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
CDC’s dangerous gamble: Pregnant women and their unborn babies at put at unreasonable RISK from SIX toxic vaccines
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) insists that pregnant women need at least six vaccines, three of which are in a combination vaccine—COVID-19, flu, RSV, and Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis)—to protect themselves and their babies. But what the agency doesn’t advertise is the toxic cocktail of neurotoxins, foreign DNA, and heavy metals these shots inject directly into vulnerable mothers and their developing fetuses. With mounting evidence linking these vaccines to miscarriage, preterm birth, and neurological damage, why is the CDC doubling down on its reckless recommendations?
Key points:
• The CDC pushes four vaccines on pregnant women despite evidence of serious risks, including miscarriage and fetal harm.
• COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to a 33% drop in successful pregnancies, yet the CDC continues to recommend them.
• Flu shots contain mercury, a neurotoxin, and have been tied to a 4,250% spike in fetal death reports.
• The RSV vaccine, pushed by Pfizer, may increase preterm births and offers questionable protection.
• Tdap vaccines contain aluminum, a neurotoxin linked to autism, yet the CDC mandates them in the third trimester.
• Medical professionals once advised pregnant women to avoid taking drugs, but today insist that direct injections of toxic substances are necessary.
Pregnant women were once advised to avoid toxic substances and drugs during pregnancy
Medical professionals have long advised pregnant women to avoid taking drugs—including prescription medications, recreational substances, and even some over-the-counter remedies—unless absolutely necessary. This caution stems from several key concerns:
• Fetal development risks – Many drugs can cross the placental barrier, potentially interfering with critical stages of fetal growth. Certain medications have been linked to birth defects, developmental delays, or miscarriage.
• Lack of comprehensive studies – Ethical limitations mean few drugs are rigorously tested on pregnant women. As a result, the full effects of many substances on unborn babies remain unknown, leading doctors to err on the side of caution.
• Uterine contraction risks - Some herbal medicines are known to cause uterine contractions, leading to preterm labor, spontaneous abortion, or worse.
• Potential for addiction & withdrawal – Opioids, nicotine, and other addictive substances can cause neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), where newborns suffer withdrawal symptoms after birth.
• Impact on pregnancy health – Some drugs may increase risks of complications like preterm labor, low birth weight, or preeclampsia. Vaccine ingredients such as aluminum could cause different types of fetal malformations, damaging brain development and competing with essential nutrients.
The CDC’s reckless COVID-19 vaccine push
Despite COVID-19 rapidly mutating back in 2020 and posing minimal risk to pregnant women for years, the CDC aggressively promotes the mRNA shots, ignoring alarming data. A recent study of 1.3 million Czech women found vaccinated mothers had 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women. Another study in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth revealed that vaccinated pregnant women who contracted COVID-19 were more likely to miscarry than unvaccinated women.
Even more damning, Pfizer’s own clinical trials lost records for 234 pregnant women, and of the 36 tracked, over 80% lost their babies. Yet, the CDC still claims the shots are "safe and effective." The data clearly shows that the mRNA-induced spike proteins put strain on the pregnancy, leading to miscarriages. Even occupational exposure to recently vaccinated individuals is one of the concerns with mRNA technology, leading to secondary harms to pregnant women and their babies.
Jessica Rose, Ph.D., an immunologist, warns: "The data from recent studies supports clear harms, not benefits."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Trump administration probes publisher of influential COVID origins paper over alleged Fauci influence
The Trump administration is investigating whether the authors and publisher of a pivotal early COVID-19 study allowed Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top health officials to influence its conclusions in exchange for federal funding, according to documents obtained by The Disinformation Chronicle. The 2020 paper, titled "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," dismissed the lab-leak theory in favor of a natural zoonotic origin, shaping global discourse on the pandemic’s beginnings. Now, newly revealed Department of Justice (DOJ) letters suggest potential conflicts of interest — raising fresh questions about scientific transparency and political interference in public health.
The paper that shaped the pandemic narrative
Published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, "Proximal Origin" became one of the most cited scientific papers of the year, accessed over 6 million times and referenced by more than 2,000 media outlets. Its authors — including virologists Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry — initially privately expressed concerns that COVID-19 might have been engineered or accidentally leaked from a lab, according to emails later uncovered by congressional investigators. Yet the final paper concluded that a lab origin was "improbable," aligning with public statements from Dr. Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins.
Collins promoted it on the NIH blog, and Fauci cited it during a White House briefing, declaring its findings "totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human." Critics, however, allege the paper was weaponized to suppress legitimate debate — a claim bolstered by internal communications showing Andersen and Garry privately doubted their own conclusions.
Emails reveal behind-the-scenes pressure
Unredacted emails obtained through FOIA lawsuits reveal that in February 2020, Andersen told Fauci and Collins that SARS-CoV-2’s genome contained features that "look engineered." Days later, Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar — later the WHO’s chief scientist — urged revisions to the paper’s language, softening skepticism about lab manipulation. By March, the authors had pivoted, publicly dismissing lab-leak theories despite privately acknowledging gaps in their analysis.
Months after publication, Andersen received a $1.88 million NIH grant for pandemic research — a timing critics call suspicious. In sworn testimony, Andersen denied any quid pro quo, but documents reviewed by The Intercept contradicted his claims, showing the grant was finalized post-publication.
Justice Department’s fraud probe
In a March 2025 letter to Nature Medicine publisher Joao Monteiro, then-interim U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. questioned whether the journal’s editorial independence was compromised by financial ties to funders like the NIH. Martin, now leading a DOJ "Weaponization Working Group," cited potential violations of fraud and postal statutes, asking Monteiro to address allegations of misleading readers.
The probe has drawn backlash from media outlets like the New York Times, which warned of a "chilling effect" on scientific publishing. But transparency advocates argue the investigation is overdue. "When funders dictate conclusions, it corrupts the scientific process," said an anonymous NIH researcher in a Disinformation Chronicle essay.
A legacy of doubt and unanswered questions
Despite mounting evidence supporting the lab-leak theory — including assessments by the FBI and Department of Energy — Nature Medicine has refused to retract "Proximal Origin." An online petition by Biosafety Now demanding retraction has gathered 5,700 signatures, while congressional hearings have exposed flaws in the paper’s peer review.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The parallels to historical pharmaceutical scandals are chilling. Like Big Tobacco’s suppression of cancer data or Purdue Pharma’s deceptive opioid marketing, Pfizer’s actions suggest a pattern of profit-driven deceit. The difference? This time, the federal government became a willing accomplice, using mandates to force an untested product on the public while silencing dissent.
With Congress now demanding answers, Pfizer faces a crisis of credibility. If proven, the allegations reveal a dangerous collusion between corporate power and political agendas—one that sacrificed transparency, informed consent, and medical ethics for control. The question isn’t just whether Pfizer manipulated an election, but whether the American people will finally hold these entities accountable for the lies that upended their lives.
For those who resisted the narrative from the start, this investigation is vindication. For those who trusted the system, it’s a wake-up call. And for Pfizer, it may be the beginning of the end.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
As the case moves back to state court, it will now be up to Kansas to prove its claims under the state's Consumer Protection Act. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for vaccine litigation and the broader debate over vaccine safety and transparency.
A watershed moment in vaccine accountability
Judge Crabtree's decision marks a turning point in the legal landscape surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. By rejecting Pfizer's claim of immunity under the PREP Act, the court has opened the door for states to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable for deceptive marketing practices. As other states consider similar lawsuits, this ruling could serve as a roadmap for challenging the scope of the PREP Act and ensuring that vaccine manufacturers adhere to truthful and transparent practices. The case will now return to state court, where the full extent of Pfizer's alleged wrongdoing will be examined in a public forum.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The unanswered questions
• Long-term damage: If spike protein lingers for years, what does that mean for cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune risks?
