivot in U.S. energy policy. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum cited concerns that the Biden administration’s 2023 approval of the $8 billion project was “rushed without sufficient analysis,” mandating a full review by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The pause capsizes an initiative critical to New York’s climate goals, drawing ire from Democratic leaders and labor groups while aligning with Trump’s broader strategy to prioritize traditional energy dominance and national security through stricter oversight mechanisms.
Political play or environmental caution? The tension over offshore wind
The Trump team’s move represents its latest effort to reverse Biden-era climate policies, capitalizing on perceived regulatory missteps. Burgum emphasized the “comprehensive reviews of federal wind projects” Trump mandated on his first day in office, signaling a commitment to energy policies favoring transparency and long-term scrutiny.
However, critics argue the abrupt order undermines public and private investment. “Halting construction of fully permitted energy projects is the literal opposite of an energy abundance agenda,” Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, told reporters. The industry group initially praised Trump’s January executive order to accelerate permitting but now condemns the contradiction between expediting processes and halting projects mid-construction.
Governor Kathy Hochul of New York responded sharply, calling the halt “federal overreach” and vowing to fight it “every step of the way.” Her defense underscores the project’s importance: Empire Wind was projected to power 700,000 homes annually, generate 1,000 jobs and 130 union apprenticeships, and revitalize Brooklyn’s green energy economy.
Jobs at risk: Empire wind suspension threatens employment goals and climate progress
The project’s suspension strikes at a critical moment for New York’s workforce. Labour advocates, such as Climate Jobs NY’s Esther Rosario, warned that thousands of jobs—many in hard-hit low-income communities—hang in the balance. “In two weeks, those workers won’t have a paycheck,” Rosario said, highlighting delays for Sunrise Park Terminal redevelopment, a key industry hub.
New York’s Climate Act mandates a 70% renewable grid by 2030, but delays like this compound setbacks the state has faced from inflation and permitting bottlenecks. Alexander Patterson of Public Power NY noted, “This is just the latest in a long line of delays—for policymakers, it’s an urgent wake-up call.”
Equinor, the Norwegian energy firm behind Empire Wind, stated it would “pursue legal remedies,” including potential appeals. The halt also destabilizes industry-wide confidence, as Rob Freudenberg of the Regional Plan Association warned: “Revoke permits every time the administration changes? That breaks all certainty for this sector.”
National security through energy dominance: A policy shift
Trump’s energy agenda frames fossil fuels and domestic resource control as pillars of national security, a stance echoed by allies like the ACP, which asserts wind power “is critical to digital dominance and lowering consumer costs.” Yet Interior’s actions contradict its previous advocacy, highlighting intra-industry divides.
The Biden administration’s push for offshore wind—part of a broader $2.7 trillion clean energy plan—had visions of 250,000 MW capacity by 2050, an ambition requiring 17,000 turbines. However, costs have surged by 65%, and critics question the feasibility of such targets without rigorous environmental and economic safeguards.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
A make-or-break quarter for Trump’s economic vision
The first quarter’s manufacturing gains offer a glimpse into Trump’s vision of a revitalized industrial base. For now, the administration points to soaring retail sales, robust job creation and improving ISM surveys as proof of progress. However, the Fed’s April report signaled a moderating pace—a reality that may foreshadow tougher months ahead.
With economists and manufacturers bracing for inflation spikes and supply chain shocks, the next quarter will test whether tariffs and trade deals can sustain the revival without destabilizing the broader economy. As one optimistic administration official put it: “America is back. He’s just getting started.” Skeptics, meanwhile, remain sharply divided over whether this spirit of renewal can outpace reality.
The U.S. economy’s trajectory hinges on whether the rebound can outlast the turbulence — and if history’s ghosts of deindustrialization can finally be laid to rest.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Pfizer has sought to affirm its immunity under the PREP Act and dismiss the Kansas case, but Flores is confident that the state's arguments will prevail. "Kansas v. Pfizer has an extra added benefit of three consent judgments, where Pfizer promised not to mislead the citizens of Kansas," Flores said. "Astonishingly, Pfizer claims these three consent judgments entered more than a decade ago are unrelated settlements that did not involve a vaccine subject to the PREP Act. I don’t buy it."
