RFK Jr.’s controlled demolition of Big Pharma’s billion-dollar commercial scheme



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is setting his sights on pharmaceutical companies yet again by attempting to hinder them from making commercials and advertisements for their products.

His plan is to require drugmakers to be completely transparent about the side effects of their products, because including all the side effects will increase the run time and drive up the cost of production exponentially.

And BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be happier, as she believes a lot of their commercials are not only ridiculous but are selling a magic pill rather than inspiring potential clients to take control of their health naturally.


One commercial for Jardiance from 2023 features an overweight cast dancing and singing a catchy tune about lowering their A1C.

“You look at that commercial, and that’s just a perfect representation of why RFK is doing this. They’ve got this high production value, they’ve got musical theater. Now, I don’t think it’s appealing, but clearly the point is to appeal to people by using this cutesy little song,” Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“It masks the really brief mention of all of these dangerous side effects. You don’t hear that, you just hear the music,” she adds.

“Your skin’s going to melt off by day 90,” BlazeTV contributor Jaco Booyens jokes, adding, “You know the average price spend is close to $3 million per commercial.”

And Gonzales personally knows that the pills they’re spending so much to advertise aren’t the be-all and end-all for those struggling to get healthy.

“I used to be 100 pounds heavier. I lost the weight naturally, you can, too. And so I take personal offense to this, like, just take a pill, here. Just take a pill. Like, all of those women were obese, and they need to consider lifestyle changes rather than taking a pill just to get rid of their diabetes,” she says.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

General Mills to remove artificial colors from cereals. Is chemical linked to infertility next on chopping block?



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. keeps racking up the wins in his campaign to help President Donald Trump make America a healthier nation, particularly on the dietary front.

His latest victory — and American consumers' by extension — was secured at General Mills, the American ultra-processed food giant with cereal brands that include Cheerios, Chex, Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms, and Wheaties.

General Mills announced plans on Tuesday to remove artificial colors from all of its U.S. cereals and all K-12 school foods by next summer. The company indicated that it also intends to remove all fake coloring from its full lineup of American-facing products by the end of 2027.

How it started

In April, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration outlined a plan to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from America's food supply.

The FDA initiated the process to revoke authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B in the short term and to eliminate another six synthetic dyes — FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2 — by the end of next year.

'That era is coming to an end.'

The agency also requested that companies move up their timelines for the removal of FD&C Red No. 3.

RELATED: Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded Food Babe, told Blaze News in November that the brighter artificial colors, which are helpful with sales and attractive to children, are harmful to their health.

"The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens," said Hari. "There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don't want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.'"

Extra to seeking the removal of the harmful chemicals, the FDA indicated in April that it would partner with the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on how food additives impact kids' health and development.

"For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent," said Kennedy. "These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We're restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public's trust."

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary noted that "given the growing concerns of doctors and parents about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes, we should not be taking risks and do everything possible to safeguard the health of our children."

How it's going

A number of companies have proven amenable to the changes advocated by the Trump administration.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Thirteen days after HHS' announcement, Tyson Foods indicated it was on track to remove all petroleum-based dyes from its production process by the end of May. Top executives from PepsiCo, Danone North America, and TreeHouse Foods similarly signaled commitments to scrap artificial colors.

'When the government sets clear, science-based standards, the food industry listens and acts.'

The American fast-food chain In-N-Out Burger revealed last month that it was removing artificial coloring from two of its drinks and swapping out its high-fructose corn syrup-based ketchup for an alternative that uses real sugar.

A spokesman for the company told CNN that the changes were part of the chain's "ongoing commitment to providing our customers with the highest-quality ingredients."

Kennedy encouraged more companies to similarly volunteer "to prioritize Americans' health and join the effort to Make America Healthy Again."

Blaze News previously reported that Kraft Heinz got on board this week, stating that it will remove artificial food, drug, and cosmetic colors from products in the United States before the end of 2027.

"This voluntary step — phasing out harmful dyes in brands like Kool-Aid, Jell‑O, and Crystal Light — proves that when the government sets clear, science-based standards, the food industry listens and acts," tweeted Kennedy.