• Informed consent: Were patients ever told their bodies might rewrite the vaccine’s code?
• Regulatory failure: Why did agencies fast-track these shots while ignoring red flags about mRNA stability?
The Nature study’s authors frame TENT5A’s role as a way to "enhance efficacy." But for millions already injured, "efficacy" is a euphemism for uncontrolled biological manipulation. The truth is clear: These shots were never as temporary as claimed. The question now is: How many lives will be forever altered by their hidden toll?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The role of Bill Gates
Bill Gates, long a key player in global health initiatives, has been a vocal advocate for universal flu vaccine research. His Foundations’ funding of research teams across the world has fueled significant advancements in the field. However, the alignment of these efforts with his own company, Microsoft, and his financial stake in pharmaceutical giants further complicates matters. As countries in developing nations have begun experiencing a dramatic increase in flu vaccine distribution, these regions have seen a corresponding rise in autoimmune diseases. Is Gates’ altruism genuine, or is there a darker agenda underpinning his philanthropy?
Despite the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s significant investment in flu vaccine research, their approach has often been criticized for prioritizing corporate profits over public health. The recent push for a universal flu vaccine is no exception. Critics argue that the foundation’s involvement may lead to a system where vaccines are designed not for their efficacy but for their marketability and profitability. With a history of partnerships with pharmaceutical giants and murky financial interests, it is essential for the public to remain vigilant and question the motives behind these endeavors.
Transparency and accountability needed first
The Trump administration’s investment in the Generation Gold Standard project comes under intense scrutiny for its lack of transparency. Moreover, how can the public trust new universal flu vaccines when over seven decades of annual shots have yielded terrible results? The NIH developed the current technology without public review, and the funding allocation process remains opaque. Echoing concerns from independent vaccine experts, Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former FDA vaccine expert now at Georgetown University, emphasized the importance of open scientific competition and transparency. “If you’re going to do this, have an open scientific competition for the best ideas. There should be transparency for the process of how to allot funding,” Goodman said.
The project’s ambitious timeline of having the vaccine ready for testing next year and available to the public within four years is nothing short of audacious. While rapid advancements in medical science are to be celebrated, the potential risks of rushing such a project cannot be ignored. Transparency and independent oversight are crucial to ensuring that public health remains the priority, not corporate profits.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Experts outlined several ways COVID-19 vaccines could be removed from the schedule:
• CDC Action: The CDC director could unilaterally reverse the recommendation or convene an advisory panel, as happened with the Rotashield vaccine in 1999 after it was linked to infant complications.
• FDA Intervention: The FDA could suspend EUA status based on safety data or mislabeling concerns.
• HHS Emergency Declaration: HHS Secretary Kennedy could terminate the PREP Act emergency declaration, which underpins EUAs. Former pharmaceutical executive Sasha Latypova argued this would be the fastest route, though she questioned whether political constraints would allow it.
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary hinted at a potential policy shift in a recent interview, stating, "I’d love to see the evidence to show that giving young, healthy children another COVID shot would help them, but that evidence does not exist."
The "Smart Moms Ask" campaign reflects growing scrutiny of COVID-19 vaccine policies for children, fueled by concerns over safety, transparency, and the appropriateness of emergency-use products in routine care. With federal agencies under pressure to reevaluate their stance, the coming weeks may determine whether the shots remain a standard recommendation—or if parental advocacy succeeds in reshaping public health policy.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Medical professionals and advocacy groups are uniting for action. Dalgleish, echoing advocates like Karl Jablonowski of Children’s Health Defense, urged immediate pauses: “The details here about AMH antibodies and follicular damage are screaming—stop these vaccines now.” Jablonowski emphasized that harms are not hypothetical; many vaccine victims “were harmed before [safety] studies began,” with research now “a damage assessment.”
Dr. Robert Chandler, MD, whose prior work exposed vaccine-linked fertility declines, highlighted broader societal stakes: “Nineteen months after mass mRNA rollouts, birth rate drops have occurred from Europe to Taiwan. This isn’t happenstance.”
A critical crossroads for reproductive rights and global health policy
The convergence of animal and human data paints a dire picture: mRNA vaccines may be eroding fertility with irreversible consequences. “If this applies to humans, it’s a generational crisis,” said Christensen. Critics argue that institutions prioritized profit and compliance over mothers’ rights, citing systemic failures to fund independent safety research.
As calls for vaccine skepticism grow, so does the urgency of alternatives — natural health practices, rigorous informed consent and independent journalism — stand as vital defenses for truth and autonomy. Protecting women’s bodies must come before corporate agendas.
In an era where trust has eroded, this study underscores a pivotal question: Can societies preserve true human liberty when mechanisms to perpetuate life itself are weaponized?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
CDC disbands advisory committee responsible for controlling infections in hospitals
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has disbanded a key advisory committee responsible for shaping national infection control guidelines in hospitals and healthcare facilities, a move critics warn could leave the U.S. vulnerable to emerging pathogens and antimicrobial resistance.
The decision, confirmed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), follows an executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at reducing federal advisory committees deemed "unnecessary." The abrupt termination of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) has drawn sharp criticism from medical professionals who argue the panel played a critical role in safeguarding patient and healthcare worker safety.
Established in 1991, HICPAC provided evidence-based recommendations on preventing healthcare-associated infections – including protocols for hand hygiene, isolation precautions and mask use. Hospitals across the nation adopted the guidelines put forward by the now-disbanded advisory committee.
The committee's dissolution, which took effect on March 31, was only communicated to members in May – months after scheduled meetings were canceled without explanation. HICPAC member Dr. David Weber called the move "disappointing and concerning."
"There is no other federal panel that can do this work," he continued. Weber, the president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), emphasizing that CDC-backed guidelines carry more weight than those from individual medical societies.
SHEA and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology likewise expressed disappointment in a joint statement. The two organizations warned that eliminating HICPAC "creates a preventable gap in national preparedness," particularly as antibiotic-resistant infections and emerging diseases pose growing threats.
From federal control to health freedom: How HICPAC's end shifts power to hospitals
Prior to its dissolution, the HICPAC was in the final stages of updating airborne pathogen guidelines – which have not been revised since 2007. The guidelines sought to incorporate lessons from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Infectious disease specialist Dr. Anurag Malani noted that the draft included contentious changes, such as allowing surgical masks instead of N95 respirators in some cases.
While the CDC maintains it remains committed to infection prevention, experts fear the absence of HICPAC’s structured input will lead to inconsistent standards across states. "You’d want to avoid seeing state and local health departments try to figure this out on their own," Malani said.
With archived webpages and stalled updates, the committee’s decades of work – 540 recommendations, with 90 percent adopted by the CDC – now risk becoming outdated. As healthcare systems grapple with post-pandemic challenges, the loss of HICPAC underscores a broader tension between federal streamlining and public health readiness.
However, one door opens when another closes. With the HICPAC disbanded, individual hospitals are now free to follow their own protocols and adjust them as they see fit instead of following a top-down approach. This lines up with the health freedom agenda prompted by the HHS, the CDC's parent agency, under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s leadership.
Watch this news report about representatives of the Department of Government Efficiency paying a visit to the CDC's headquarters.
https://www.brighteon.com/9e18aa81-0eff-44b2-8391-8244b9495817
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Australia’s vaccine cover-up: 35 died same day as COVID shot, but authorities ignored them
In a medical police state where blind obedience to government-mandated medical experiments is enforced, Australians are waking up to a chilling reality: their health officials have systematically ignored, downplayed, and concealed deaths linked to COVID vaccines. Newly uncovered documents reveal that 35 people died on the very day they received their shots—yet not a single case was thoroughly investigated by the government’s so-called safety watchdog. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has repeatedly assured the public that only 14 deaths out of 70 million doses were linked to vaccination, but the truth is far more damning. Behind closed doors, the TGA admits it never ruled out a connection for the vast majority of reported deaths—yet it refuses to investigate, refuses to acknowledge, and refuses to tell grieving families the truth.
Key points:
• 35 Australians died the same day they received a COVID vaccine, but the TGA completed causality assessments for only 24 of them.
• Not a single "day zero" death was referred to the Vaccine Safety Investigation Group (VSIG), despite the alarming temporal link.
• The TGA admits it considers all reported deaths as possibly linked to vaccination—yet publicly claims most are coincidental.
• Families of the deceased report no follow-up from the TGA, with some death reports mysteriously "lost" in the system.
• Autopsies often fail to provide answers, with deaths labeled "unascertained natural causes" despite occurring shortly after vaccination.
• A federal compensation scheme rejected 91.6% of claims, leaving thousands of vaccine-injured Australians without recourse.
The TGA’s black box of deception
For years, the TGA has assured Australians that it "closely reviews all deaths" following vaccination. But Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by Canberra Daily expose this as a lie. Of the 35 deaths that occurred on the same day as vaccination, 11 had no causality assessment at all—meaning the TGA didn’t even bother to look into them.
Dr. Suzanne Niblett, a researcher who uncovered these findings, called the negligence "unbelievable" and "inexcusable." She found that one in four deaths occurred within three days of vaccination, and 86% within six weeks—a pattern that should have triggered urgent investigations. Instead, the TGA dismissed them as mere coincidence.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that temporal association is a key factor in assessing causality, yet the TGA ignored it. Worse, 25% of reported deaths had no time-to-death information—raising the question: how can they claim to investigate when they don’t even have basic data?
Families abandoned, reports "lost"
Leon Anderson’s 30-year-old brother, Matt, died in his sleep six weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. Despite an autopsy, his death was labeled "unascertained natural causes." When Leon tried to get answers, he discovered the TGA had lost his brother’s death report—submitted by a doctor.
"The TGA’s response was shockingly nonchalant," Anderson wrote. "They told me to just resubmit it, as if losing critical medical reports was no big deal."
Matt’s case wasn’t isolated. The same vaccine batches linked to his death were associated with 160 adverse event reports, including 50 serious injuries—mostly heart and blood clotting issues. Yet the TGA refused to investigate further, claiming "limited information."
A system designed to fail
Dr. Rado Faleti?, director of COVERSE, a nonprofit supporting vaccine-injured Australians, said not a single injured or bereaved person has reported being contacted by the TGA for follow-up.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Hep B vaccine for newborns: A dangerous mandate, a needless vaccine, driven by profit, not science
Every newborn in America is injected with the hepatitis B (Hep 😎 vaccine within hours of birth—despite the fact that the disease is primarily transmitted through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. Why is the CDC pushing a vaccine meant for high-risk adults onto infants who face virtually no exposure? The answer lies in a web of corporate influence, skewed data, and a liability shield that protects pharmaceutical giants while putting babies at risk.
The CDC claims that up to 320,000 new Hep B infections occur annually, yet only about 10,000 cases are actually reported. Meanwhile, adverse reactions—from autoimmune disorders to neurological damage—are downplayed or ignored. With billions in profits at stake, the push to vaccinate every child appears less about public health and more about padding the pockets of Merck and GSK.
Key points:
• The CDC recommends the Hep B vaccine for all newborns, despite the disease being nearly impossible for infants to contract outside of rare maternal transmission.
• Clinical trials for the vaccine were minimal, with safety monitoring lasting only 4-5 days—no long-term studies were conducted.
• Adverse reactions include autoimmune disorders, neurological damage, and developmental delays, yet vaccine manufacturers face no liability.
• The mandate was expanded after the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shielded drug companies from lawsuits.
• A growing number of doctors and scientists argue the vaccine provides no benefit to most children while exposing them to unnecessary risks.
A questionable mandate with no scientific basis
Hepatitis B is a liver disease transmitted through blood and bodily fluids—primarily via unprotected sex, needle sharing, or from an infected mother during childbirth. The CDC admits that "almost all children and older adults infected with acute HBV recover completely with no lasting liver damage." So why vaccinate every baby at birth?
Before 1991, the CDC only recommended the vaccine for high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, IV drug users, and infants born to Hep B-positive mothers. But after the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established in 1988—protecting manufacturers from lawsuits—the CDC suddenly expanded the recommendation to all infants.
Attorney Aaron Siri, who obtained CDC records through a Freedom of Information Act request, found no evidence that Hep B has ever been transmitted in a school setting. "The Hepatitis B vaccine is a case study in agency capture," Siri wrote. "All children would not be required to take the shot if pharma didn’t stand to earn billions."
Dangers hidden in the fine print
The two Hep B vaccines given to newborns—Merck’s Recombivax HB and GSK’s Engerix-B—were tested in small, short-term trials with minimal safety oversight. The Recombivax trials involved only 147 infants, monitored for just five days after each dose. Despite this, adverse reactions—including fever, diarrhea, and respiratory infections—were reported in 10% of infants.
Post-marketing data reveals far more severe risks:
• Autoimmune disorders (lupus, multiple sclerosis)
• Neurological damage (Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalitis)
• Developmental delays (autism linked in some studies)
• Sleep apnea in premature infants
Heather Ray of Children’s Health Defense highlights another alarming fact: Newborns receive the same dose as adults, exposing their tiny bodies to neurotoxic aluminum adjuvants. "Aluminum is a heavy metal that can cross the blood-brain barrier," Ray warns. "It has been scientifically shown to cause autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases." It's also found in patients with Alzheimer's.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Canada’s COVID cover-up: Health officials swore secrecy to protect Trudeau from vaccine scandal
In a stunning betrayal of public trust, Canada’s top health officials—led by Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam—signed secret oaths vowing to conceal any information that might "embarrass" Justin Trudeau’s government during the COVID crisis. This Orwellian pact, buried in bureaucratic fine print, reveals the depths of corruption within a regime that prioritized political image over medical transparency. While Canadians were coerced into taking experimental mRNA injections—linked to heart inflammation, neurological damage, and even death—federal bureaucrats were busy shielding their leader from accountability. The Trudeau administration didn’t just silence dissent; it weaponized public health policy to enforce compliance, all while granting Big Pharma legal immunity. This is not governance—it is medical tyranny.
Key points:
• Secret oaths exposed: Nearly 30 senior health officials, including Dr. Tam, signed confidentiality agreements to suppress COVID vaccine information that could harm Trudeau’s reputation.
• Taxpayer-funded propaganda: The CBC and government-backed "experts" from Science Up First—funded with $1.75 million from Health Minister Patty Hajdu—drowned out legitimate concerns about vaccine risks.
• Dangerous contracts: Canada purchased 293 million vaccine doses for 38 million people—enough to inject every citizen seven times—while shielding Pfizer and Moderna from liability.
• Hidden injuries: Reports of severe adverse effects, including myocarditis and blood clots, were downplayed as the government quietly expanded its vaccine injury compensation program.
• Censorship as policy: Federal agencies systematically silenced critics, turning public health into a tool of political control.
The gag orders and the betrayal of public trust
The newly uncovered documents, obtained through Access to Information requests, confirm what skeptics long suspected: Canada’s pandemic response was less about science and more about damage control. The confidentiality pledges, signed by Dr. Tam and other high-ranking officials, explicitly warned that unauthorized disclosures could "result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada." In other words, truth-telling was forbidden if it made the government look bad.
This gag order extended across multiple departments, including Health, Industry, and even National Defence. Vaccine supply manager Alan Thom admitted in internal memos that the secrecy was so pervasive that individual non-disclosure agreements became redundant—because the entire bureaucracy was already operating under a culture of suppression.
The vaccine gold rush and the death of informed consent
While Canadians were told to "trust the science," the Trudeau government was cutting backroom deals with pharmaceutical giants. Pfizer and Moderna secured approvals in late 2020—but not before Trudeau granted them legal immunity. Parliamentarians demanding to review the contracts were stonewalled, leaving the public in the dark about what their leaders had signed away. This is a violation of basic medical ethics, emboldened by corrupt, totalitarian government officials who were acting nefariously and with ill intent. This led to mass harm.
The government’s own data reveals a disturbing trend: a spike in deaths from "unspecified causes" post-vaccine rollout. LifeSiteNews has documented thousands of injuries, from heart inflammation in young athletes to menstrual disruptions in women. Yet, instead of pausing the shots, Ottawa doubled down—pushing boosters on a public that had already rejected them.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Trump appoints Ed Martin to lead DOJ “weaponization” probe – a reckoning for Biden-era overreach?”
In a decisive move to hold the Biden administration accountable, President Donald Trump has appointed Ed Martin — a staunch conservative legal strategist — to lead a newly formed "Weaponization Working Group" within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The May 9 announcement, made via Trump’s Truth Social platform, positions Martin as both associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney, tasked with investigating alleged abuses of federal power against conservatives, pro-life advocates and January 6 defendants. The appointment follows Martin’s blocked Senate confirmation as U.S. attorney for D.C., a setback Trump turned into an opportunity to escalate scrutiny of Biden-era prosecutions.
The backstory: A nomination thwarted, a mission amplified
Martin’s path to this role was anything but smooth. Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), derailed his confirmation as U.S. attorney for D.C., citing concerns over his combative style and prior representation of January 6 defendants. Yet Trump’s response—elevating Martin to a broader DOJ role — signals a deliberate escalation in the fight against what conservatives decry as systemic politicization of justice.
"Classic Donald Trump," Martin told Breitbart. "They blocked me, so he doubled down. This is the greatest job I could ever envision." His mandate includes reviewing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations, probing COVID-19-era policies and evaluating pardons for those convicted in what he calls "politicized prosecutions."
The weaponization working group: Targets and tactics
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s newly formed working group has already begun dissecting high-profile cases, from the FBI’s handling of January 6 to alleged targeting of pro-life activists. Martin emphasized a three-pronged approach: "Truth, accountability and healing."
Key focuses include:
• January 6 prosecutions: Martin vows to expose "improper investigative tactics" and review sentences, calling the Capitol riot cases a "destructive weaponization against citizens."
• COVID-19 origins: Collaborating with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Martin aims to "get the truth out" about federal mandates and Anthony Fauci’s role.
• Russiagate revisited: He pledged to unravel the "51 intelligence officers [who] signed a lie" in 2016, referencing the discredited Steele dossier.
Critics warn the effort risks becoming a partisan witch hunt, but Martin insists, "This isn’t spin. It’s about total truth."
Jeanine Pirro steps in – a fierce successor
With Martin’s shift to the DOJ, Trump named former judge and Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as interim U.S. attorney for D.C. — a move signaling continuity in aggressive oversight. "She’s smart as hell, tough as hell," Martin said, hinting at Pirro’s reputation for unflinching conservatism. Her tenure may further strain relations with Democrats, particularly after Martin’s clashes with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Georgetown University over DEI policies.
Historical parallels: Nixon, Obama and the specter of retribution
The appointment echoes past battles over DOJ independence. During Watergate, courts ruled Nixon’s Oval Office acts were not immune from scrutiny — a precedent now cited to challenge Trump’s January 6 liability. Conservatives argue the Biden DOJ weaponized similar principles, pointing to Obama-era surveillance abuses and the targeting of Tea Party groups.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Fraud in federal aid programs: USAID official charged in COVID relief scam
A senior USAID contracting officer stands accused of defrauding the federal government by creating a fake company to obtain pandemic relief funds, raising fresh concerns about accountability in federal aid programs. Yusuf Akoll, a senior procurement contract specialist at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), allegedly fabricated a business to secure $16,666 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans—funds meant to help struggling employers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case, first reported by the Daily Wire, highlights broader issues of fraud and lax oversight in federal relief programs, with critics arguing that similar abuses may extend to other agencies, including USAID’s foreign aid operations. The charges against Akoll follow a pattern of fraudulent activity uncovered in pandemic relief programs, where billions of dollars were lost to scams due to minimal vetting and a "pay and chase" approach by the government.
How the scheme unfolded
According to court documents, Akoll registered a Virginia-based shell company, Naagode Consulting LLC, in November 2020 — months after the PPP’s eligibility cutoff date of February 15, 2020. Despite this, he falsely claimed the business had been operational since January 2020 and reported $40,000 in 2019 income to qualify for the loans. Investigators found no evidence of legitimate business activity, suggesting the company existed solely to siphon taxpayer funds.
Journalist Luke Rosiak, who broke the story, noted glaring red flags in Akoll’s application. “PPP loans were paid out to Yusuf Akoll despite massive red flags, including the fact that he was a full-time USAID employee and the company he claimed the bailout for wouldn’t match up with state corporate records or federal tax records,” Rosiak wrote.
Broader implications for federal aid programs
The case underscores systemic vulnerabilities in government aid distribution, particularly in programs rushed out during emergencies. Mike Benz, a national security and transparency advocate, linked the incident to wider concerns about federal contracting abuses. “Not content to create fake companies to steer money to friendly political insiders & CIA shell companies, turns out folks at USAID were also creating fake companies to send money to themselves,” Benz posted.
The Biden administration’s decision in 2023 to halt collections on fraudulent loans under $100,000 — citing “equity” concerns — has drawn sharp criticism. The Small Business Administration’s inspector general warned that failing to pursue fraudsters would embolden future abuses. Meanwhile, Congress nearly allowed the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR) to expire in March 2025, which would have ended investigations into hundreds of millions in suspected fraud.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), a leading advocate for oversight, fought to preserve SIGPR, stating, “I will not allow fraudsters to get away with stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers.”
A call for accountability and reform
The Akoll case is not isolated. Another recent prosecution involved Jeanty Cherilus, a Florida businessman sentenced to 18 months for fraudulently obtaining $370,000 in COVID relief loans. Acting Assistant Inspector General Sean Bottary emphasized USAID’s commitment to accountability, stating, “USAID OIG will continue its aggressive pursuit of bad actors that exploit federal assistance programs.”
As investigations continue, the question remains: How many more cases of fraud lie undiscovered in federal aid programs? With billions already lost, the need for stricter oversight and enforcement has never been clearer.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
SIDS concerns on the rise; vaccine-death link resurfaces in data analysis
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently axed a decades-old initiative to reduce sudden infant deaths, triggering debate over whether vaccines or sleep practices are to blame for a resurgent health crisis. Neil Z. Miller, a vaccine researcher, and others argue that sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) — once labeled an unsolved mystery of pediatric medicine — is being overshadowed by flawed mortality data and policy changes. His analysis of federal vaccine safety reports reveals 80% of SIDS deaths occur within seven days of vaccination, reigniting a decades-old controversy over the safety of childhood immunizations.
The silent cancellation of “Safe to Sleep” campaign
In late April 2025, the NIH terminated its 30-year-old “Safe to Sleep” campaign, which had advised parents to place babies on their backs during sleep. The program, credited with a supposed 55% drop in SIDS deaths since its 1990s launch, now faces scrutiny over its reported success. While parents and nonprofits like First Candle decried the cuts amid rising post-2020 infant mortality rates, peer-reviewed studies suggest SIDS deaths were merely rebranded rather than reduced.