Other challenges to the Prep Act
The legal challenges to the PREP Act are not limited to Texas and Kansas. In Utah, a clinical trial participant, Brianne Dressen, sued AstraZeneca for breach of contract after the company failed to provide medical treatment for injuries sustained during the trial. In November 2024, a federal court ruled that the PREP Act's liability shield does not extend to breach-of-contract claims, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for other vaccine-related lawsuits.
In North Carolina, the Supreme Court of North Carolina overturned lower court decisions, ruling that the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination. This case, filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy who was vaccinated without consent, will now return to the North Carolina Court of Appeals to address questions of state law and the state Constitution.
The legal battles against Pfizer and the PREP Act are more than just a series of lawsuits; they are a call to action for transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. As Ray Flores of CHD put it, "The all-consuming reach of the PREP Act’s tentacles is being challenged once again." The outcomes of these cases could set important precedents, potentially stripping away the immunity shield that has protected vaccine makers from liability for years. The question remains: Will the courts finally hold these corporations accountable, or will the PREP Act continue to shield them from the consequences of their actions?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
U.S. withdrawal and the shift in global health leadership
The treaty’s ratification marks a pivotal moment in global health governance following the U.S.’s withdrawal from the WHO under President Trump. Despite rejoining under Biden, the U.S. will not sign the accord, signaling a retreat from global health leadership. Schwalbe called this "unfortunate," as pathogens respect no borders. Neil Vora of the Preventing Pandemics at the Source Coalition emphasized that the absence of the U.S. — the world’s largest biopharma producer — weakens collective readiness against zoonotic threats like avian flu or Marburg virus.
The pact’s success also underscores a rising power dynamic: nations like Brazil, China and G7 states now dominate pandemic planning. Ventura praised the move as a rejection of "U.S.-centric" approaches, noting the treaty adopts a holistic strategy to prevent pathogen spillover from animals — a shift she deems critical. However, China’s historically opaque response to outbreaks (as with SARS and the 2020 pandemic) complicates its pledge to be "more forthcoming about outbreaks."
A bipartisan Frankenstein
Critics on both left and right decry the treaty as an overreach. While left-wing activists argue it fails to democratize vaccine access or rein in corporate power, libertarian groups see it as a conduit for international "overreach." The debate mirrors broader discontent with institutions like the WHO, accused of politicizing health crises and sidelining smaller nations’ needs.
Pandemic readiness vs. sovereignty — A fragile balance
As nations prepare to formalize the treaty at the World Health Assembly in May, the stakes remain high. Its proponents view it as a lifeline in an age of multiplying epidemics, while skeptics warn of hidden costs to autonomy. The accord’s legacy may depend on whether its idealistic framework can enforce cooperation — or if its flaws will undermine the very goals of global health equity.
Vora sees the treaty as a "landmark," stressing that any prevention step is better than none. Still, he admits: "We’re starting from a baseline of distrust." For now, the world holds its breath — watching whether multilateralism can triumph over nationalism, or if the pandemic treaty becomes another casualty in the struggle between public health and power.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Groups such as Health Freedom Ohio and Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights are demanding rigorous safety studies and accountability for pharmaceutical companies. “There’s no liability for Big Pharma,” said Ms. Perry of the latter group, citing the lack of placebo-controlled vaccine trials. Parents like Scott Shoemaker, president of Health Freedom Ohio, insist the U.S. has “failed the most vulnerable” through vaccine mandates and corporate influence.
Technological tools are also emerging to bridge gaps in research. A planned open-source AI model, focusing on links between ASD and toxins, aims to aggregate studies acknowledging the vaccine-autism connection — a departure from mainstream models.
