RFK Jr. makes crystal clear to the CDC mutineers: The restoration of public trust 'won't stop'



Establishmentarians' worst fears are being realized at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is putting Americans' health first, challenging the failed status quo, and threatening Big Pharma's apparent influence over the agency.

While there now appears to be a sizeable mutiny under way at the CDC, Kennedy has made one thing crystal clear: He's not backing down.

Frustration with Kennedy has been mounting among medical establishmentarians for months.

'Once RFK provides the other side of the story, there is no turning back for a significant portion of the country.'

There has, for instance, been a great deal of pearl-clutching over his termination of the Biden appointees on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices whose coziness with pharmaceutical companies prompted questions about their vaccine recommendations; his removal of the COVID vaccine from the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule for healthy pregnant women and children; and his cancellation of mRNA vaccine development contracts.

This shake-up at the CDC continued last week with the White House's ouster of Susan Monarez as director — a removal her attorneys claimed was the result of her supposed refusal "to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts."

Amid Monarez's futile fight to keep her job — she has since been replaced by Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill — other CDC officials threw in the towel, including Debra Houry, the chief medical officer; Daniel Jernigan, the director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease; and Demetre Daskalakis, the sex-obsessed homosexual "activist physician" who showed up in public wearing bondage gear and served as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

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

Following this changing of the guard, over 1,000 current and former HHS staff members released a letter on Wednesday demanding Kennedy's resignation from his position as health secretary.

The Save HHS campaign's letter, whose signatories are not publicly named but have been supposedly revealed to members of Congress, claims that Kennedy "continues to endanger the nation's health" by:

  • "facilitating" the removal of Monarez;
  • "causing the resignations" of Daskalakis and his ilk;
  • appointing Dr. Robert Malone and other experts to ACIP who have in the past raised concerns about experimental vaccines;
  • rescinding the Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines; and
  • daring to say that "trusting experts is not a feature of either a science or democracy."

The Save HHS campaign did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

The Save HHS campaign indicates on its website that its partner organizations include Doctors for America, National Nurses United, and the American Public Health Organization.

The scientific advisory board of the Accountability Journalism Institute is apparently also a partner.

In its petition to remove Kennedy, the AJI's scientific advisory board claimed that President Donald Trump's health secretary "poses an immediate and long-term threat to the health of the American public."

The AJI scientific advisory board's claim appears to be a stone's thrown from a glass house. After all, a member of the board and signatory of the petition is Peter Daszak — the disgraced British zoologist who was formally debarred along with his scandal-plagued organization EcoHealth Alliance in January by the HHS.

RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'

Former CDC Director Susan Monarez and ex-CDC official Demetre Daskalakis. Photo (left): Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images; Photo (right): Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz, author of "Rise of the Fourth Reich: Confronting COVID Fascism with a New Nuremberg Trial So This Never Happens Again," noted to Blaze News, "The reason you are seeing so much mutiny against RFK Jr. is because unlike many of the Trump legal and policy changes, which can easily be changed under the next administration, CDC guidance is much more of a cultural influence straight down to individual parents and doctors."

"For years, the industry relied on an air-tight unanimity of opinion in health care and government that every vaccine was as pure as the wind-driven snow and absolutely indispensable for every baby born in this country," wrote Horowitz.

"Once RFK provides the other side of the story, there is no turning back for a significant portion of the country because ultimately it relies on the public confidence in vaccines," continued Horowitz. "It's not like immigration policies with TPS, parole, and expedited removal that the next president can just reinstate the prior policies from day one."

Kennedy noted in an op-ed on Tuesday that while the CDC "was once the world's most trusted guardian of public health" with a mission both clear and noble, "over the decades, bureaucratic inertia, politicized science, and mission creep have corroded that purpose and squandered public trust."

'The CDC must restore public trust — and that restoration has begun.'

The health secretary turned the endangerment accusation on its head, pointing out that the CDC under previous management "produced irrational policy during COVID: cloth masks on toddlers, arbitrary 6-foot distancing, boosters for healthy children, prolonged school closings, economy-crushing lockdowns, and the suppression of low-cost therapeutics in favor of experimental and ineffective drugs."

"The toll was devastating. America is home to 4.2% of the world’s population but suffered 19% of COVID deaths," added Kennedy.

The health secretary noted further that the "truth must no longer be ignored" about the downsides of vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutics and that "infectious and chronic illness are linked."

Kennedy indicated that his ACIP housecleaning and the replacement of CDC leaders who "resisted reform" were meaningful steps toward restoring trust, eliminating conflicts of interest, and curbing "bureaucratic complacency" at the agency but that there was still much work to be done.

"The CDC must restore public trust — and that restoration has begun," wrote Kennedy. "It won't stop until America’s public health institutions again serve the people with transparency, honesty, and integrity."

To this end, Kennedy indicated that the agency will modernize systems, enhance scientific rigor, build infrastructure, and empower states and communities.

HHS communications director Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Blaze News, "Secretary Kennedy has been clear: The CDC has been broken for a long time. Restoring it as the world’s most trusted guardian of public health will take sustained reform and more personnel changes."

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

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.

Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.

'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'

An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."

Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.

JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.

After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.

RELATED: 'It's immoral': RFK Jr. axes Biden vax reporting requirement, targets doctors' 'hidden incentives'

Farrukh Saeed/Getty Images

A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."

The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."

'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'

Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."

"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."

"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."

The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.

Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."

'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'

Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."

"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.

In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."

RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'

Dobrila Vignjevic/Getty Images stock photo

Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.

An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."

"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."

The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."

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

There Is No Way To Moderate Transgenderism. It Must Be Destroyed

A New York Times author quietly made a series of admissions that, only a few years ago, would have been dismissed as reactionary bigotry.

Pandemic fallout: Study finds parents are increasingly taking a stand on vaccines



Experimental vaccines were rushed to market during the pandemic, then advertised as "safe and effective" by government officials, the establishment media, and pharmaceutical representatives. Those who said otherwise or asked too many inconvenient questions were attacked and censored. Meanwhile, affordable alternative treatments were suppressed and/or characterized by supposed experts as dangerous quackery.

This profitable private-public campaign to impose novel vaccines on the American population was not advanced merely through propaganda, the silencing of dissenting voices, and through uncompetitive practices; it also depended upon straightforward coercion.

Only 40% of parents said they plan to load their child up with all of the recommended vaccines.

For instance, the Biden administration mandated that federal employees and even military service members get the jab. Millions of other Americans across the country were also told to offer up their arms if they wanted to keep their jobs, eat in public, stay in school, or visit their loved ones.

Adding injury to insult, it was later revealed that the vaccines were not as safe or as effective as advertised.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-backed study published this month in the JAMA Network revealed that a great many American parents are no longer willing to blindly trust the medical establishment, at least not when it comes to the vaccination of their children.

According to the study, titled "Vaccination Intentions During Pregnancy and Among Parents of Young Children," 33% of parents surveyed who have children under age 5 indicated that they intend to delay or refuse some or all government-recommended vaccines for their child.

RELATED: Smug Obama speechwriter provides damning reminder of Democrats' intolerance for conservatives, vax-refusers

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Only 40% of parents said they plan to load their child up with all of the recommended vaccines; 20% said they plan to delay some vaccines.

While only 4% of first-time pregnant mothers said they intend to delay or refuse all recommended vaccines, 48% expressed uncertainty about childhood vaccination.

Children's Health Defense, which was chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from 2015 to 2023, noted, "Only 37% of young and expecting parents now plan to fully vaccinate their children — a seismic shift. Why? Because when parents ask real questions about the vaccine schedule to their pediatricians, they’re met with silence or deflection."

'If you dig into the hepatitis B stuff that they try to give to your child when they're born, you realize it's to inoculate a future population of drug addicts and prostitutes, not to protect your child.'

"No answers. No informed consent. Just blind trust demanded," continued CHD. "Parents aren't buying it anymore."

The study's authors, researchers from Emory University, suggested that the remedy for this uncertainty might be interventions during pregnancy.

"Given the high decisional uncertainty during pregnancy about vaccinating children after birth, there may be value in intervening during pregnancy to proactively support families with childhood vaccination decisions," wrote the authors.

Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford said, "I get text message requests every week on different threads — neighborhood threads, church threads, Knights of Columbus threads, political threads — from people asking, 'Hey, where can we find a doctor who's not going to force us to keep to the CDC regime, who's going to let us take it at our own pace, informed as parents?' And it's extremely difficult."

Bedford noted that in Northern Virginia and elsewhere, parents have taken to scouring the pages of pediatricians for signs of politicization in an effort to determine whether the doctors will "talk to you like a human being; whether they'll let you make your decision and space it out the way that you want."

"People are asking for what they can read, where they can learn more, because they just don't trust the experts any more," continued Bedford. "We've been lied to. The COVID vaccine, we now know, was a lie. If you dig into the hepatitis B stuff that they try to give to your child when they're born, you realize it's to inoculate a future population of drug addicts and prostitutes, not to protect your child. ... Parents just want a practice that will listen to them, take them seriously, and not be political — and it's wild how political it's gotten."

RELATED: Jab first, ask questions never: Vaccine truths your doctor won't tell you

EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Jake Scott, a clinical associate professor of infectious diseases at Stanford University, indicated that whereas the childhood vaccine schedule contained around 11 doses protecting against seven diseases in 1986, the schedule now includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. Between 30 and 32 shots are typically required for kids to attend state schools.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who indicated during a recent congressional hearing that kids "get 69 to 92 jabs of vaccines between conception and when they are 18 years old" — a figure apparently higher than the one cited by Scott on account of certain brands requiring multiple doses — recently told Fox News host Martha MacCallum that none of the vaccines on the schedule have been safety-tested except for the COVID-19 vaccine.

"Nobody has an idea what the risk profiles are on these products, and we don't know whether they have anything to do with the epidemic of chronic disease," added Kennedy.

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

Another white flag! Child sex-change regime continues to collapse under weight of Trump enforcement



President Donald Trump declared war on gender ideology and the corresponding child sex-change regime upon retaking office. Despite the best efforts of non-straight activists and overreaching federal judges, the campaign is off to an excellent start — as recently evidenced by Stanford Medicine's partial surrender.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 28 directing all federal agencies to ensure that medical institutions receiving federal funding "end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children" — an initiative that accords with popular opinion, which is majoritively against sex-change drugs and surgeries for children.

"Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions," wrote Trump. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end."

It's clear that the president meant business — which in practice, has meant putting the sex-change regime out of business.

Children's Hospital Los Angeles — which reportedly had patients as young as 3 and billed millions of dollars for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and sex-change mutilations for minors — announced last month that it was shuttering its child sex-change center after assessing the "severe impacts" of the Trump administration's actions and proposed policies.

Stanford Medicine revealed last week that it too was shuttering one of its youth sex-change practices.

'Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?'

The Stanford Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic was founded in 2015 by pediatric endocrinologist Tandy Aye.

During a 2019 TED Talk, Aye suggested age should not determine when kids can have their genitals surgically removed and/or distorted.

"Doctors usually allow those who are 18 to make decisions about their procedures and consent so that you can weigh the risks and benefits," said Aye, a member of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. "Well then, the transgender patient may be one of the most well-informed patients. Who else has had years of psychological evaluation, months of medical therapy, and has thought of this one procedure for so long?"

Aye suggested that in the case of a little boy sterilized after being pumped full of puberty blockers, conventional medical wisdom would dictate that his testicles should be removed.

"Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?" asked Aye. "So therefore, does it make sense for Avery to wait until she's 18?"

Some of Aye's colleagues at WPATH admitted behind closed doors that informed consent by minors was all but impossible.

RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

It's clear that the Stanford clinic shares Aye's eagerness for putting children on the path to sterility and permanent discomfort, stating in its FAQ that it treats "transgender and gender diverse children, adolescents, and young adults" and "will see younger children before puberty starts for education, social support, and referral to mental health and community resources."

The clinic is, however, pausing the surgical side of its deformative practice.

Stanford told the San Francisco Chronicle in a June 24 statement, "After careful review of the latest actions and directives from the federal government and following consultations with clinical leadership, including our multidisciplinary LGBTQ+ program and its providers, Stanford Medicine paused providing gender-related surgical procedures as part of our comprehensive range of medical services for LGBTQ+ patients under the age of 19, effective June 2, 2025."

"We took this step to protect both our providers and patients," said Stanford. "This was not a decision we made lightly, especially knowing how deeply this impacts the individuals and families who depend on our essential care and support."

'Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists.'

The decision to pause genital mutilation at the clinic, which will reportedly continue to provide other forms of sex-change "care," was supposedly made before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Republicans' ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors on June 18.