While stressing that 85% of its full U.S. retail portfolio is "currently made without certified colors," General Mills said Tuesday it would eliminate the remainder of artificial coloring in short order.

"Across the long arc of our history, General Mills has moved quickly to meet evolving consumer needs, and reformulating our product portfolio to remove certified colors is yet another example," said General Mills CEO Jeff Harmening.

RELATED: Meat the enemy: How protein became the left's newest microaggression

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"Knowing the trust families place in us, we are leading the way on removing certified colors in cereals and K-12 foods by next summer. We're committed to continuing to make food that tastes great and is accessible to all," added the executive.

The removal of synthetic dyes from the food supply is a giant step, though there remains at least one chemical in cereals with effects that may warrant further action.

No artificial colors — but infertility?

A peer-reviewed study published last year in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology suggested that current concentrations of chlormequat chloride in oat-based foods "warrant more expansive toxicity resting, food monitoring, and epidemiological studies."

Researchers on the study from the Environmental Working Group, a chemical watchdog accused in recent years of exaggeration, indicated that food samples purchased in 2022 and 2023 "show detectable levels of chlormequat in all but two of 25 conventional oat-based products."

Quaker Oats and Cheerios were allegedly among the affected cereals.

'Do we really need more chemicals in our food?'

Chlormequat, first registered in the U.S. in 1962 as a plant growth regulator and recognized decades later by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as "toxic to wildlife," has been linked in animal studies to disrupted fetal growth, damage to the reproductive system, delayed puberty, and reduced fertility.

While the EPA suggested in 2023 that there were no dietary or residential risks of concern associated with human exposure to chlormequat, the 2024 study suggested that "more recent reproductive toxicity studies on chlormequat show delayed onset of puberty, reduced sperm motility, decreased weights of male reproductive organs, and decreased testosterone levels in rats exposed during sensitive windows of development, including during pregnancy and early life."

RELATED: HHS scraps COVID vaccine schedule for children and pregnant women: 'It's common sense, and it's good science'

Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

Secretary Kennedy has criticized the use of chlormequat chloride, which he deemed "one of those 'forever chemicals,'" on grains.

He noted in July 2023, "This chemical was prohibited by the very same EPA in 1962 for use on anything but ornamental plants in greenhouses. That was before the agency was captured by industry."

Kennedy added, "Chlormaquat is linked to disruption of fetal growth, metabolic alterations, lower sperm motility, deceased testosterone, delayed development in puberty, and other effects. At a time when chronic disease is at an all-time high, do we really need more chemicals in our food?"

Blaze News reached out to HHS about the removal of artificial dyes as well as about chlormequat in the food supply but did not immediately receive a response.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

"The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins."

"Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

"The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

"The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

"The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week canned all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — the federal panel whose vaccine recommendations become official policy at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and apply to the entire American population once adopted by the agency's director.

Kennedy accused the ACIP of "malevolent malpractice" and vowed to appoint "highly credentialed physicians and scientists who will make extremely consequential public health determinations by applying evidence-based decision-making with objectivity and common sense."

Among the eight individuals whom Kennedy has appointed to the committee are:

  • Dr. Martin Kulldorf, a former professor of medicine at Harvard University who risked his career by both swimming against the tide of establishment thinking during the pandemic and co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration with now-National Institutes of Health Director Jay Battacharya;
  • Dr. Robert Malone, an early pioneer in messenger RNA technology who faced years of abuse for questioning the safety of mRNA vaccines and the severity of COVID-19; and
  • Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth who ruffled feathers in 2021 by criticizing ruinous mask mandates for children.

The removal and replacement of members of the committee is a wish fulfilled for longtime critics of the ACIP and a nightmare realized for medical and pharmaceutical establishmentarians satisfied with the status quo.

Those in the establishmentarian camp now clutching pearls over Kennedy's actions appear eager to ignore or downplay the conflicts of interest, ideological bents, and questionable decisions that were apparently commonplace on the committee.

Lucrative questions, questionable decisions

The ACIP's members as of April 2025 were:

  • Helen Talbot, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine;
  • Edwin Jose Asturias, professor of pediatrics and infection diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine;
  • Noel Brewer, professor in public health at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health;
  • Oliver Brooks, interim chief executive officer at the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases;
  • Lin Chen, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School;
  • Helen Chu, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington;
  • Sybil Cineas, clinical associate professor of pediatrics and medicine at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University;
  • Denise Jamieson, vice president for medical affairs at the University of Iowa's Carver College of Medicine;
  • Mini Kamboj, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College;
  • George Kuchel, professor of medicine at University of Connecticut Health;
  • Jamie Loehr, family physician;
  • Karyn Lyons, chief of the immunization section at the Illinois Department of Public Health;
  • Yvonne Maldonado, professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford University;
  • Charlotte Moser, co-director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia;
  • Robert Schechter, chief of the California Department of Public Health Immunization branch;
  • Albert Shaw, professor of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine; and
  • Jane Zucker, adjunct professor at SUNY's department of community health services.

All 17 of the members were appointed by the Biden administration. Thirteen were appointed last year.

RELATED: RFK Jr. torches vaccine panel to make consequences count again

Photo illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Data provided on OpenPaymentData.CMS.gov, a site managed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, provides some insights into just how cozy some of the former members were with the organizations whose products they were tasked with scrutinizing.

The website indicates that between 2017 and 2023:

  • Asturiasapparently collected around $54,000 from pharmaceutical companies, including $20,705 in what appear to be consulting fees. Among the companies that paid Asturias what appear to have been consulting fees were Pfizer and Merck Sharpe & Dohme LLC, a bio-pharmaceutical subsidiary of the company whose pneumococcal vaccine Capvaxive the committee voted to recommend in October. Asturias also appears to have received millions of dollars in research support from Big Pharma, including over $3.1 million from Pfizer and over $730,000 from the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline LLC. The Colorado Sun reported that the research support was for Asturias to study RSV, pneumonia, and other diseases both in Guatemala and the United States.
  • Brooks apparentlyreceived over $18,000 in what appear to be consulting fees from the vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur and thousands of dollars more from the company categorized as "compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program."
  • Chen, a proponent of masking during the pandemic, apparently collected $55,111.07 from pharmaceutical companies. Like Asturias, she has collected thousands of dollars in consulting fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme LLC but also plenty in consulting fees from the vaccine manufacturer Valneva, which the committee has since blessed with multiple recommendations. During Chen's directorship, Mount Auburn Hospital Travel Center received over $245,000 from the COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna.
  • Chuapparently received over $6,000 in consulting fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme and thousands more from the Illinois-headquartered pharmaceutical company AbbVie Inc. According to documentation from the Washington State Department of Health, Chu served as a co-investigator on studies funded by Pfizer, Novavax, and GlaxoSmithKline; has received research support from Gates Ventures, the Gates Foundation, Sanofi Pasteur, and Cepheid; and has served on advisory boards for Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer, Ellume, and the Gates Foundation.
  • Kuchelapparently received $10,720 in consulting fees from Big Pharma, the largest payment of which was from Johnson & Johnson's pharmaceutical company, Janssen Global. ACIP recommended the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine last year.
  • Maldonado, who publicly emphasized the supposed need for children to get vaccinated for COVID-19, apparently received over $33,147 from pharmaceutical companies, including $27,577.71 in what appear to be consulting fees. Like Asturias and Chen, Maldonado received a sizeable consulting fee payment from Merck Sharp & Dohme in 2023. When broken down by general payments, Pfizer ranked number one for Maldonado. Prior to her appointment to the ACIP, the CDC indicated that Maldonado "served as Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Pfizer meningococcal vaccine trials and as a site PI for Pfizer pediatric COVID-19 and maternal RSV vaccines and AstraZenaca [sic] varicella zoster vaccine trials." She reportedly abstained form voting on the COVID-19, pneumococcal, and influenza vaccines.
  • Shaw, a member of Yale's Infectious Disease Diversity, Equity, and Antiracism Committee, apparently received $2,590 in consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals.

According to the HPV IQ subpage on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Gillings School of Global Public Health website, Brewer "has received grants from and/or served on paid advisory boards for Pfizer, Merck, [GlaxoSmithKline LLC], FDA, CDC, and NIH."

The Defender reported in 2023 that Brewer — who suggested in 2023 that the "U.S. needs to get on an annual [COVID-19 vaccine] schedule, as we do for seasonal flu vaccination" — served on different paid Merck human papillomavirus boards since 2011 and served as a general consultant for the company for several years.

'They have a big job to do.'

Brewer reportedly received over $500,000 in grant funding to study HPV vaccine uptake from Merck and over $400,000 from Pfizer to "study how trainings might improve physician perceptions and recommendations of the HPV vaccine."

A Science investigation published in March downplayed the possible impact of Big Pharma ties among ACIP members, claiming that five of the 13 physicians on the committee prior to Kennedy's purge received no Big Pharma payments in the "several years before the service began" and that the various kinds of payments from drugmakers that eight other members received "averaged just over $4000 a year, nearly $3000 less than the average for all U.S. specialist physicians."

Blaze News reached out to Asturias, Brewer, Brooks, Chen, Chu, Maldonado, and Shaw for comment.

Brewer told Blaze News that his "last research grant from a pharmaceutical company ended nine years ago, in 2016," and the numbers provided above "are about right" and that "the actual numbers are higher by maybe $10K and change."

Brewer added, "I wish the new ACIP committee members well. They have a big job to do," then referred Blaze News to a recent article in Science, which notes that "the new panel members have been authors on about 78% fewer vaccine-related papers than the ousted members."

Ideological bent

Helen Chu joined Democratic Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.) to complain at a press conference on Thursday about the firings. Murray called the removal of Biden administration appointees a "dangerous, practically unthinkable step to undermine public health and vaccine confidence."

Chu, meanwhile, characterized the previous work of the ACIP as "transparent" and "unbiased."

Contrary to Chu's suggestion, biases ran deep on the panel in years past. While some of these biases may have been professional, others were ideological.

Noel Brewer, for instance, is a 2020 Biden donor whose social media history signals a possible DEI-lensed preoccupation with race.

'We must ask whether our own research, teaching, and service are intentionally antiracist.'

Brewer kicked off 2023 complaining that AI tools like ChatGPT sounded "straight, white and probably a few other things too." Months later, Brewer suggested that the lack of diversity in the authorship of certain textbooks was indicative of "white supremacy culture in academia." When discussing academic tenure and promotion decisions in September 2023, Brewer claimed that "fit, culture, and so on are tools of white supremacy."

Oliver Brooks — criticized in 2022 by Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary for reportedly voting in favor of recommending that kids ages 5-11 receive COVID-19 vaccine booster shots without outcomes data — is a repeat donor to Democratic politicians including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, and failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

Like Brewer, his outlook appears tinged by identity politics.

Amid the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, Brooks tried to provide an analogy to George Floyd's death in an editorial titled "Police Brutality and Blacks: An American Immune System Disorder" in the Journal of the National Medical Association in which he stated that the "country as a whole sets stereotypes as well as biases against black Americans which inevitably leads to social misinterpretation of the safety of Americans when a black person is present."

Brooks also noted, quoting another article, "We must ask whether our own research, teaching, and service are intentionally antiracist and challenge the institutions we work in to ask the same."

When Americans were protesting in 2020 in favor of reopening the country, Brooks framed the matter in identitarian terms on C-SPAN, noting, "If you look at those protesting to open up the environment — I prefer to use the term 'environment' as opposed to 'the economy' because it's not about money; it's about lives — most, I won't say all, most of the protesters are white or not inclusive of African-Americans or LatinX individuals."

Like some of her former colleagues on the panel, Sybil Cineas apparently has found it difficult to separate medicine from racial concerns or vice versa.

For instance, Cineas, listed as a member of the advisory group for Brown University's Office of Belonging, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, signed an open letter in 2021 to Tulane University's board of trustees, which complained of a "pervasive culture of White Supremacy" in the medical profession that "is perpetuated by the deeply hierarchical power structures of academic medicine."

The 'nuclear' decision

Kennedy noted in a June 9 op-ed that the point of "retiring" the committee members, including those "last-minute appointees of the Biden administration," was to help restore the public's trust "that unbiased science guides the recommendations from our health agencies."

"The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine," wrote the health secretary. "It has never recommended against a vaccine — even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make matters worse, the groups that inform ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust."

'Most of ACIP's members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies.'

When painting the committee as a succession of compromised members, Kennedy referred to a decades-old investigation that found a "web of close ties" between the CDC and the companies that make vaccines.

RELATED: CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

He also highlighted the revelation that four of the eight then-ACIP members who voted in 1997 to recommend routine vaccination of infants with the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to the very pharmaceutical companies developing such vaccines. This was especially damning because the recommended vaccine was subsequently withdrawn on account of its ruinous and in some cases deadly side effects.

Although members are now barred from holding stocks or serving on advisory boards associated with vaccine makers, Kennedy indicated that "these conflicts of interest persist."

"Most of ACIP's members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines," wrote the health secretary.

'Ending the conflict of interest is the first critical step to restoring unbiased, science-based analysis of safety and efficacy of vaccines.'

The health secretary emphasized that the "malpractice" impacts Americans nationwide, in part due to the committee's "stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children."

Kennedy claimed that "a compliant American child receives between 69 and 92 routine vaccines (depending on brand/dictated dosage) from conception to 18 years of age."

"ACIP has recommended each of these additional jabs without requiring placebo-controlled trials for any of them," said Kennedy. "This means that no one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing."

Peter Hotez, a cable news vaccine promoter and the founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, was among the medical establishmentarians to recently contest this claim about placebo-controlled trials, saying, "That's simply not true."

'The pharmaceutical companies have been running a regulatory capture scam.'

Kennedy claimed in response that such protesters were wrong — and made sure to bring receipts.

— (@)

The health secretary also indicated on Friday that the ACIP will "institute bias policies recommending that ACIP panelists recuse themselves from decisions in which their current or former clients have a financial interest."

Mixed reception

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz said, "This is a nuclear bomb on the biomedical security state."

"The heart of the problem with vaccine safety stems from the fact that the pharmaceutical companies have been running a regulatory capture scam," continued Horowitz. "They place scientists and doctors on their payroll and then insert those individuals into government advisory positions. Ending the conflict of interest is the first critical step to restoring unbiased, science-based analysis of safety and efficacy of vaccines."

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Children's Health Defense, which was chaired by Kennedy from 2015 to 2023, similarly celebrated the news.

Mary Holland, president and CEO of CHD, told Blaze News in a statement that Kennedy's announcement "marks a pivotal advancement in the radical transparency he promised the country."

"Children's Health Defense has long highlighted the conflicts of interest involving the ACIP committee. It is unbelievable that ACIP members were allowed to participate in deliberations regarding a product in which they might have a financial stake," said Holland. "No wonder the committee consistently approved every vaccine for use, including those that were proven unsafe and subsequently removed shortly after approval. Ending this practice represents a significant step forward in restoring the public’s trust in our health agencies."

Of course, Kennedy's actions did not please everyone.

'I've never seen anything this damaging to public health happen in my lifetime.'

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, one of the Democratic lawmakers who has received a fortune in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, called the firing of the ACIP members "a public health disaster."

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, was among the many who concern-mongered last year about the impact that Kennedy could have if afforded power and access in the Trump administration.

Last week, Offit wrote, "RFK Jr. will do everything he can to make sure that all vaccines are no longer mandated and to make vaccines less available, less affordable and more feared. This is only the beginning."

One of the dismissed ACIP members complained to CNN, "I've never seen anything this damaging to public health happen in my lifetime."

RELATED: HHS scraps COVID vaccine schedule for children and pregnant women: 'It's common sense, and it's good science'

Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

The ex-member, whose name was not disclosed, added, "I'm shocked. It's pretty brazen. This will fundamentally destabilize vaccination in America."

Bruce Scott, the president of the American Medical Association, similarly expressed distress last week, claiming that the action undermines public trust "and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives."

Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, claimed that Kennedy's "allegations about the integrity of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are completely unfounded."

BlazeTV host Steve Deace, considering the action within the broader context of the MAHA movement, told "Blaze News: The Mandate" last week that President Donald Trump's decision to make Kennedy the health secretary "might be the closest we're ever going to get in America to a tribunal on what happened during that time [the pandemic]."