Scientific community contests the “epidemic” label
The belief that environmental exposures like vaccines drive ASD clashes with scientific consensus that genetics plays the largest role. Dr. Kolevzon noted the rise partly reflects evolving diagnostic criteria, and he stressed the dangers of vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation. “We’re seeing measles cases again because of this,” he said.
The CDC’s report also found ASD prevalence higher among Black and Hispanic children than white peers — a disparity attributed to improved access to services. However, Kennedy and advocates argue it signals deeper inequities in environmental toxin exposure, which the HHS plans to investigate.
The road ahead – navigating science and advocacy in the ASD debate
As Kennedy’s September 2025 deadline looms, the ASD issue tests America’s trust in both science and activism. For families like Noah’s, the fight is personal: “The truth will win,” his mother said. Scientists caution, however, that deviating from evidence-based findings risks public health consequences.
The outcome could redefine vaccination protocols, public health governance and support for ASD communities. Whether Kennedy’s team uncovers a “Big Pharma” conspiracy or confirms the complexity of genetics and environment remains uncertain. One truth is clear: The stakes for America’s children — and its faith in science — are enormous.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
CDC considers scaling back universal COVID-19 vaccine recommendations
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is weighing a significant shift in COVID-19 vaccine guidance, moving away from universal recommendations toward a more targeted approach based on individual risk factors.
The agency’s advisory panel, meeting this week, signaled growing support for prioritizing vulnerable populations—such as older adults and those with underlying health conditions—while allowing personal choice for others. This potential change marks a pivotal moment in public health policy, acknowledging scientific nuance and the principle of informed consent over one-size-fits-all mandates.
A push for individualized recommendations
During the April 15 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC officials presented data indicating that 76% of a key subgroup now supports a "risk-based" approach for the 2025–2026 vaccine schedule, up from 67% in February. Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos of the CDC outlined three potential policy adjustments: maintaining the current universal recommendation, narrowing eligibility to high-risk groups only, or adopting a hybrid model covering all seniors while restricting younger, healthier individuals.
Dr. Jamie Loehr, an ACIP member and family physician, expressed cautious optimism about the shift. "I’m very happy that we’re seriously considering a risk-based recommendation," he said, though he worried it might downplay COVID-19’s ongoing risks. Meanwhile, some panelists, like Dr. Denise Jamieson of the University of Iowa, resisted the change, citing concerns about implementation challenges and potential insurance coverage gaps for those outside recommended groups.
Dr. Noel Brewer countered those who argue that risk-based approaches are ineffective. "There's not clear evidence at all that risk-based approaches are less effective. It's certainly something we've all talked about and something that some of the companies have shared for many years, but the data supporting that claim are not really there," he said.
Aligning with global standards and health freedom
The proposed shift brings the U.S. closer to policies in nations like the U.K. and Canada, where COVID-19 vaccines are advised primarily for high-risk demographics. Critics of universal mandates argue that blanket recommendations ignore natural immunity and individual health circumstances, while proponents of informed consent applaud the CDC’s willingness to reconsider.
Science, skepticism, and shifting priorities
Data presented at the meeting revealed modest vaccine effectiveness—below 50%—against hospitalization for the latest boosters, with prior infection contributing to immunity. Hospitalizations for COVID-19 have declined compared to the previous year. Dr. Oliver Brooks, an ACIP member, urged further study of how risk-based policies might impact long COVID rates, which affected millions in 2023.
The debate also reflects broader tensions under the new leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime advocate for vaccine safety scrutiny. His tenure has already spurred CDC downsizing and a renewed focus on chronic disease prevention.
The ACIP will finalize its recommendations in June, with the CDC expected to adopt them shortly after. If approved, the policy could ease pressure on healthy Americans to receive annual shots while ensuring protection for those most vulnerable. For advocates of health freedom, the move represents a long-overdue embrace of personalized medicine and transparent risk communication.
As Dr. Loehr observed, the challenge lies in messaging: ensuring the public understands COVID-19’s risks without fear-driven mandates. For now, the discussion signals a pivotal step toward restoring trust in public health—one grounded in choice, not coercion.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia