Bottled-up rage: This is what Trump derangement syndrome looks like



Only Donald Trump could make the legacy corporate media defend corn syrup.

Last week, the president announced that Coca-Cola would begin directly offering Americans a new choice: Coca-Cola sweetened with cane sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup. Coca-Cola confirmed the news this week.

Instead of being honest, NBC News essentially ran defense for corn syrup — because Trump criticized it.

It's another victory for the Make America Healthy Again movement. But reaction to the announcement was as predictable as it was absurd.

Within hours of Trump's announcement, NBC News published a story — citing medical “experts,” of course — questioning whether cane sugar is better than corn syrup. “As Trump pushes for cane sugar in Coca-Cola, is it really better than corn syrup?” the headline asked.

Its conclusion: not really. It's “essentially the same.” Nothing to see here.

But there is something to see here — quite a bit, in fact.

NBC News' reaction is yet another example of how Trump's critics, sick with Trump derangement syndrome, reflexively oppose anything he does, taking the losing side of an 80/20 issue. Protecting your children from radical trans ideology? Bigotry. Border security? That's racist. Want real sugar in your soda instead of a processed, factory-engineered syrup made from crops sprayed with dangerous chemicals? Nope, can't support that.

You don't need a doctorate in nutrition or to be a medical doctor to know that HFCS is bad for you. It has long been associated with poor health outcomes like obesity, insulin resistance, and other metabolic diseases. It’s cheap, it’s everywhere, and it’s a product of a food system that routinely puts profits over Americans' health.

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

  Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

It's no coincidence that poor health outcomes exploded when American food manufacturers began using processed, factory-engineered products like corn syrup and seed oils. Moreover, we intuitively know that natural food products — like cane sugar — are better for our health than cheaper, processed alternatives.

And yet, NBC News is on a campaign to debunk this widely acknowledged fact. It's a move straight from the legacy media's anti-Trump playbook.

NBC News cited Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, who said cane sugar and HFCS have “identical metabolic effects” because “high-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar are about 50% fructose, 50% glucose.”

That might be true in biochemistry textbooks. But real-world nutrition is not only about molecules. It’s about systems, and our reliance on HFCS is evidence that our food system is deeply broken.

Food manufacturers use HFCS because it's cheaper, not because it’s healthy. It became dominant in the 1970s and 1980s through agricultural subsidies, corporate lobbying, and a food industry obsessed with maximizing profit margins. It's addictive and engineered for invisibility. It normalizes excess consumption, and it's seemingly in everything: soda, candy, bread, condiments, salad dressings, and snack foods, including many foods you don't realize are sweetened unless you look at the nutritional label.

If the food or drink product you purchase is found in the middle of the grocery store, chances are it contains HFCS or some other manufactured derivative with a different name.

Cane sugar, on the other hand, is less processed, less ubiquitous, and more easily avoided. Plus, it comes from nature. We intuitively know which is better to eat.

RELATED: Death to seed oils

  Supranee Bunchoo via iStock/Getty Images

This isn’t really about the ingredients in Coca-Cola. It's about the battle at the heart of the Make America Healthy Again movement — a battle not just against bad ingredients and chemicals, but the propaganda machine that protects a system making us fat, sick, and dependent on the pharmaceutical industry.

MAHA is about reclaiming your birthright to food freedom and metabolic health. It’s about common sense and trusting your instincts — not “experts” and elites who gaslight you into oblivion. America spends more on health care than any other developed nation and has the best quality of care in the world, yet our health outcomes are significantly worse. Everyone knows something is wrong, and everyone knows it starts with our food.

That’s why NBC News’ “fact check” is so dishonest.

For decades, the media and scientific establishment downplayed sugar's role in skyrocketing rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and metabolic dysfunction — all while scapegoating fat as the villain. They pushed low-fat, high-carb processed foods as healthy (remember the food pyramid?), helping enrich Big Food and Big Pharma. Tens of millions Americans paid the price with their health, and the problem is only getting worse.

But instead of being honest, NBC News essentially ran defense for corn syrup — because Trump criticized it. That’s activism, not journalism.

The reaction from NBC News is symbolic of the many problems fatiguing Americans: We are sick, and we want real food. We want honesty and transparency from corporations and the media. We are tired of being used by industries that don't care about us and a media that manipulates us.

The MAHA movement is exposing these broken systems, and Trump's instincts — once again — are correct. He may not be a doctor or nutrition expert (he loves McDonald's, after all), but the experts clearly cannot be trusted. Once again, Trump is on the right side of an 80/20 issue.