A 2021 toxicity study by Miller in Toxicology Reports found that as SIDS diagnoses fell after the campaign began in 1992, fatalities from suffocation, unknown causes and “intent undetermined” surged. A 2017 Pediatrics analysis concluded 90% of the documented decline in SIDS mortality stemmed from diagnostic reclassification, not a true drop in unexplained infant deaths.
“The elimination of this department is devastating as SIDS rates have begun to climb again,” said Alison Jacobson, CEO of First Candle, citing a 12% increase in sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) between 2020 and 2022, per a JAMA Pediatrics study. Yet with federal funding withdrawn, advocates now scramble to sustain awareness efforts.
Historical context: vaccines and the birth of SIDS
SIDS was codified as a cause of death in 1971, coinciding with expanding U.S. vaccination mandates. By the 1960s, infants received nine vaccines by age 18 months, including diphtheria, polio and measles. Before 1979, coroners could attribute infant deaths to vaccines via an explicit International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. Its removal that year forced reclassification of such fatalities into categories like "SIDS" or "asphyxiation," likely obscuring vaccine-related deaths.
Physician Paul Thomas, author of Vax Facts, noted coroners lack ICD codings for vaccine injuries, driving misclassification: “Infant deaths after vaccines are generally coded as SIDS, unknown, or suffocation. But the primary cause has been right under our noses.” Miller’s VAERS database analysis supports this: Of 2,605 infant deaths reported since 1990, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, with 78.3% within seven. The timing strongly suggests a connection, though causation remains unproven.
VAERS data and the pathology of sudden death
Miller’s work identifies physiological mechanisms that could link vaccines to infant mortality. Vaccines trigger inflammatory cytokines in brainstem tissues, potentially disrupting infants’ carbon dioxide response systems. Aluminum adjuvants, a common vaccine additive, may cross the blood-brain barrier, inducing respiratory failure. These pathways align with the observation that 75% of VAERS-reported SIDS cases clustered near vaccination dates.
While the CDC maintains vaccines are safe, recent studies challenge this view. A 2023 Cureus analysis found nations mandating more neonatal doses suffer higher childhood mortality rates. Meanwhile, a 2018 Health Affairs study traced the U.S.’s rising infant death disparity with other wealthy countries back to the 1980s—when U.S. vaccines doubled.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The case underscores broader concerns about censorship in academia. A 2022 study found scientists challenging COVID-19 orthodoxy faced article retractions and professional retaliation. In 2024, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya condemned a "culture of cover-up" under Fauci and Collins, pledging to foster dissent.
Science, politics and the search for accountability
Five years after COVID-19’s emergence, the "Proximal Origin" saga remains a flashpoint in the debate over scientific integrity. The Trump administration’s investigation signals a reckoning for journals accused of prioritizing narrative over neutrality — but whether it leads to reform or further polarization hinges on transparency. As former NIH official David Relman noted, "When conclusions are driven by bias, not data, the public pays the price." For millions still seeking answers, the cost has been immeasurable.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
WHO’s PANDEMIC AGREEMENT just a ploy to CONTROL every aspect of any SCAMDEMIC they declare at any time and indefinitely
They had it for a little while. Complete control. The New World Order, run by the globalists and their right arm, Big Pharma, had complete control of nearly every human on planet earth during the beginning of the Covid plandemic. It worked. The mass-propaganda campaign of fear caused mass panic and everyone lost their minds, bowing down to the nonsensical “protocol” of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, antibacterial lathering for a virus, and mass-death-jab indoctrination.
All the big-wig organizations were in on it: WHO, CDC, FDA, WEF, all of them. The end game was to get every human being injected with “technology” where their cells create billions of prions that drive all-cause mortality, so nobody can boil it back to the death jabs, but the world would only consist of a couple billion people within a few years. Hindsight is 20/20, so anyone can see from the carnage of the clot shots that this is no conspiracy theory.
The WHO was the fulcrum for the New World Order and the Great Reset using the Plandemic as the catapult for depopulation and complete control of populace
The WHO was the fulcrum for the New World Order, the Great Reset, and they wanted complete control of everyone’s lives, including taking away all medical freedoms and right to free speech and press.
In fact, the Brownstone Institute recently published a commentary analyzing the draft Pandemic Agreement set to be considered at the upcoming 78th World Health Assembly. The agreement, which complements the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) amended in 2024, aims to centralize pandemic management under the World Health Organization (WHO). While much of the document uses non-binding language like "may" and "where appropriate," it reflects WHO’s push for control over all aspects of pandemics, from declaration to response, including vaccine distribution and supply chains.
Critics argue that the agreement lacks proportionality and narrowly focuses on certain populations while ignoring broader health needs. For instance, it overlooks the importance of individual resilience and the unique health priorities of regions like Africa, which has a predominantly young population.
Instead of decentralizing health care, the WHO is promoting a "whole-of-government" approach, which some say has caused harm, particularly in lower-income countries during the COVID-19 response. The agreement also emphasizes WHO-approved vaccines and allopathic medicines while downplaying traditional healing practices.
The draft agreement links health with climate change, framing it as a major threat to global health. This reflects a growing trend within the WHO to expand its mandate beyond traditional health issues. However, the agreement’s focus on large-scale, centralized solutions raises concerns about practicality and cost, especially for developing countries. For example, Article 9 of the agreement calls for low-cost vaccines and technology transfers to less-developed nations but implementing this could be challenging and expensive.
Additionally, the agreement includes provisions for a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), aimed at sharing pathogen materials and ensuring equitable benefits. However, the details of this system remain unclear, and critics warn it could create conflicts of interest and Intellectual Property (IP) disputes. The WHO’s role in training and capacity-building for pandemic product production is also seen as overreaching, given its limitations.
Overall, the Brownstone Institute and others argue that the Pandemic Agreement and related IHR amendments give the WHO too much power, potentially at the expense of local health systems and broader health equity. The centralized approach, coupled with WHO’s questionable track record during the COVID-19 pandemic, raises concerns about transparency, fairness, and effectiveness.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
Pfizer’s election meddling exposed: Top scientists weaponized science to sway the 2020 vote, so they could benefit from unlawful mandates
In the high-stakes world of corporate power and political manipulation, few revelations strike as deeply as the allegation that Pfizer executives deliberately slowed COVID-19 vaccine trials to influence the 2020 U.S. election. Newly uncovered testimony suggests that top Pfizer R&D leaders orchestrated a delay in clinical testing—not for scientific caution, but to ensure results wouldn't emerge before Election Day. This bombshell, revealed through congressional investigations, paints a damning picture of a pharmaceutical giant willing to play god with public health for political and financial gain. The implications are staggering: a company entrusted with saving lives instead weaponized its science, suppressed critical data, and helped shape an election that led to unprecedented medical coercion.
Key points:
• Congressional investigators allege Pfizer intentionally slowed vaccine trials to avoid influencing the 2020 election.
• Former Pfizer scientist Dr. Philip Dormitzer reportedly admitted the delay was orchestrated by senior R&D leaders.
• The timing allowed Pfizer to avoid scrutiny before the election, then rapidly deploy mandates under a new administration.
• The scheme backfired as vaccine failures and injuries mounted, exposing the fraud behind the rushed approvals.
• The investigation raises urgent questions about corporate collusion, government corruption, and the erosion of medical ethics.
The election interference playbook
The 2020 presidential race was already one of the most contentious in U.S. history, with COVID-19 lockdowns, mask mandates, and promises of a "miracle" vaccine dominating the national conversation. Internal documents and whistleblower testimony now suggest Pfizer executives saw an opportunity—not to serve public health, but to exploit it. According to GSK’s testimony to Congress, Dr. Philip Dormitzer, a former Pfizer R&D leader, revealed that the company’s top three scientists deliberately slowed trial progress to avoid releasing data before November.