The firings at the ACIP are "the closest thing to real consequences — people losing their jobs — that we have seen," added Deace.

— (@)

HHS indicated in a statement that it will convene its next meeting June 25 through June 27 at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

White House moves to correct apparent errors in landmark MAHA report



The White House moved to correct errors in the highly anticipated MAHA report Thursday after inconsistencies and inaccuracies were found in the citations.

The errors in the MAHA report were first reported by NOTUS on Thursday. They included broken links and studies that apparently did not exist. The White House later uploaded the corrected version of the report, and the administration maintained that the errors do not refute the substance of the report.

"I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed, and the report will be updated," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. "But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government."

'It’s time for the media to also focus on what matters.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The Department of Health and Human Services similarly stated that they were simply formatting errors and that they don't change the historic findings in the report.

"Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children," an HHS spokesperson said. "Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, our federal government is no longer ignoring this crisis, and it’s time for the media to also focus on what matters."

However, these errors seem to go beyond formatting as the administration is suggesting. The citations included broken links and even pointed to numerous studies that reportedly do not appear in the issues of the journals cited and may not even exist at all.

"The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," Katherine Keyes, an epidemiologist listed as an author, told NOTUS. "We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title."

RELATED: Elon Musk formally departs from DOGE following a tumultuous tenure

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The report itself, which was spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., focused on identifying root causes for various health epidemics affecting American children, including chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavioral disorders. Some of these root causes include ultra-processed foods, pesticides, and exposure to chemicals, as well as "overmedicalization."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK's highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America's health crisis



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released his 68-page MAHA Commission report detailing the dark reality of America's health and how to fix it.

Kennedy's report highlights root causes of chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavior disorders in children. The report points to multiple culprits, including ultra-processed foods, exposure to chemicals like pesticides, and lack of exercise, as well as "overmedicalization." Underlying all of these issues, the report notes that corporate influence in medicine and health care has been one of the driving forces that has led to all of these problems.

"To turn the tide and better protect our children, the United States must act decisively," the report reads. "During this administration, we will begin reversing the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes — not just its symptoms. This means pursuing truth, embracing science, and enacting pro-growth policies and innovations to restore children’s health. Today’s children are tomorrow’s workforce, caregivers, and leaders — we can no longer afford to ignore this crisis."

'This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives.'

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

"After a century of costly and ineffective approaches, the federal government will lead a coordinated transformation of our food, health, and scientific systems," the report reads. "This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives, supported by systems that prioritize prevention, well-being, and resilience."

The MAHA Commission, which was established by one of President Donald Trump's executive orders, was tasked with investigating the drivers of America's health epidemic.

The report found that as much as 70% of foods children consume contain ultra-processed ingredients and concluded that scientific funding for pharmaceutical, chemical, and food companies has contributed to rising chronic diseases.

Additionally, the report found that there's been a 1,400% increase in prescriptions for antidepressants in American children from 1987 to 2014, also known as "overmedicalization." The report also questioned the current childhood vaccine protocol and said that vaccines would benefit from a "more rigorous clinical trial" design.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

To address the many failures that have affected American children's health, the report also put forward a "gold standard" research initiative that includes nutrition trials, drug safety research, and large-scale lifestyle interventions.

"Some of the steps to implement these research initiatives are already underway and others will begin this in the near future," the report reads. "In parallel, the MAHA Commission will immediately begin working on developing the strategy to make our children healthy again — due in August 2025. We invite all of America, especially the private sector and academia, to be part of the solution."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Local Man Swims In Creek, Media Freak Out

Americans want the freedom to make their own, informed choices about their health -- both which risks to take and which ones not to.

Sex-Change Procedures for Minors Cause 'Irreversible' Damage for 'Very Weak Evidence of Benefit': HHS Report

The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday released a comprehensive review warning that sex-change surgeries and interventions for minors carry "significant risks" but have "very weak evidence of benefit."

The post Sex-Change Procedures for Minors Cause 'Irreversible' Damage for 'Very Weak Evidence of Benefit': HHS Report appeared first on .

US Representatives Join RFK’s Crusade Against Big Pharma

'Patients should trust their doctor for medical guidance, not 30-second TV ads'