Coca-Cola made the right move. And NBC News, in its blind opposition to Trump, just proved again why no one trusts it anymore.

MAHA Sounds Alarm Over Pesticide Manufacturer Immunity

'Our kids pay the price while chemical giants get richer'

The GOP establishment lost to Trump — now it's rebranding as ‘neo-MAGA’



From the moment Donald Trump announced his run for president, the Republican establishment hated his guts. In 2016, the brash New York billionaire was treated like a joke — an embarrassment degrading the political process. But as Trump gained momentum, establishment figures faced a choice: Throw in with “NeverTrump” or pretend they’d seen the light.

Some bolted to NeverTrump outfits like the Bulwark or the Lincoln Project. Others stuck around, biding their time, waiting for a chance to reclaim the party from the populists. Now that Trump defines the GOP, they’ve shifted strategies. If you can’t beat MAGA, co-opt it.

MAGA has never been a cult, despite what the detractors may say. Supporters have stood by him because he fought for the things they care about.

Trump’s first term resembled an awkward arranged marriage. He won the heart of the base and created a movement mostly detached from the GOP machine. But he lacked the institutional infrastructure necessary to govern. Running the executive branch requires armies of staffers, bureaucrats, and loyal operatives — none of which MAGA had.

That vacuum was filled by GOP establishment swamp creatures, many of whom actively opposed the president and his agenda. Key officials undermined him. Military leaders lied to his face. Despite some major victories, Trump’s presidency was defined by a constant war against a hostile ruling class.

The great Republican hope?

With outrageous legal attacks from the Biden administration raising doubts about Trump’s electability, Ron DeSantis was encouraged to step in. I like DeSantis — he’s my governor, and he has done an outstanding job, especially standing up to the COVID-19 insanity. But the truth is that DeSantis has never been a gifted campaigner. He barely scraped by in 2018 against a man later found doing meth in a hotel with a male prostitute.

Trump, whatever his flaws, is a force of nature on the campaign trail. Anyone paying attention could see that DeSantis was walking into a meat grinder.

Still, many Republicans who hadn’t declared themselves NeverTrump saw DeSantis as their chance to strike. He had a solid record and stuck closer to the establishment line. He was more disciplined, less prone to off-script rhetoric, and — most important — not under indictment.

So the donor class and the consultant class threw their weight behind him. The money flowed, the media declared him the future, and the campaign ... flopped. Hard.

After DeSantis’ inevitable loss, anti-Trump Republicans were left stunned, tending to their bruised egos and looking for a new angle. Trump had survived an assassination attempt and beaten Kamala Harris. It was clear: He was the party. The idea that he could be swapped out for a more polished Republican was delusional.

Strain on the base

MAGA wasn’t going to be defeated by recycled talk about small government and lower taxes. The only remaining play was to redefine the movement from within.

Trump’s second term began with a burst of action: government agencies were shuttered, birthright citizenship was challenged, and deportations resumed. MAGA supporters were elated. Progressives were stunned. But the GOP establishment was left wondering how to reinsert itself into power.

Then came the cracks.

Trump ordered a strike on Iran at Israel’s request — only for Benjamin Netanyahu to blow off the president’s social media appeals to honor a ceasefire. Trump floated amnesty for illegal aliens working in agriculture and hospitality. The Justice Department and FBI dismissed any suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein had blackmailed elites, was murdered, or left behind a client list.

This was especially disturbing given that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel had built their MAGA reputations by promising to expose Epstein’s secrets. Suddenly, the story changed. The fabled “client list” did not exist after all. The “truckload” of evidence amounted to nothing. Cover-up? What cover-up?

The strain on Trump’s relationship with his base was real — and that was the opening establishment Republicans needed.

RELATED: Progressive castoffs don’t get to define the right

  Blaze Media illustration

Enter ‘neo-MAGA’

Out of nowhere, a new class of Trump supporter emerged: neo-MAGA. Most of these operatives were DeSantis die-hards last year. Now they claim to be Trump’s most loyal defenders. They spend their time lecturing actual Trump supporters for lacking faith in a man they previously ridiculed.

In their telling, MAGA never meant ending regime-change wars — it meant launching new ones in Iran. MAGA never meant deporting illegal aliens — it was just about gang members and drug traffickers. MAGA never cared about Epstein’s client list, so don’t worry about it. Just trust the process. Trust the staff. Trust the people who said the files were real and now insist they were imaginary.

The “trust the staff” line is especially rich, considering that many of these same influencers trashed Trump’s appointment of Steve Witkoff as a negotiator for not being sufficiently pro-Israel. Now they demand blind loyalty to the very people they attacked last week.

This isn’t about loyalty to Trump. MAGA has never been a cult, despite what the detractors may say. Supporters have stood by him because he fought for the things they care about: economic populism, national sovereignty, immigration, and a restrained foreign policy. When he delivers, they cheer. When he falters, they push back.

Neo-MAGA wants to replace that dynamic with a new one — one where dissent is heresy and the old GOP agenda returns under a different label. These operatives see a chance to ride the MAGA brand back into power, reshaping it into something safer, softer, and friendlier to the donor class.

But the base haven't forgotten. They remember who bolted. They remember who mocked them. They remember who told them DeSantis was the future. And they know that the same people now preaching unity were, until five minutes ago, rooting for Trump to fail.

Whatever disagreement exists between Trump and his base, both should beware of the interlopers trying to turn this moment into a reset for the GOP establishment. MAGA wasn’t built on loyalty to staffers or influencers. It was built on promises, and those promises still matter.

Is your home trying to kill you?



Filmmaker and mother Jessica Solce was frustrated by the difficulty of finding healthy, all-natural products for herself and her family. To make it easier, she created the Solarium, which curates trusted, third-party-tested foods, clothing, beauty products, and more — all free of seed oils, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and other harmful additives.

In this occasional column, she shares recommendations and research she's picked up during her ongoing education in health and wellness.

Your refrigerator is filled with unprocessed, natural foods. Your medicine cabinet is free of toxic pharmaceuticals. Your faucets dispense filtered, chemical-free drinking water.

In other words, you've optimized your family's home life for health. But what about the home itself?

Pillows, sheets, and furniture also contain toxic flame retardants, a grimly appropriate name given their tendency to reduce IQ and cause developmental delays.

Sadly and shockingly, virtually all houses harbor seemingly innocuous products and materials that silently poison us, day in and day out.

Take your bed, for example.

You spend a third of your life sleeping, so get a good mattress. This is solid advice. It also happens to be incomplete. A restful night's sleep shouldn't mean eight to 10 hours inhaling microdoses of toxic, flame-retardant forever chemicals.

But that's exactly what you get with much modern bedding.

And the situation in other rooms is generally no better.

To go through all of what may be poisoning us in our homes would require an article of epic proportions; it would also be overwhelmingly depressing for me to write and for you to read.

I encourage you to do more research and to consider the specifics of your own situation. In the meantime, for the sake of both of our sanities, I’ll limit myself to outlining the major offenders — as well as what to replace them with.

My hope is that I can give you a good start in ensuring your home is a haven for healing, not a den of disease.

RELATED: Grass-fed steaks, unprocessed salt, and more chemical-free picks from the Solarium

  Getty Images/Camerique/The Solarium

Starting slow

Spend any time on health-oriented social media, and it feels as if every week brings news of some new toxic product ready to kill you, from paint and plastics to petroleum-based perfumes.

So when we first set out to evict the enemy from our abode, we quickly realize the hydra-esque task we've taken on. No sooner have you rooted him out of one hiding place than you discover him popping up in two more.

As someone who's navigated this kind of purge myself (inspiring me to create an online marketplace of healthy products to help you do the same), I strongly advise against a scorched earth, “No Impact Man” approach.

Rather, you should employ a method of gradual change where you make small, conscious swaps for healthier alternatives. Trust me, it’s easier on your wallet and your mental well-being.

No impact, man

That said, the aforementioned 2009 documentary is an eye-opening watch. “No Impact Man” is the story of a New York City family — journalist Colin Beavan, his wife, Michelle, and their toddler, Isabella — undertaking an experiment to live for one year, while making as little impact on the environment as possible.

One scene in particular floored me: when Michelle throws away all of her makeup and bathroom and beauty products.

It wasn't that she voluntarily parted ways with her precious and pricey creams and unguents but the sheer amount of them she'd managed to stockpile in their small Manhattan apartment.

Imagine how much more the bathroom of the average American house in the suburbs holds. Unfathomable amounts of money spent on unfathomable amounts of toxic junk.

As thought-provoking as "No Impact Man" is, I'd advise against going to such extremes, at least at first. Above all, you want to make sure this is something you can sustain.

In my experience, that becomes easier the more you learn how to spot these home-borne toxins — and the more you understand the potential damage they can do once they get into your lungs, bloodstream, and cells and mitochondria. Removing them from your life will not feel like a burden but a no-brainer necessity.

Here are some simple first steps to get you started.

Open your windows

Even without getting rid of anything, this age-old method of improving ventilation and air exchange can have a major impact on the health of your home.

A 2020 review of 37 separate environmental studies found that elevated indoor carbon dioxide levels associated with poor ventilation impaired high-level decision-making and reduced cognitive speed, especially on complex tasks.

Remake your bed

As mentioned, where you rest your head at night is very important. We sleep an average of 2,700 hours a year, or 114 days out of 365. And it's not just your mattress you need to worry about.

Pillows, sheets, and furniture also contain toxic flame retardants, a grimly appropriate name given their tendency to reduce IQ and cause developmental delays.

They can also cause metabolic problems like obesity and insulin resistance, while endocrine disruptors they contain cause thyroid problems, infertility, hormone disregulation, and hormone-related cancers. Nasty stuff.

Because kids tend to put their hands on everything and everything in their mouths, they're even more prone to ingesting these retardants. Especially when they're in the pajamas they wear!

One retardant ingredient is formaldehyde. You know ... embalming fluid. Many of us are sleeping on literal deathbeds.

So what can we do?! For pillows and comforters, find goose down or wool. One excellent option for pillows is the wonderful U.S. company the Woolshire. Avocado is a great source for mattresses. You can find 100% cotton and/or linen at a wide range of prices, from made-in-America luxury brands to Target's in-house bedding line.

Clear the air

Nothing like lighting a scented candle or two to make a home feel clean and inviting. Just make sure you know what you're burning

While marketed as "natural," many soy candles contain synthetic fragrance oils and chemical additives that release harmful pollutants. A pair of recent studies found that scented candles emit formaldehyde, benzene, and other carcinogens, with risks to lung and nasal cancers, respiratory harm, and cognitive decline.

The aforementioned chemicals are known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, not because they are organic in the farmer’s market sense but because of their specific chemical properties.

“Volatile” refers to their ability to turn into gas at room temperature, “organic” refers to their carbon bases, and “compounds” means they’re highly complex — all to mean these things are absolutely not fit for human consumption or contact. If they are in your home, they can “off gas” into your air without being heated or physically disturbed.

In addition, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee confirms that fragrance ingredients are among the leading causes of allergic contact dermatitis (allergies, eczema, rashes) in Europe. Another study confirms that regular indoor scented candle burning “can expose us to dangerous levels of organic pollutants” and ultra-fine particles.

These harmful VOCs are not inherent in the unburned wax but formed as byproducts of incomplete combustion when the candle is burned; the additives, wicks (sometimes made of lead!), and added fragrances and dyes increase the levels of VOCs. Synthetic scents can also trigger asthma, allergic reactions, and breathing problems.

A 100% unadulterated beeswax candle with a cotton or paper wick and no added dyes or fragrance is the way to go.

This is the cleanest candle possible: not 100% free of VOCs but with significantly lower emissions. It's also completely unprocessed — made of wax that comes straight from the beehive.

Along with the lovely natural scent, beeswax candles may also produce negative ions that help settle positively charged particles like dust, pollen, mold spores, and some airborne toxins.

"Why can’t I just get some air fresheners from Walmart?" Don’t bother. They emit a cocktail of carcinogenic VOCs and phthalates (endocrine-disrupting semi-VOCs). If you have these in your home or in the car, this is step one: Get rid of them pronto.

Once you stop using chemical air fresheners, you’ll start noticing how foul and unnatural they actually smell. As luck would have it, we now have a nice, natural option thanks to the small French company &Eden.

The scents you put on your body can be just as harmful, especially considering that you absorb them directly through your skin as well as through your lungs. When you are ready to make the swap, consider these cleaner, nature-based soaps and fragrances.

Let the light in

The convenience of artificial light comes with a major cost: the disruption of our body’s innate circadian signaling and repair processes.

Moreover, our bodies our designed to absorb the entirety of the sunlight spectrum, from infrared to visible to ultraviolet. But our ubiquitous screens isolate and maximize our exposure to certain parts of the spectrum. The computers, phones, and tablets we use indoors continually bathe us in unnatural amounts of blue light.

One way to mitigate this constant onslaught is by wearing yellow-tinted blue-light-blocking glasses while at the computer.

You can also change your lightbulbs to more closely resemble full spectrum sunlight. I did this first in my bedroom, creating a warm, amber glow like candlelight. I highly recommend it.

There are emerging tech solutions as well. The Daylight Computer can be used outside without glare issues and eliminates the blue light problem by harnessing ambient light or using red light for a backlight. Its display resembles conventional E Ink displays but with a faster refresh rate.

If you want to learn a whole lot more about blue light, you can read my three-part series about its effects on your body.

Clean house

Say goodbye to the likes of Mr. Clean, Lysol, and Formula 409. They all come with excess baggage: quaternary ammonium compounds, or "quats" (antimicrobials that can cause skin and respiratory irritation), synthetic fragrances, preservatives, and ethanolamines.

RELATED: Trump EPA takes aim at forever chemicals

  Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In addition, common cleaning products often contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that can impair fertility in both sexes. The phthalates found in many synthetic fragrances have been strongly linked to reduced sperm quality, lower testosterone, and altered ovarian function.

Instead, make your own all-purpose cleaner with vinegar, water, essential oils, and a glass spray bottle. You can also experiment with different combinations of baking soda, hydrogen peroxide, isopropyl alcohol, and lemon juice.

Other fertility disruptors that may be lurking in your home include:

  • Bisphenol A (BPA), a common ingredient in plastic products and thermal receipts, which has been connected to reduced egg quality, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, and implantation failure;
  • PFAS, or "forever chemicals," in stain‑resistant fabrics, non‑stick cookware, and some cosmetics, which are associated with longer time-to-pregnancy and lower fertility rates; and
  • Household flame retardants present in furniture and electronics, which have been linked to failed embryo implantation and decreased sperm motility.

Pesticides, particularly organophosphates and glyphosate, have been associated with reduced fertility, hormone disruption, and increased miscarriage risk. Which leads us to our next step ...

Weed out pesticides

According to NASA’s famous Clean Air Study, certain houseplants do more than just look good — they can help filter common indoor air pollutants often released by furniture, cleaning products, and household materials.

This is technically true, but ventilation is still more effective; it would take a huge number of plants to make a difference in home air quality.

Then again, I do think that cohabitating with plants benefits us in less quantifiable ways, such as fostering a healthy sense of connection to nature.

Just be aware of the soil you use — inside and outside the home. Conventional soils are filled with synthetic pesticides like herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides as well as synthetic fertilizers that alter soil biology, killing nutrients and introducing heavy metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium) into your gardens and eventually into your body.

Kids play outside, roll in the grass, and jump into leaf piles. They also come into close contact with pets who do the same. This soup of pesticides gets on their skin and is inhaled, raising their risks for blue baby syndrome, colorectal cancer, birth defects and sexual deformities, neurodevelopmental harm in children, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A 2015 Harvard School of Public Health study determined a 26% increased risk of leukemia in children exposed to herbicide. Indoor insecticide exposure showed a 47% higher risk of leukemia and a 43% higher risk of lymphoma. Even parental exposure before conception can raise cancer risk.

Most of us have heard of Roundup, the notorious herbicide that's cost Monsanto billions in legal settlements with people who claim it gave them cancer.

Despite this, the EPA continues to approve the use of Roundup, which kills weeds while sparing crops genetically engineered to resist it. The problem is that weeds tend to develop their own resistance.

The common solution is to add 2,4-D, a pesticide I'd never heard of before researching this article. Despite mounting evidence that 2,4-D is at least as harmful as Roundup, the EPA approved the use of this combination in 2014.

This is all the more reason to prioritize buying pesticide-free, organic, and regenerative soils for your indoor and outdoor plants. It's also important to stick to meats and vegetables raised on such soil. What our food sources eat and consume, we consume, entering us into a cycle of life and vitality or death and degeneration.

RFK’s Latest Idea Has Some In MAHA Scratching Their Heads
play icon

RFK’s Latest Idea Has Some In MAHA Scratching Their Heads

'Biometric data is irreplaceable, making it a highly sought-after asset in the digital age'

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!

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



In a significant victory for the "Make America Healthy Again" movement, food giant Kraft Heinz vowed that it would remove all artificial colors from its products in the coming years.

On Tuesday, Kraft Heinz announced in a statement that it will remove artificial food, drug, and cosmetic colors from products in the United States before the end of 2027.

Kraft Heinz also declared that 'it will not launch any new products in the US with Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) colors, effective immediately.'

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration notes that there are seven certified synthetically produced color additives approved for use in foods, drugs, and cosmetics.

"The FDA’s regulations require evidence that a color additive is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods," according to the FDA.

In order to be an approved additive in foods, the artificial coloring can be added only to certain types of foods and in limited quantities. Companies that use it must also adhere to FDA regulations on how the color additive is presented on the product's packaging.

As Blaze News reported in January, the FDA announced a ban on the use of Red No. 3 dye because of evidence that laboratory rats exposed to high levels of Red No. 3 developed cancer.

RELATED: Red dye 40 and hidden toxins are fueling the ADD epidemic

  

 

Kraft Heinz announced a three-pronged strategy for removing artificial colors from its existing products, including "removing colors where it is not critical to the consumer experience," "replacing FD&C colors with natural colors," or "reinventing new colors and shades where matching natural replacements are not available."

Kraft Heinz pointed out that nearly 90% of its U.S. products are free of FD&C colors.

In addition to removing artificial dyes from its existing products, Kraft Heinz also declared that "it will not launch any new products in the U.S. with Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) colors, effective immediately."

Pedro Navio — the North America president of Kraft Heinz — stated, "As a food company with a 150+ year heritage, we are continuously evolving our recipes, products, and portfolio to deliver superiority to consumers and customers. The vast majority of our products use natural or no colors, and we’ve been on a journey to reduce our use of FD&C colors across the remainder of our portfolio."

Navio stressed that the company eliminated artificial colors, preservatives, and flavors from its extremely popular mac and cheese in 2016.

The Kraft Heinz Company has several notable brands under its umbrella, including Oscar Mayer, Ore-Ida, Capri Sun, Lunchables, Jell-O, and Kool-Aid.

Kraft Heinz is the "third-largest food and beverage company in North America and the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world, with eight $1 billion+ brands," according to the food behemoth.

RELATED: Grass-fed steaks, unprocessed salt, and more chemical-free picks from the Solarium

  

Kraft Heinz is removing all artificial colors from its brands after the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. placed pressure on food manufacturers to eliminate synthetic additives from their food products by the end of President Donald Trump's term.

In March, Kennedy urged the removal of artificial dyes from food products in a meeting with top food executives from massive companies such as Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, General Mills, Tyson Foods, and W.K. Kellogg.

As part of his MAHA agenda, Kennedy is pushing food manufacturers to remove potentially dangerous petroleum-based synthetic dyes from food.

“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent," Kennedy proclaimed in April. "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," President Trump's HHS secretary declared. "And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day."

In addition to removing artificial dyes from the nation’s food supply, the FDA is partnering with the National Institutes of Health to "conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development."

Blaze News reached out to the HHS and FDA for a comment on Kraft Heinz eliminating artificial food coloring but did not receive an immediate response.

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

  Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

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

FDA Vaccine Advisor Calls For COVID Victims To Sue Trump Admin
play icon

FDA Vaccine Advisor Calls For COVID Victims To Sue Trump Admin

'What you would like to see is ... the inevitable happening'

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:

  • Asturias apparently 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.
  • Chu apparently 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.
  • Kuchel apparently 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!

RFK Jr.'s revenge: CDC vaccine board FIRED after years of COVID lies



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just pulled one of his boldest moves yet under the Trump administration and fired the CDC’s vaccine advisory board after removing COVID shots from children's and pregnant women’s vaccine schedules.

“This is the first true consequence that I think we have seen,” BlazeTV host Steve Deace says on “Blaze News I The Mandate,” noting that “almost every major health care policy position” in Trump’s administration has gone to “some form of COVID scamdemic skeptic.”

“The nomination of RFK Jr. as secretary of HHS, guys, might be the closest we’re ever going to get in America to a tribunal on what happened during that period of time. And now, this is the closest thing to real consequences — people losing their jobs — that we have seen,” he continues.


The CDC vaccine advisory board in question has existed for decades and, according to Deace, has “never once found that a single vaccine was unsafe.”

“Now, just to put this in some context ... Moderna, as a company, for over a decade tried to bring a singular product to market but was never able to do it one time, until the COVID vaccine,” he explains.

“So somehow, somehow they were unable to harness this mRNA technology for over a decade to successfully bring one, not even a single product to market one time, and yet, under the gun, the pressure of a once-in-a-century pandemic, they pulled it off,” he continues.

“We’re talking about a panel that at least 25 years did not find one single shot unsafe, including the COVID vaccines. So that just kind of gives you an idea of who this panel is,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News | The Mandate'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.