Dr. Dormitzer had told GSK employees that "in late 2020, the three most senior people in Pfizer R&D were involved in a decision to deliberately slow down clinical testing so that it would not be complete prior to the results of the presidential election that year."
This wasn’t about scientific rigor—it was about political timing. Had Pfizer released results in October, then-President Donald Trump could have claimed credit for Operation Warp Speed, potentially swaying voters eager for an end to pandemic restrictions. Instead, Pfizer’s calculated delay left the public in limbo, fueling frustration and anger that Democrats weaponized against Trump. By the time the vaccine was unveiled under the Biden administration, the groundwork had been laid for aggressive mandates, despite mounting evidence of the shot’s inefficacy and risks.
A legacy of deception and disaster
Pfizer’s alleged manipulation didn’t stop at the election. Once the Biden administration took office, the company’s vaccine—now shielded from pre-election scrutiny—was fast-tracked for emergency use, followed by coercive mandates affecting millions of workers, soldiers, and even children. Yet the science never supported the hype. Breakthrough infections surged, myocarditis cases spiked among young men, and whistleblowers exposed fraudulent trial practices.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Judge rules Kansas vaccine lawsuit against Pfizer must proceed in state court
In a landmark decision that could set a significant precedent, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled that a lawsuit filed by the state of Kansas against Pfizer must proceed in state court. The case, which accuses Pfizer of misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty, was initially moved to federal court by Pfizer, citing protections under the PREP Act. However, Judge Crabtree rejected Pfizer's arguments, paving the way for the case to be heard in state court under Kansas consumer protection laws.
Allegations of deceptive marketing
The lawsuit, filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in June 2024, alleges that Pfizer engaged in deceptive marketing practices by overstating the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. According to the complaint, Pfizer knew about but failed to disclose serious risks associated with the vaccine, including myocarditis, pericarditis and links to failed pregnancies and deaths. The suit also claims that Pfizer falsely asserted the vaccine's efficacy remained high over time and that it could prevent COVID-19 transmission, despite evidence to the contrary.
The case does not claim that the vaccine caused physical injuries or deaths, but rather focuses on allegations of consumer fraud and misrepresentation. As such, Judge Crabtree ruled that the PREP Act, which shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by vaccines, does not apply in this context. "That point alone ends the debate," Crabtree wrote in his ruling.
The PREP Act and Pfizer's legal strategy
Pfizer had argued that the PREP Act, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect vaccine manufacturers from liability, "completely preempts" consumer protection claims, thus justifying the case's removal to federal court. However, Judge Crabtree dismissed this argument, stating that the PREP Act was designed to protect against claims related to physical injuries, not against deceptive marketing practices.
"This first-of-its-kind ruling declares Pfizer’s deceptions aren’t afforded carte blanche treatment," said Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which supported the Kansas lawsuit. "This decision is important because it creates a viable path for Pfizer to potentially be held accountable for its wrongdoing on a massive scale."
The ruling could embolden other states that have expressed interest in pursuing similar lawsuits under state consumer protection laws. Until now, courts have generally allowed Pfizer to claim legal immunity under the PREP Act, but this decision provides a new pathway for holding vaccine manufacturers accountable for false or misleading claims.
Broader implications for vaccine litigation
The Kansas ruling comes amid a growing number of lawsuits challenging the scope of the PREP Act's liability shield. For example, in March 2025, the Supreme Court of North Carolina overturned a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Pfizer's administration of vaccines to minors without parental consent. The court ruled that the PREP Act does not preempt state laws requiring parental consent for vaccination.
Additionally, a federal court ruled in November 2024 that the PREP Act does not extend to breach-of-contract claims, allowing a lawsuit against AstraZeneca to proceed. These cases suggest that while the PREP Act provides robust protections for vaccine manufacturers, it does not create a blanket immunity against all forms of legal action.
The path ahead for the Kansas lawsuit
Pfizer is expected to appeal the federal judge's ruling, but the decision represents a significant win for advocates who have long argued that vaccine manufacturers should be held accountable for misleading the public. "Without PREP protection, Pfizer will have to face the music and try to defend its lies in open court," Flores said.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Hidden betrayal: Moderna and Pfizer shots hijack immune cells to rewrite mRNA, prolonging spike protein production
For years, health authorities assured the public that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were a temporary intervention — delivering a brief genetic message before harmlessly fading away. But a shocking new study published in Nature reveals a far darker reality: These shots don’t just deliver instructions — they reprogram the body to extend their lifespan, forcing cells to produce spike protein far longer than disclosed. The bombshell findings expose a hidden layer of genetic manipulation, raising urgent questions about long-term risks, informed consent, and the true cost of Big Pharma’s rushed "miracle" technology.
Key points:
• A new study in Nature confirms Moderna and Pfizer’s mRNA shots induce the body to produce an enzyme (TENT5A) that rewrites the vaccine’s mRNA, doubling its tail length and prolonging spike protein production.
• Spike protein — linked to heart, brain, and immune damage — may persist for years, contradicting official claims it would last "a few weeks."
• Moderna’s own scientists admitted mRNA vaccines carry "unacceptable toxicity" risks in a 2024 paper, yet regulators greenlit them for billions.
• The process hijacks immune cells (macrophages), forcing them to stabilize and amplify the synthetic mRNA, turning the body into an unwitting accomplice.
• Novavax’s protein-based vaccine does not trigger this effect, suggesting the danger is unique to mRNA technology.
The body’s betrayal: How mRNA shots rewrite their own code
The Polish study (Krawczyk et al., 2025) reveals a chilling mechanism: After injection, immune cells detect the foreign mRNA and activate TENT5A — an enzyme that normally plays no role in vaccine responses. TENT5A then latches onto the vaccine’s genetic code, extending its poly(A) tail — a molecular "timer" that dictates how long mRNA survives. In some cases, Moderna’s mRNA tail doubled in length, from 100 to 200 nucleotides.
"This wasn’t just persistence — it was amplification," explains Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and outspoken critic of COVID vaccine safety. "The body is essentially tricked into editing the shot’s instructions to make it last longer. This was never part of the clinical trials."
A timeline of deception
Public health officials repeatedly claimed mRNA vaccines were "short-lived." Dr. Paul Offit, a CDC advisor, stated in 2021 that spike protein production would last "a couple of weeks." Yet studies have since detected spike in blood samples for 187 days, 245 days, and even 709 days post-injection. Moderna’s internal documents acknowledge "challenges" with mRNA toxicity, yet these risks were buried beneath relentless propaganda touting the shots as "safe and effective."
The Nature study confirms the worst: The vaccines don’t just deliver a message — they reprogram the body to keep that message alive. "It’s like giving someone a self-replicating memo," says molecular biologist Dr. Jessica Rose. "The memo was supposed to be read once and discarded. Instead, the recipient photocopies it endlessly."
Why Novavax escapes the trap
Unlike mRNA shots, Novavax’s protein-based vaccine — which contains pre-made spike protein — does not trigger TENT5A activity. This critical distinction suggests the mRNA platform itself is the problem. "The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in Pfizer and Moderna’s shots are the Trojan horse," explains immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle. "They smuggle synthetic mRNA into cells, but the payload doesn’t just fade away — it gets enhanced by the immune system."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
HHS launches Generation Gold Standard, ushering in UNIVERSAL FLU VACCINE spearheaded by Bill Gates
The quest for a universal flu vaccine has tantalized the scientific community for decades, and now the Trump administration, under the auspices of Dr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has launched a project called Generation Gold Standard, promising a paradigm shift in vaccine technology. However, this endeavor, which aims to produce a single flu shot that protects against all strains of the virus, including those that could cause a pandemic, raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bold leap forward, or a risky experiment that could jeopardize public health? This investigation reveals a complex web of financial interests, government corruption, and the relentless pursuit of a one-size-fits-all solution that may not live up to its promise.