Similar laws are on the books in 23 other red states.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, told Blaze News in a statement, "It is encouraging that Stanford Medicine has joined the ranks of medical systems ending experimental sex-change surgeries on children. However, Stanford Medicine should remain under scrutiny for its history of performing these procedures and its continued use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children."

RELATED: Democrats' meltdown over SCOTUS child sex-change ruling reveals they learned nothing about 2024 blowout

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"As the administration continues to investigate and take regulatory action against hospitals that harm gender confused kids, it should by no means give Stanford Medicine a pass until it complies with HHS' recommendations for treating gender dysphoria," continued Goldfarb. "Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists."

As Goldfarb alluded, the Trump administration is bringing the full weight of the law down on those who would mutilate children on the basis of pseudoscience and false, ideologically driven narratives.

Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an April 22 memo that pursuant to Trump's executive order, she was directing all Department of Justice employees "to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents."

Just last week, the FBI launched criminal probes into Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado, and Children's Hospital Los Angeles — all three listed on medical advocacy group Do No Harm's list of the 12 worst offending institutions that promote sex changes for minors.

Time will tell whether the administration will take a similar approach to Stanford.

Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.

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

Scientific American attacks Jay Bhattacharya for prioritizing Americans' autonomy over 'the science'



Scientific American, a 179-year-old magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, appears increasingly keen to dirty itself with politics rather than engage in clean science.

Just weeks after Laura Helmuth stepped down as the magazine's editor in chief after an ugly rant in which she effectively called over 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump both "fascists" and "bigoted," and months after the magazine pushed gender ideologues' pseudoscientific narrative, Scientific American published a piece claiming that Trump's choice of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to run the National Institutes of Health is "the wrong move for science and public health."

Extra to insinuating that Bhattacharya was not actually censored during the pandemic and arguing that the destructive approach championed by the scientific establishment during the pandemic was not authoritarian, the author of the piece, Steven Albert, concern-mongered that Trump's pick might prioritize Americans' personal autonomy if confirmed as head of the NIH.

Debate over therapeutics, health protocols, and the origin of COVID-19 was stifled during the pandemic. Bhattacharya, among the experts whose views were suppressed at the urging of Biden health officials, refused to uncritically accept the prevailing wisdom of medical establishmentarians who advocated for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking for kids, and other ruinous COVID-19 policies.

Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which suggested that geriatrics and other higher-risk groups should engage in shielding, whereas healthy individuals should "immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." According to the declaration, healthy individuals were better off catching the virus and developing natural immunity.

Scientific establishmentarians keen on coercive medicine and blanket lockdowns attacked Bhattacharya for proposing this alternative approach. President Joe Biden's former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense." Former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins conspired to issue a "quick and devastating takedown" of Bhattacharya's criticism.

In the weeks since Trump announced that Bhattacharya would "restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research," establishmentarians have resumed their attacks on the esteemed epidemiologist both at home and abroad.

'Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks.'

Steven Albert, Hallen chair of community health and social justice at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health, jumped on the bandwagon, griping in the pages of Scientific American about Bhattacharya's criticism of the "authoritarian tendencies of public health" and his advocacy for turning "the NIH from something that's sort of how to control society into something that's aimed at the discovery of truth to improve the health of Americans."

"The claims of authoritarianism are a screen for pushing a particular agenda that is likely to damage the NIH. Bhattacharya's science agenda is political: to set concerns for personal autonomy against evidence-based public health science," wrote Albert. "This is not appropriate for NIH leadership."

Albert expressed concern that Bhattacharya's apparent prioritization of Americans' God-given and Constitution-secured rights over health policy might prompt him to take a stand against "enforced vaccine requirements for children attending public schools" or perhaps even against the introduction of fluoride in drinking water, which the National Toxicology Program recently admitted can cause mental retardation in kids at the exposure levels seen in various places around the country.

"Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency," wrote Albert.

Albert further suggested — in the pages of a magazine that not only platformed the claim on the heels of a rushed vaccine rollout that "there is no question that the current vaccines are effective and safe" but also echoed the discredited thesis of a paper in its sister journal that the COVID-19 virus likely had zoonotic origins — that Bhattacharya's critical views "are one more unfortunate legacy of the COVID pandemic."

Albert defended the failed pandemic policies that Bhattacharya previously criticized, claiming that "science supported school closures, work-from-home policies, large gathering restrictions in public spaces, and face mask requirements as effective ways to lower hospital surges and buy time for vaccine development."

The "science" that Albert trusted in the case of school closures clearly needed the kind of second-guessing advocated by Bhattacharya, given that the closures put multitudes of school children years behind in math, reading, science, and general learning and have been linked to massive spikes in mental illness, suicide, and obesity.

After making the grossly ahistoric claim that "it is not authoritarian to use science for policy" and accusing Trump of dealing in falsehoods, Albert claimed that "income inequality and access to health care," not "authoritarianism in science or public health," were responsible for the devastation wreaked upon the country during the pandemic.

Albert wrapped up his hit piece by complaining about Bhattacharya possibly decentralizing the agency's functions and shifting NIH grant funding to the states; banning dangerous gain-of-function research and experiments using aborted baby parts; and depoliticizing science.

In response to Bhattacharya's nomination last month, Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of "Kibbe on Liberty" and "The Coverup," which recently featured the epidemiologist, noted, "Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to COVID. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a b****."

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

Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin to undergo procedure Friday evening



Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is slated to undergo a procedure on Friday, the Pentagon noted in a statement.

The deputy defense secretary was slated to take on the role of acting defense secretary during the procedure, the statement noted.

'The secretary has determined he will be temporarily unable to perform his functions and duties during the procedure.'

"Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III will undergo a scheduled, elective, and minimally invasive follow-up non-surgical procedure related to his previously reported bladder issue at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center later this evening," the statemen from Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder notes.

"The secretary has determined he will be temporarily unable to perform his functions and duties during the procedure, so Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks will assume the functions and duties of the secretary of defense and serve as the acting secretary of defense," the statement notes.

Austin underwent a prostatectomy late last year.

This year he was admitted to Walter Reed on January 1 and remained there for some time before being released later that month.

He was admitted to Walter Reed again the next month.

"Secretary Austin was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Feb. 11 with discomfort and concern from a bladder issue related to his December 2023 prostate cancer surgery. His condition indicated a need for close monitoring by the critical care team and supportive care. His diagnostic evaluation identified the cause of his bladder issue and it was corrected with non-surgical procedures on Feb. 12," Dr. John Maddox and Dr. Gregory Chesnut noted in a statement that was included in a February 13 Pentagon press release. "The bladder issue was not related to his cancer diagnosis and will have no effect on his excellent cancer prognosis."

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

DEI class at UCLA's medical school sets up future doctors to fight the patriarchy and accept 'weight loss is useless'



After the death of George Floyd, the University of California's David Geffen School of Medicine mandated that all first-year students take a DEI course titled "Structural Racism and Health Equity."

The course does not provide students with insights into better suturing techniques, healing methods, disease detection, biochemistry, or other conventionally useful medical skills. Rather, its stated purpose is to endow prospective physicians with a "structurally competent, anti-racist lens for viewing and treating health and illness."

The course recently made headlines after a guest lecturer who celebrated the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks led students in chanting, "Free, Free Palestine," as well as in pagan earth worship. It appears its contents are similarly provocative.

According to a course syllabus and corresponding documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, students will learn about

  • how Western societies and the medical profession are supposedly racist;
  • how morbid obesity "came to be pathologized and medicalized in racialized terms";
  • the apparent connection between "ableism" and "heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, colonialism and capitalism";
  • the supposed positives of sex-change mutilation;
  • the apparent value in abolishing prisons;
  • "how race and class contributes to a patient's ability to access and receive gender-affirming care"; and
  • the "role of healthcare workers within community organizing and protest."

Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, told the Beacon the mandatory course "promotes extensive and dangerous misinformation.

The university "has centered this required course on a socialist/Marxist ideology that is totally inappropriate," continued Flier. "As a longstanding medical educator, I found this course truly shocking."

Slides from the first session make clear that the aim is to transform future doctors into progressive activists.

A section entitled "Our Hxstories" reportedly adds that "[h]ealth and medical practice are deeply impacted by racism and other intersectional structures of power, hierarchy, and oppression — all of which require humility, space and patience to understand, deconstruct, and eventually rectify."

Another reading provides potential doctors with a list of demands to echo, including calls for a cancellation of Third World debt; state-controlled agricultural policies responding "to people's needs and not to the demands of the market"; state control and taxation of speculative international capital flows; gender, equity, and environmental impact assessments for all economic polices; and an end to "growth-centered economic theories."

Last month, Ben Shapiro noted that students in the course "are told to read about wars of 'Indigenous resistance' — in which Native Americans killed thousands of white people — to 'imagine what liberation could look like.'"

South African billionaire Elon Musk said of the course documents, "This is messed up."

Students at the medical school whose DEI czar was just outed as a likely plagiarist are also given a heavy reading from the self-described "fat liberationist" Marquisele Mercedes that claims that "weight loss is a useless, hopeless endeavor" and that the "relationship between weight and health is also muddy."

Mercedes, a grad student based in New York City, intimates in her quasi-autobiographical rant that an aversion to morbid obesity — a term she partially censors — is rooted in racism.

"This is a profoundly misguided view of obesity, a complex medical disorder with major adverse health consequences for all racial and ethnic groups," said Flier. "Promotion of these ignorant ideas to medical students without counterbalancing input from medical experts in the area is nothing less than pedagogical malpractice."

The former Harvard Medical School dean stressed that whoever signed off on the curriculum was unfit to make such decisions.

"There are areas where medicine and public health intersect with politics, and these require discussion and debate of conflicting viewpoints," Flier told the Beacon. "That is distinct from education designed to ideologically indoctrinate physician-activists."

Nationally syndicated radio host and co-founder of Blaze Media Glenn Beck recently highlighted how the medical profession watchdog Do No Harm has revealed "23 of America's top 25 medical schools now have anti-racism instruction as the core part of their curriculum."

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

Woke medicine KILLS: 10 examples of how DEI is creating the next public health crisis



The left’s woke agenda is chock-full of phony public health crises – racism, climate change, inaccessible “gender-affirming care.”

But there’s a real public health crisis on the horizon, and it goes by the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

DEI, which Glenn Beck calls “a sick cancer,” has “infiltrated our medical schools, our doctors, and our health care,” and the results will be nothing short of devastating.

“Do No Harm” – an organization founded on the principle of “protecting health care from the disastrous consequences of identity politics” – has revealed that “23 of America's top 25 medical schools now have anti-racism instruction as the core part of their curriculum.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Here are ten examples (although there are countless more) of how DEI is a festering blight on the medical field:

1. First-year medical students at UCLA were required to attend a lecture as part of their “mandatory course on structural racism.” The guest speaker who delivered the speech prayed to “Mama Earth” while she had students “get on their hands and knees” before “she led the students in chanting ‘free, free Palestine,”’ according to the Washington Free Beacon.

2. In February of this year, a man named Dante King – “a guest faculty member of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine” – “delivered a lecture titled, ‘Diagnosing Whiteness and Anti-Blackness: White Psychopathology, Collective Psychosis, and Trauma in America.”’ Here’s just one quote from King’s lecture:

The historical record has well documented white people's narcissistic personality disorder and insecurities, along with their internalized distortions, fear, and perversions about African people. In their relationship with the black race, whites are psychopaths, and their behavior represents an underlying biologically transmitted proclivity with roots deep in their evolutionary history. How many of you could see the proclivity that evolved deep within the evolutionary history of whiteness by show of hands? ... Some people are sitting here, "Oh no I don't want to raise my hand" – that's called denial.

3. “Top-ranked Harvard Medical School has activist courses like ‘Social Change and the Practice of Medicine,’” in which “they’re teaching aspiring doctors how to be important advocates for social change.”

4. At George Washington University School of Medicine, students enroll in courses titled:

  • “‘How to Talk Race, Power, and Privilege in Classroom and Clinical Settings”
  • “Moving Beyond Bystanding … to Disrupting Racism”
  • “Beyond the Binary: Navigating Pregnancy and Affirming Care for People with Diverse Gender Identities”
  • “Confronting U.S. History: We Must End Racism to End Health Disparities”

5. At the Indiana University School of Medicine, “first-year students in basic anatomy classes are taught that gender is a social construct, that sex and gender fall along a continuum rather than being a binary,” and that “man and woman gender types [are] oversimplifications.”

6. Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, established a “diversity task force” that produced a lengthy report demanding that “health care professionals explicitly acknowledge that race and racism are the root of all these health disparities” and that students be trained in “bystander intervention for bias.”

7. Medical students at the University of Minnesota are required to take an oath pledging to “honor all indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine” and fight “white supremacy, colonialism, [and] the gender binary.”

8. In 2022, the president of the American Association of Medical Colleges, David J. Skorton, said: “We believe this topic [diversity, equity, and inclusion] deserves just as much attention from learners and educators at every stage of their careers as the latest scientific breakthroughs.” The AAMC, which “forms the accrediting body for U.S. medical schools in the U.S.,” also released a DEI competencies report in 2022 making clear that the institution’s “unquestioning devotion to DEI” would “govern admission standards in medical schools.” The organization even went as far as “[discouraging] schools from using the MCAT admissions test as a way to select medical students,” leading to “dozens of schools [making] the MCAT optional.”

9. The University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, “[guarantees] admission, with no MCAT required, for black students who meet GPA and internship requirements.” These students also “get a 50% discount on tuition.”

10. The majority of medical school applications now “have DEI questions,” including questions regarding “dedication to DEI” and “DEI-related activism,” as part of the screening process. Further, the MCAT itself has been altered to “create more equity in admissions.” “One-quarter of the questions are now about social issues and psychology.” Even the United States Medical Licensure Examination, which allows medical school graduates to practice medicine, has been adapted to be “a pass/fail exam.”

“The one-step exam is usually the biggest decider in selecting applicants for residency in programs, but now numbered scores are not allowed because lower average scores are keeping minorities from getting into competitive residencies,” says Glenn.

While that concludes our ten examples, this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how the malignant cancer that is DEI is infecting the medical industry.

For a deeper dive into the subject, watch Glenn’s Wednesday Night Special below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Neither scientific nor medical': Leaked WPATH files shed light on the horror show that is 'gender-affirming care'



Leaked internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have provided damning insights into the pseudo-scientific practice of so-called gender-affirming care along with its ghastly consequences.

According to journalist Mia Hughes' 242-page report, published Monday by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, WPATH members "demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments."

Shellenberger, who collaborated on the report with Hughes and Tablet columnist Alex Gutentag, noted on X that the findings are especially troubling as the "American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine."

WPATH members quoted in the report can be seen discussing:

  • Giving irreversible medical treatments to mentally-compromised victims incapable of providing consent;
  • The inability of minors to comprehend the long-term consequences of so-called gender affirmation;
  • Putting a gloss on de-transition and post-operation regrets;
  • The narrative that minors should receive hormones or go under the knife because otherwise they'll kill themselves — a popular claim amongst LGBT activists that was shown to be false in a recent Finnish study; and
  • Various debilitating side effects of sex-change procedures.

In one instance, Dianne Berg, a child psychologist at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the child chapter of WPATH Standards of Care 8, admits that it is out of children's "developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them. They'll say they understand, but then they'll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn't really understand that they are going to have facial hair."

Canadian endocrinologist Daniel Metzger noted during an internal WPATH panel discussion, "Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of brain space to really talk about [fertility preservation] in a serious way."

"I think the thing you have to remember about kids is that we're often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven't even had biology in high school yet," added Metzger.

— (@)

It's not just prospective child victims who are clueless about what their experimental transmogrification would ultimately entail. One WPATH member noted that parents sometimes sign off without knowing the stakes or what's involved in the medical intervention.

— (@)

The WPATH files also illuminate how some professionals in the sex-change industry appear to be freewheeling without an anchorage in ethics or reality.

One surgeon is quoted as suggesting that affirming surgeries don't have to produce looks and body parts that "exist in nature," even though WPATH condemned Republicans for suggesting that "gender-affirming health care is not experimental."

"I think we are going to see a wave of non-binary affirming requests for surgery that will include non-standard procedures," wrote the California surgeon. "I have worked with clients who identify as non-binary, agender, and Eunuchs who have wanted atypical surgical procedures, many of which either don't exist in nature or represent the first of their kind."

The WPATH files further reveal the nightmarish consequences victims have faced after receiving "gender-affirming care." There are secret stories of hormone-trigger liver cancer; pelvic inflammatory disease; pelvic floor dysfunction; atrophied uteri; painful orgasms; "[erections] feeling like broken glass"; and death.

"The WPATH Files show that what is called 'gender medicine' is neither science nor medicine," Shellenberger said in a statement. "The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It's not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent."

Environmental Progress indicated that it reached out for comment to every WPATH member named in the files and that two responded; one confirming the comments attributed to them and the other pushing back against how their remarks had been interpreted in the report.

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