While the U.S. government has poured $500 million into this project, much of the groundwork for this ambitious vaccine was laid by Bill Gates and his foundation. With a history of targeting developing countries with profit-driven vaccination programs, Gates’ involvement in this project warrants a closer look. The universal flu vaccine, if successful, could represent a lucrative market for pharmaceutical companies and billions in profit for Gates’ ventures. But the use of an antiquated whole-killed virus approach, abandoned decades ago for its side effects and inefficiency, demands scrutiny. Is the new HHS and Secretary Kennedy on the brink of a breakthrough, or are we rushing headfirst into another dangerous experiment that only drives influenza mutations further?
Key points:
• The Trump administration has launched a project called Generation Gold Standard to develop a universal flu vaccine.
• The project plans to use a whole killed virus approach, a technology that is over 40 years old and known for its side effects.
• Bill Gates and his foundation have invested millions into universal flu vaccine research, with the potential for significant profits.
• The project raises concerns about transparent funding and the lack of independent, public review.
• Critics question why the government is betting on only one vaccine technology instead of exploring a wide range of innovations.
• Others question why the government refuses to recognize decades of flu vaccine failures and finally admit that all immunizations for respiratory infections will inevitably fail and drive mutations.
The history of flu vaccine technology
Over the past century, the push for a universal flu vaccine has quietly become an obsession for public health officials and pharmaceutical giants. The annual flu vaccine is a profit-driven affair, with more than $2 billion in annual sales in the U.S. alone. But the recurring need for updates—driven by the virus’s ever-mutating strains—has long been a source of frustration. Efforts to create a more permanent solution gained traction in the mid-20th century, when “killed virus” vaccines began to take hold. These vaccines used whole, inactivated viruses to stimulate the immune system, but they often came with significant side effects, including high fevers and seizures. By the 1980s, more advanced technologies such as recombinant and mRNA vaccines emerged, offering safer and more effective alternatives.
Yet, while newer technologies have shown promise, the U.S. government has now chosen to revert to the decades-old killed virus approach. Proponents of this decision argue that it is necessary to move quickly, given the potential for future pandemics. However, critics like Dr. Gregory Poland, a vaccine expert at the Atria Academy of Science and Medicine, find this approach puzzling. “We have live attenuated nasal spray influenza vaccines,” Poland says. “We have recombinant influenza vaccines. We have an mRNA-based influenza vaccine. So why would you put all your eggs in one basket?”
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
CHILD mRNA DEATH JABS: ‘Smart Moms Ask’ healthcare group launches campaign to stop injecting children with the deadliest “vaccine” ever created
Will the 100-year FDA tradition of “rubber stamping” toxic drugs and deadly vaccines finally come to a close under the new HHS led by Trump, RFK Jr. and Dr. Makary? The American Medical Association started all of this a century ago, with their fake AMA seal of approval that any pharma thugs could simply pay top dollar for and get their deadly drugs “approved” and propaganda published in JAMA.
The Covid spike prion jabs are no exception, in fact, these biological weapons of mass destruction have ruined millions of children’s lives and depopulated the planet of an untold number of babies in and out of the womb.
Now there’s a healthcare group heading up a campaign to end the madness and they’re called “Smart Moms Ask,” because any parent with a brain would ask all the tough questions about vaccines, especially ones that trick your cells into creating millions of prions that the immune system attacks in all vital organs, including the brain.
Healthy children were at zero risk from Covid anyhow, so just the thought of having blood-clogging mRNA jabs on the childhood vaccine schedule is an atrocity
A coalition of medical professionals and concerned mothers is urging federal health agencies to remove COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule, citing safety concerns and a lack of proven benefit for young children. On Tuesday, the Independent Medical Alliance (IMA) launched the "Smart Moms Ask" campaign, calling on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Congress to reconsider vaccine recommendations for minors. The push comes amid ongoing debates over vaccine safety, transparency, and the role of emergency-use medical products in routine pediatric care.
The IMA, founded by critical care specialists, is collecting signatures for a petition demanding that federal agencies reassess COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children. Dr. Kat Lindley, IMA Fellowship program director, told The Defender, "Moms have been bullied into accepting mRNA shots with devastating risks. We’re uniting our voices to demand transparency and safety for our kids." She emphasized that data does not support vaccinating healthy children, pointing to risks like myocarditis and autoimmune disorders.
Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro, who signed the petition, called the campaign a necessary response to what she described as unjustified vaccine policies. "It is incomprehensible that a campaign had to be initiated to do what’s right for children and pregnant mothers," she said, referencing reports of adverse effects, including weakened immunity and miscarriages.
How COVID-19 Vaccines Ended Up on the Schedule
The CDC added COVID-19 vaccines to the childhood immunization schedule in February 2023 following a unanimous advisory committee vote. The decision means most doctors recommend the shots, and many states require them for school attendance. However, unlike fully licensed vaccines, the pediatric versions remain under emergency use authorization (EUA), with less stringent safety data requirements.
Critics argue that the risks outweigh the benefits, given the low incidence of severe COVID-19 in children. "The incidence of severe illness was always near zero," Perro said, "yet we’re seeing cardiac, immunologic, and neurologic issues post-vaccination."
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Breakthrough study links mRNA vaccines to irreversible female fertility loss
A groundbreaking study published in the journal Vaccines has ignited urgent concerns worldwide, suggesting that mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines may be causing irreversible damage to female ovarian reserves in rats. Turkish researchers observed a staggering 60% reduction in primordial follicles — the foundational cells necessary for fertility — in rats administered mRNA vaccines. The findings, which experts say warrant immediate scrutiny in humans, align with mounting real-world data showing plummeting global birth rates and rising miscarriages among vaccinated populations. The study, alongside complementary research and medical testimonies, has galvanized calls to halt mRNA vaccine mandates, exposing potential systemic risks to reproductive health and human liberty.
Evidence emerges: Vaccines linked to 60% drop in irreplaceable egg cells
The peer-reviewed Turkish study, led by eight researchers, analyzed the effects of Pfizer-style mRNA and Sinovac’s inactivated vaccines on 30 female rats. After two human-equivalent doses, mRNA-vaccinated rats showed a shocking 60% decline in primordial follicles (an average of 42.4 per ovary compared to 106.7 in unvaccinated rats). Non-mRNA vaccines also caused significant harm, with a 34% reduction.
Primordial follicles, described as “the foundation of fertility” by the authors, are finite and non-renewable — women are born with all the eggs they will ever possess. “Biologically irreversible” damage to this pool, as seen in the study, means permanent fertility loss if replicated in humans. “This loss does not regenerate,” emphasized epidemiologist Nic Hulscher in his Substack analysis, noting that such harm could accelerate early menopause and depress global birth rates.
Dr. Margaret Christensen, a gynecologist at the Carpathia Collaborative, corroborated these findings with clinical observations: “The impact on fertility and menstrual cycles has been alarming. We’re seeing rising miscarriages and fetal deaths — not just decreased conception.”
From lab to real-world declines: Human data mirrors ovarian damage
The Turkish study’s implications extend beyond rodent models. A concurrent preprint on over 1.3 million Czech women (ages 18–39) revealed vaccine recipients had 33% fewer successful pregnancies compared to unvaccinated peers, even as fertility treatments surged. The Czech Republic’s total fertility rate dropped 21% during the study period.
“This isn’t theoretical,” said Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a professor of oncology at St. George’s, University of London, who called rat studies “a standard and reliable model for evaluating fertility.” He pointed to lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) — the delivery vehicles in mRNA vaccines — as a critical culprit. LNPs, he noted, exhibit a “particular preference for ovaries,” where they trigger mRNA-driven spike protein production. Spike protein has been linked to placental harm, fetal death and inflammation — mechanisms aligned with the Turkish study’s observed increases in caspase-3 (a cell-death enzyme) and inflammatory markers (TGF-?1, VEGF), which cause follicle death and fibrosis.
Independent research has corroborated these biologic pathways. A BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth study found higher miscarriage rates in vaccinated women, while a 2023 Molecular Therapy paper revealed LNP-mRNA crosses into fetal tissue within an hour. “The Pfizer Papers” whistleblower Naomi Wolf noted that LNPs’ reproductive harm has been known since 2017, predating the pandemic.
Growing movement for transparency: Calls to suspend mRNA use intensify
The study’s release coincides with escalating global protests against vaccine mandates and what critics call institutional secrecy. “These data show our public agencies have compromised the capacity to create life,” wrote Hulscher, citing the “Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex” as a suppression force.
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
"Fast onset of symptoms is common—half of our patients had serious reactions within 24 hours," he said. "Yet the TGA acts like these deaths are just random."
The federal compensation scheme, which closed last year, approved only 8.4% of claims, leaving thousands without justice. Now, a class action lawsuit representing over 2,000 injured Australians may be the last hope for accountability.
The TGA’s deception has shattered public trust. If health officials had been honest from the start—admitting risks, investigating deaths, and compensating victims—Australians might still believe in the system. Instead, they’ve created a legacy of betrayal.
How many more must die before the truth is acknowledged?
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
A profit-driven scheme with no real benefit
For most infants, the Hep B vaccine offers zero benefit—only risk. As policy analyst Catherine Pakaluk notes, the vaccine "provides a robust antibody response to a disease to which they are not regularly exposed." In other words, it’s a solution in search of a problem.
J.B. Handley, a vocal critic of the mandate, puts it bluntly: "It’s a nearly useless vaccine, unless you are in the tiny minority of babies who have a mother with Hepatitis B."
Despite petitions demanding proper safety trials, the CDC and FDA refuse to revisit the mandate. Parents often have to step in after a hospital birth and tell the pediatrician "NO" to protect their vulnerable new infant from this needless vaccine.
The Hep B vaccine mandate is not about protecting children—it’s about protecting profits. With the Hep B vaccine market projected to hit $13 billion by 2032, the financial incentive to keep pushing the shot is clear. With no real benefit for the vast majority of infants and a growing list of potential harms, parents deserve the right to question and refuse this unnecessary medical intervention. Until independent, long-term safety studies are conducted, injecting newborns with this vaccine remains a dangerous gamble—one that hospital administrators and pediatricians are all too willing to take.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The media’s complicity in the cover-up
The CBC, Canada’s state-funded broadcaster, played a key role in propping up the official narrative. It routinely platformed government-approved "experts" while sidelining dissenting voices. Science Up First, a pro-vaccine initiative bankrolled by Health Canada, became a propaganda arm, ridiculing legitimate questions as "misinformation." The result? A population misled, bullied, and stripped of informed consent.
The Trudeau regime’s COVID response wasn’t just flawed—it was fraudulent. From secret oaths to reckless vaccine procurement, the government abandoned ethics in favor of control. As injured Canadians struggle for compensation and families mourn unexplained deaths, one truth becomes undeniable: this was never about health. It was about power.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Martin’s role as Pardon Attorney adds another layer, evoking Trump’s 2025 pardons for January 6 defendants. "We must restore citizens harmed by weaponization," he said, signaling a wave of clemency for conservative causes.
A high-stakes gambit for justice and retribution
Ed Martin’s ascent marks a pivotal moment in Trump’s promised "retribution" against the administrative state. While liberals decry it as vendetta politics, conservatives frame it as long-overdue accountability. With the Supreme Court likely to weigh in on presidential immunity and January 6 cases, Martin’s work could redefine the limits of executive power — and set the tone for 2025. As he declared: "It’s a great time to be alive. There’s a lot at stake." For Biden allies, that may sound less like optimism and more like a warning.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
The high cost of lax oversight
The case against Yusuf Akoll is more than an isolated incident — it’s a symptom of a system that prioritized speed over security in distributing taxpayer funds. While the government has recovered some fraudulent payments, experts estimate that over $1 trillion in COVID relief may have been stolen, much of it funneled overseas.
For taxpayers, the lesson is clear: Without robust safeguards, well-intentioned aid programs become easy targets for exploitation. As federal agencies grapple with these failures, the demand for accountability — both within USAID and across all relief programs — will only grow louder.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
A call for transparency in an "unofficial" crisis
The NIH’s withdrawal from Safe to Sleep reignites urgent questions about infant mortality’s true causes and mortality data’s integrity. With vaccine schedules now spanning 76 doses by age 18, critics argue opaque reporting hinders informed decision-making.
“There are 130 official ways for an infant to die,” Miller wrote, “but vaccine reactions remain an ‘unofficial’ one.” Until cause-of-death coding modernizes, parents may remain uninformed of risks—and policymakers ill-equipped to address a crisis rooted in both public health messaging and unexamined science.
As research deepens and advocacy groups seek answers, the resurfacing debate underscores a chilling possibility: Some of medicine’s most trusted interventions might cloak its most tragic outcomes. For parents, the road to prevention now navigates not just sleep positions, but questions about the shots their babies receive.
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia
FDA advisory panel to review COVID-19 vaccine strategy
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will convene a panel of experts in a critical meeting on May 22 to discuss recommendations for the next round of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.
The virtual meeting of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will weigh in on which COVID-19 variant should be targeted in updated booster shots, or whether boosters would be promoted at all. While the VRBPAC's advice isn't binding, it could shape immunization efforts for the fall and winter seasons.
The May 22 meeting also comes amid significant leadership changes in the FDA. Dr. Marty Makary was named as the new head of the agency, while Dr. Vinay Prasad was named as the new director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Incidentally, both Makary and Prasad have publicly questioned aspects of the government's COVID-19 vaccine approach.
The FDA's handling of COVID-19 vaccines has faced mounting criticism, particularly after the resignations of key officials. These officials include former CBER Director Dr. Peter Marks, who reportedly clashed with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine policies.
Kennedy, a health freedom advocate critical of vaccine mandates, has pushed for reforms – including a potential removal of COVID-19 shots from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) childhood immunization schedule. His stance aligns with broader public sentiment as recent polls suggest many Americans oppose routine COVID-19 boosters for healthy children.
Novavax and Moderna in limbo as FDA shifts to stricter standards
The upcoming meeting also follows delays in the approval of Novavax's protein-based vaccine, which the FDA has asked to undergo additional clinical trials – a departure from previous regulatory flexibility. Moderna has similarly faced hurdles, with the agency requesting more data on its experimental flu-COVID combination vaccine. These developments signal a stricter approach under the new leadership, a shift that analysts say could lead to more restrictive vaccine recommendations.
The FDA has historically followed an influenza-like model for COVID-19 vaccines, updating formulations annually without requiring new clinical trials. But recent demands for placebo-controlled studies suggest a pivot toward more rigorous standards. Critics argue this could slow vaccine availability, while supporters contend it ensures greater safety scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the CDC is considering narrowing its universal COVID-19 vaccine recommendation – potentially shifting to a risk-based approach. Such a move would mark a significant departure from earlier policies, reflecting evolving scientific understanding and public skepticism.
As the FDA prepares for its May 22 meeting, the outcome could redefine the future of COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. With new leadership in place and growing debate over vaccine mandates, the agency’s decisions will be closely watched.
Watch this clip of a Moderna executive telling the FDA's VRBPAC that babies should be injected with its COVID-19 vaccine at the soonest.
https://www.brighteon.com/b775b52c-671b-4c67-a18f-3acd232b4f57
Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia