RFK Jr. torches vaccine panel to make consequences count again



Consequences. The word means little when applied to the failures of America’s so-called expert class. COVID-19 exposed the rot. Officials failed again and again at precisely what they were paid to understand — and escaped unscathed. Lockdowns failed. Masks failed. The mRNA shots failed. Yet, Anthony Fauci walked off the stage wealthier than ever. That’s the problem.

But nearly halfway into year one of Trump 2.0, America finally seems hungry to Make Consequences Great Again.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulled the COVID-19 jab recommendation for healthy children and pregnant women. The move strips the shot of its legal basis for mandates now or in the future. Then, in a sweeping housecleaning, Kennedy announced he would “retire” all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee.

Of those members, 13 were appointed by Joe Biden as recently as 2024. I wonder who was running the autopen to make that happen. Since most of those members have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies, I’ll let your imagination fill in the details.

Children’s Health Defense cites a 2000 U.S. House investigation that found conflict-of-interest rules for the CDC’s vaccine committee went largely unenforced. A 2009 report by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General reached the same conclusion. Follow-up investigations in 2021 and 2024 showed no improvement, even as the path was cleared for mRNA shots to be hailed as the next biomedical miracle.

How deeply do the vaccine high priests on this committee worship their pharma gods? When RFK Jr. began removing them like Elijah at Mount Carmel, he noted that the committee had never recommended against adopting a vaccine. Not once.

That’s not science. That’s idolatry. That’s how children went from receiving fewer than 20 shots in my generation to more than 70 on today’s schedule. At this point, after so many miraculous infusions of “health care,” shouldn't we all be glowing, levitating, and reading each other’s minds?

Instead, as RFK Jr. keeps pointing out, Americans today suffer from staggering rates of chronic illness, obesity, and mental distress. That’s what happens when the expert class convinces new parents their babies are born defective — ticking time bombs of disease in constant need of pharmaceutical salvation. Go for a run? Nah. Take a pill instead. Live prayerfully? Try pharmaceutically.

This is what you get when a culture forgets it was made in the image and likeness of God.

We may be the most formally educated society in human history, but we’ve been conditioned — psychologically and emotionally — like lab rats. Decades of programming have trained us to fear life itself and trust the experts to manage it. That’s why RFK Jr.’s purge of the vaccine committee goes far beyond health care. It strikes at the heart of the worldview — because worldview shapes everything.

My partner in crime, Todd Erzen, has long said that most young Christian parents would probably vaccinate their children before baptizing them. He’s not wrong. Fear — not faith — drives too many of our most important decisions. And without realizing it, no matter how many comforts we enjoy, we’ve traded a life of color for one in black and white.

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

Photo illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The vaccine committee had to go. It had morphed into a cult of flat-earthers — deniers of reality in service of profit and power. For too long, Americans wore their chains, obedient to the credentialed class that promised safety while delivering sickness and dependency.

But we don’t have to live that way.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage. That’s the good, the true, and the beautiful.

And for once, we have unlikely allies to thank: Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both have reminded Americans that the door out of this madness isn’t locked. We just needed the will to kick it open.

RFK Jr. takes on Big Pharma’s lies — bring on the reckoning!



My vote for Donald Trump has already paid off multiple times in the last month. But even if Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment as secretary of Health and Human Services were the only win, it would have been worth it. And as if the heavens themselves agreed, RFK Jr.’s swearing-in happened just as the University of Washington released the first serious academic study confirming that the COVID mRNA vaccines don’t work.

Hmmmmmm. Why does the University of Washington sound so familiar? Think back to early 2020, when everyone checked COVID forecasts daily to see just how badly we were going to be screwed. Bill Gates and his Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation models from the University of Washington were the driving force behind the primary pandemic propaganda.

Let the lion out of its cage and give the truth its day.

We were told, "The end is near." Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx used IHME’s projections to pressure states into lockdowns, warning that failure to comply would turn America into a scene from “The Walking Dead.” We had to double mask, never touch the so-called “horse paste,” and wait patiently for the sacred Pfizer vaccine to save us. Pfizer gods be praised!

But instead of piles of bodies and a narrowly averted catastrophe, we got one of the biggest grifts in history. And now, the University of Washington is finally admitting it. Or as John Cusack’s Lane Meyer famously put it in the 1985 cult classic “Better Off Dead”: “Gee, I’m real sorry your mom blew up, Ricky.”

For four years, they imposed their worldview on us, no matter how cruel and irrational it was. That goal mattered more than anything else. It mattered so much that they forced it on us through IHME and Big Pharma, despite knowing the COVID shots had a questionable safety profile — including a 7% serious incident rate, as revealed by the CDC’s own V-safe data. The shots poisoned us, and they didn’t work — just as we warned back in 2021 and most recently in my best-selling book with Daniel Horowitz, “Rise of the Fourth Reich.”

Now that we’ve broken free from the grip of the IHME witch doctors, the math is clear. You were at least 160% more likely to suffer an adverse reaction from the COVID vaccine than to be hospitalized for COVID. Worse, you had a 1,600% greater chance of experiencing a serious adverse event from the vaccine than of dying from the virus itself.

Who, knowing that math and not already psychologically and emotionally addicted to the supposed magic of vaccines, would willingly take on that level of risk? No one in their right mind, that’s who.

Instead of rushing even more mRNA technology into the marketplace, the obvious conclusion is to pull it off the market entirely. The only real victory in the risk-versus-reward equation for this unproven medical intervention has been financial — Big Pharma’s relentless pursuit of profit under the “Show me the money!” mantra. Now, despite mounting concerns, these same companies want to use mRNA to cure cancer, even though the technology may already be responsible for causing it.

This is why RFK Jr. is being welcomed to Washington, D.C., with palm branches and hosannas. The time has come for an honest, definitive hearing about what these people did to us — and what they plan to do again.

Let the lion out of its cage and give the truth its day. RFK Jr. will undoubtedly face cross-examination over some of his findings from those who profit from decades of medical and health-related lies. But that debate doesn’t scare me — far from it. I welcome it. After all, when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit.

Let’s have friction. Let’s have a debate. Let’s have a trial. Let justice roll on like a river.

You’re up to bat, RFK Jr. Swing for the fences.

Trump’s new mRNA vaccine: What’s really happening?



President Donald Trump has already made a lot of sweeping changes following his long-awaited inauguration — but he’s made one move that has his voters questioning his motives.

At a press conference this week, Trump announced the formation of Project Stargate alongside Oracle’s chief technology officer, Larry Ellison; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman; and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son.

The project is an at least $500 billion investment to build the infrastructure to power AI construction, and one of its nice-sounding aims is to improve health outcomes — but what does that really mean?

“Once we gene sequence that cancer tumor, you can then vaccinate the person, design a vaccine for every individual person to vaccinate them against that cancer, and you can make that vaccine, that mRNA vaccine, you can make that robotically again in about 48 hours,” Ellison explained at the White House on January 21.


“So imagine early cancer detection, the development of a cancer vaccine for your particular cancer aimed at you, and have that vaccine available in 48 hours. That is the promise of AI and the promise of the future,” he added.

Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” and her father, Ron Simmons, aren’t too pleased with Ellison’s delivery.

“Using the word vaccine and mRNA in this day and time is a little sensitive,” Simmons says. “I think he’s using the wrong term, ‘vaccine.’”

“The mRNA vaccines, we all know that there has been a lot of problems with that, and I would not want them rushing out to try to figure out a 48-hour vaccine. Scares me to death. The last one they did in six or seven months really had a negative effect on a lot of people,” he continues.

“In fact, I think probably was behind some pretty bad turnouts for people, and so I think that was wrong,” he adds. “But that’s not all of what this program is about. Health care is one of the things, there’ll be other things as well that’ll be used for the Defense Department.”

“So I’m really excited about seeing what happens out of it,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

COVID 2.0? New RSV shots are already harming babies



I might not be a doctor, but as early as January 2022 — 16 months before the approval of the first RSV vaccine — I warned that these shots could make children sicker from the virus. For decades, the industry failed to produce an RSV vaccine after an attempt in 1967 was terminated because it caused antibody-dependent disease enhancement.

Now, amid ongoing problems with the first RSV vaccines from Pfizer and GSK, the FDA is acknowledging that Moderna’s mRNA version is causing severe RSV cases in children. It’s time for the incoming Department of Health and Human Services, along with state officials, to pull the plug on both RSV shots and mRNA vaccines of all kinds.

We have simply too much public information to sustain this deception any longer. The time for action on this long-standing failure is January 20, not a day later.

The FDA reported last week at least five cases of severe or very severe RSV in infants who received Moderna’s new mRNA vaccine during a clinical trial. The Biden administration had already approved Pfizer's and GSK’s senior RSV vaccines, Pfizer’s infant vaccine, and a monoclonal antibody treatment for young children — all of which have documented safety concerns. Earlier this year, the administration approved Moderna’s mRNA version (mRESVIA) for seniors.

However, the FDA has now revealed that enrollment of young children in clinical trials is “on hold for all clinical studies of RSV vaccine candidates” under U.S. investigational new drug protocols.

The clinical trial showed shocking results: “Severe illness was 26.3% in the vaccine groups compared with 8.3% in the placebo.” Talk about “the more you inject, the more you infect”! If there are so many problems with infants, why are we giving this shot to anyone — especially seniors, who are not at significant risk for RSV the way they are for flu or COVID?

Moderna used two versions of the vaccine in the clinical trial, and one of them, mRNA-1345 (mRESVIA), induced severe RSV in an infant. This same vaccine is now being administered to seniors.

Given the 60-year concern about enhanced disease, why are we continuing to push any RSV shots? Why are we continuing to approve mRNA vaccines after the documented issues with COVID shots? Why approve Pfizer’s RSV shot for pregnant women when GSK’s nearly identical version was pulled from clinical trials after causing death and injury?

Finally, why are we promoting vaccines for respiratory viruses at all? COVID and flu have shown that respiratory viruses do not respond well to blood-based antibodies and often cause immune imprinting, leading to a higher risk of infection in the long run.

These are straightforward questions any layman can understand, yet our medical experts remain stuck in ignorance — and greed.

Greater risk for babies

Pfizer's and Moderna’s clinical trials for the COVID vaccine in toddlers revealed that leaky respiratory viral vaccines tend to increase, not decrease, the risk of respiratory viruses. In Moderna’s trial of babies ages 6 to 23 months, researchers found a statistically significant increase in respiratory viruses within 28 days of vaccination.

For croup, 1.3% of mRNA-1273 recipients were infected, compared to just 0.3% of placebo recipients. For RSV, the infection rate was 0.8% for mRNA-1273 recipients and 0.5% for the placebo group. For pneumonia, 0.2% of mRNA-1273 recipients were affected, while no cases occurred in the placebo group.

In Moderna’s trial for children ages 2 to 5 years, 0.3% of participants developed pneumonia compared to none of the placebo recipients. For RSV, the rates were 0.4% for vaccinated children and less than 0.1% for the placebo group. In other words, young children in the vaccine group were four times more likely to contract RSV within four weeks of the shot than those in the placebo group.

This trend persisted even among 6- to 11-year-olds, who are less susceptible to RSV. In that group, 0.3% of vaccine recipients experienced the illness compared to zero cases in the placebo group.

Pfizer’s children’s vaccine clinical trial for toddlers (see page 51) also recorded serious adverse events, including RSV bronchiolitis (five participants), pneumonia (two participants), gastroenteritis (two participants), and lower respiratory tract infections (two participants).

Clearly, respiratory viral vaccines make individuals more vulnerable to RSV. Many people now avoid these vaccines, but the industry has adopted a clever marketing tactic: offering a monoclonal antibody as a prophylactic measure against RSV, alongside the GSK, Pfizer, and Moderna shots. Originally developed by AstraZeneca and now distributed by Sanofi, Beyfortus (nirsevimab) has been administered to newborns since last October. New mothers are convinced their babies could suddenly die from RSV, which may have originated in the 1950s through polio vaccine research. According to the CDC, 40.5% of babies in America received Beyfortus during the last RSV season.

The FDA’s briefing document on Moderna’s clinical trial reported that the Moderna shot not only worsened the disease but also “blunted” Beyfortus’ efficacy in babies who received both. But what the report fails to disclose is that Beyfortus is as problematic as Moderna’s mRESVIA.

After hundreds of thousands of French babies received Beyfortus in 2023, Dr. Helen Banoun identified a shocking and unexplained increase in infant deaths linked to the vaccine’s uptake. Banoun also highlighted the FDA’s own data, which shows — clearly and alarmingly — a much higher rate of deaths in the Beyfortus treatment group compared to the placebo. This data appears on page 70 of the Biologics License Application for Beyfortus, but it seems the manufacturers rely on no one reading it.

Other literature cited in the Banoun paper shows that children were getting sicker with respiratory illnesses, signaling immune imprinting and disease enhancement — negative efficacy against the very illness the vaccines are supposed to treat.

According to VAERS reports, a baby boy died immediately after receiving the injection, and a baby girl was found unresponsive seven hours later. “Sudden infant death syndrome,” indeed.

What Trump can do

Moreover, the problem extends beyond the individuals receiving the vaccine. Dr. Peter McCullough has documented growing evidence that these products may be creating super-resistant strains of RSV.

We cannot continue like this as a civilization. Continuing mass vaccination without immediate restrictions and research violates the principles of the pro-life movement, based on the available data. It also violates the Nuremberg Code on human experimentation.

To that end, Trump’s next HHS secretary would do well to implement the following policies regarding vaccines:

  • No shot should be marketed as a vaccine in any way if it is not proven to stop infection.
  • No shot should be approved without a full placebo group that is kept permanently to study long-term differences with the trial group.
  • No shot should be approved unless it shows an all-cause mortality benefit over time and most certainly cannot show more deaths in the trial group.
  • No shot should be approved for one age group when there are clear safety signals in other age groups, unless it can be proven that those safety issues do not apply to the targeted cohort. For example, even after the FDA admitted that RSV shots caused Guillain-Barré syndrome and walked back its approval for people over 60, the agency still recommends the shots for people over 75.
  • No mRNA shots whatsoever.
  • No shot should be approved without oncogenicity, genotoxicity, or long-term safety studies, none of which were conducted with any of the RSV shots.

This issue is no longer just about COVID or Operation Warp Speed. The RSV vaccine approvals were conducted openly, despite known problems with these shots from day one — just like in 1967. They didn’t even need to rely on emergency use authorization.

We have simply too much public information to sustain this deception any longer. The time for action on this long-standing failure is January 20, not a day later.

Your 'USA Made' meat might actually be from China; mRNA vaccines approved to be in it



If there’s one issue that a growing number of Americans are skeptical about — it’s our food supply. And according to Ben and Corley Spell, the founders of Good Ranchers, that skepticism is not misplaced.

“It’s getting harder and harder now that they keep changing laws and passing different things, and it’s so hard for consumers to know who to trust,” Ben tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

“It’s mostly coming from Mexico, but you can import as long as it’s in a feedlot in the United States for 90 days,” he continues. “It can now get a USDA grade, where before it could only be USDA inspected.”

USDA prime or USDA choice labels used to be limited to meat that was born and harvested in the United States, but that has since changed.

“And why is that important for them to be born in the U.S.?” Stuckey asks.

“Agriculture is the backbone of our country, and farms and ranches are going out of business at an alarming rate,” Ben explains. “They can’t keep up. The price of meat keeps going up, and the price that the ranchers get is basically staying the same from decades ago.”

“As a whole, the American ranchers, the independent ranchers, they can’t keep up with the big conglomerates,” he adds.

But this isn’t the only issue facing America’s meat supply.

While Good Ranchers doesn’t sell meat that contains mRNA vaccines, they can't speak for everyone else.

In 2022, the USDA approved the use of an RNA based vaccine developed by Merck Animal Health. The vaccine became available on November 1, 2023, and with its newfound accessibility, there’s a possibility that pork products may be treated with this vaccine.

“We do get accused of fear-mongering, and that’s the last thing we want,” Ben tells Stuckey about the mRNA vaccines. “If we don’t talk about things, the government will just slide it in, and we will never know that’s what happened.”

Before the mRNA vaccine was legal for use, Ben and Corley publicly pledged not to use it, and that’s when the accusations of fear-mongering began.

“So many people were just like, ‘Oh well, it’s not even legal for use,’ and I’m like, ‘Yet,’” Ben recalls. “But if we don’t talk about this, and if people don’t get loud, let’s not wait until it is.”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Over my dead body': Jordan Peterson says he was fooled into COVID-19 vaccination, won't happen again amid statist calls for more boosters



Dr. Jordan Peterson announced in May 2021 that he would be getting the COVID-19 vaccine, citing insufficient antibody levels. The esteemed psychologist indicated Thursday he had been fooled and has since made clear that, notwithstanding demands by both the Biden administration and Canada's Trudeau government, he will not be fooled again.

What are the details?

Peterson was met with significant backlash in 2021, after he tweeted, "Off to be vaccinated today. Despite having Covid last May, my antibody levels appeared insufficient to prevent re-infection. Hope Ontario opens up soon."

\u201cOff to be vaccinated today. Despite having Covid last May, my antibody levels appeared insufficient to prevent re-infection. Hope Ontario opens up soon.\u201d
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@Dr Jordan B Peterson) 1620913520

Despite having had contracted COVID-19 in 2020, the psychologist's immune system had likely been dealt a blow by his recent recovery from a severe case of pneumonia and the "incredibly grueling" drug detox treatment for benzodiazepine reliance he received abroad.

Indy100 noted at the time of this admission that some of his fans and followers online expressed concern over his decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine and potential long-term health risks.

Peterson suggested Thursday that he "got vaccinated because I naively believed the woke force-mongers would leave me the hell alone thereafter. Fool me once...."

The psychologist was responding to a tweet from Israeli artificial intelligence researcher Eli David that said, "I got Covid shots in 2021, because I believed the claimed clinical trial results, and trusted the FDA. But looking at mountains of evidence since, I no longer think I made the right decision. These shots are much more dangerous and much less effective than claimed."

\u201cI got vaccinated because I naively believed the woke force-mongers would leave me the hell alone thereafter. Fool me once....\u201d
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@Dr Jordan B Peterson) 1674189617

Peterson told BlazeTV host Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" in November 2021: "I got vaccinated. And people took me to task for that. And I thought, 'All right, I'll get the damn vaccine.' Here's the deal, guys: I'll get the vaccine, you f***ing leave me alone!"

He underscored that the vaccine didn't work to that end. The Trudeau government still required that he be tested for COVID-19 when exercising his mobility rights to leave and return to his home nation.

In a tweet Saturday — responding to a notice from Canadian state media that the country's chief public health officer Theresa Tam was once again pushing booster shots — Peterson wrote, "How about 'over my dead body.'"

Tam and the Trudeau government have been pushing the bivalent booster shot on Canadians, many of whom have yet to get it since it was made available last fall.

Tam said Friday, "It's still too early to stop taking the personal protective measures that have helped us weather the COVID storm."

The Biden administration is similarly pushing boosters on the general public.

The Associated Press reported that the Food and Drug Administration has recently proposed rolling out COVID-19 boosters once a year, every year, for adults and children. While 80% of Americans have received at least one dose, only 16% cared to get the latest boosters.

Allysia Finley, writing in the Wall Street Journal, noted over the weekend that "the public-health establishment’s praise for the bivalent shots shouldn’t come as a surprise. Federal agencies took the unprecedented step of ordering vaccine makers to produce them and recommending them without data supporting their safety or efficacy."

Finley appeared to justify the increasing reluctance of people like Peterson, stating, "Three scientific problems have arisen. First, the virus is evolving much faster than the vaccines can be updated. Second, vaccines have hard-wired our immune systems to respond to the original Wuhan strain, so we churn out fewer antibodies that neutralize variants targeted by updated vaccines."

"Third, antibodies rapidly wane after a few months," she added.

Peterson's late rejection of the booster regime comes after he admitted on Dec. 19, "It's worse than I thought. I trusted the vaccine process more than I should have. I thought the lockdowns and masks were a terrible idea but I still thought we could rely on public health and science."

Notwithstanding this trust, now evidently depleted, Peterson had expressed skepticism in 2021, stating that "Covid is not going away. it will mutate, indefinitely, sped along in some senses by the vaccines themselves. And when is it a sufficiently 'new variant' to panic? How about when pharmaceutical company shares drop?"

\u201cI'm in Nashville. No masks. No mandates. Freedom. Music. Joy. Covid is not going away. it will mutate, indefinitely, sped along in some senses by the vaccines themselves. And when is it a sufficiently "new variant" to panic? How about when pharmaceutical company shares drop?\u201d
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@Dr Jordan B Peterson) 1638914232

The Daily Mail reported that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla personally earned $50 million in compensation across 2021 and 2022 and that Pfizer's has revenue tripled to over $100 billion since the start of the pandemic.

Newsweek indicated that Moderna earned $12.2 billion in profit in 2021, mostly from its vaccine production. The company had not been able to turn a profit before 2021.

According to the company's earnings report released in February 2022, its "total revenue was $18.5 billion for the full year 2021, compared to $803 million in 2020."

As for Johnson & Johnson: U.S. News reported that sinking COVID-19 vaccine sales have recently hurt its revenue.

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

Horowitz: The failure of the mRNA shots is on display for all with open eyes

“Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.”

This bizarre, yet revealing conclusion of a recent preprint Danish study in the prestigious Lancet should be international news, yet only a few Americans are aware of it. A first-of-its-kind long-term follow-up of over 74,000 adult participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials found absolutely no all-cause mortality benefit from the two mRNA shots, despite the pandemic of a lifetime. As of Jan. 2022, there were a total of 31 all-cause deaths among those in either the Pfizer or Moderna trial groups and 30 in the placebo groups. A study of Curevac, a third mRNA vaccine created by a German biopharmaceutical company, recorded eight deaths in the trial group and six in the placebo.

Now, consider the fact that people are being denied treatment, kidney transplants, entry into mental health facilities, and the ability to earn a livelihood for not getting the shots.

This study, which was funded by the Danish government, sought to contrast the results of all-cause mortality among those in the mRNA trials compared to those in the adenovirus-vector vaccine trials (J&J and AstraZeneca). While the real-world results don’t seem to show any benefit from any of the COVID shots, this study claims an all-cause mortality benefit from the two non-MRNAs. But remember, nearly everyone in America has gotten at least one dose of an mRNA shot, as J&J is not even recommended as the first choice by the CDC and the AstraZeneca shot is not available.

So how is it that mRNAs had no effect on all-cause mortality but protect against fatal COVID? Well, either they don’t really protect against COVID, or the nominal benefit is washed away by the mortality from adverse events. For example, among the Pfizer trials, there were two deaths in the control group and one in the trial group. Typically, we wouldn’t draw conclusions from such low numbers to suggest the shots work against fatal COVID. On the other hand, researchers found nine cardiovascular deaths among the trial group but only six among the placebo group and 14 “non accident, non-covid deaths” among the trial group but only 11 among the placebo group.

“As COVID-19 mortality comes under better control due to herd immunity and increasing vaccination coverage, the impact on non-COVID-19 mortality becomes particularly important from a public health perspective,” concluded the authors. Gee, you think? The authors concede that the clinical trials were mainly conducted on healthy adults. They surmise that for sicker adults, the mRNAs might have induced a better mortality result, but that is pure speculation. What is clear, however, is that the mRNA vaccine makers understood that there was no mortality benefit for healthy people and pushed the shots on them anyway, even though they came with substantial non-COVID risk of adverse events.

As for the efficacy of any of these shots against COVID itself, it’s sure hard to find any geographical-based epidemiological analysis that supports such a hypothesis. New Zealand is a perfect case study, because the country had hardly any COVID deaths for the first two years of the pandemic. As an island state, it clearly kept out most of the virus well through 2021, once every vulnerable adult had a chance to be vaccinated. According to the NZ ministry of health, every age bracket has achieved higher than a 90% vaccination rate except for those ages 5-11. Also, more than half of all adults, especially those in vulnerable categories, have boosters.

Thus, New Zealand lived out the COVID bio-state dream. The population fully locked down until three doses were available. Thus, they should be experiencing no COVID, and certainly no COVID deaths, right? Well, in fact, New Zealand experienced nearly all of its deaths precisely after all of this was accomplished in March 2022! And with the mildest of variants!

And roughly 98% of all confirmed cases in New Zealand occurred after February 2022.

Consider the fact that as late in the pandemic as Nov. 4, 2021, New Zealand recorded just 29 COVID deaths. Now the country has 469. Something is not right. Remember, Omicron barely replicates in human lungs and is fundamentally an upper respiratory infection. If there’s any country that achieved the goal of “lock down until everyone is vaccinated,” it’s New Zealand. If the shots are as successful against critical illness from COVID as they say it is, we should not be seeing these numbers.

As the Daily Skeptic observes based on vaccination data, the double-vaxxed seem to be responsible for the greatest proportion of the cases, likely because the negative efficacy occurred earlier than in the boosted, but that trend, as we saw in the U.K. data, is now trending toward the triple-vaxxed. Overall, only 3% of the unvaccinated have been infected, while 10% of the triple-vaxxed and 18% of the double-vaxxed have been infected. But the trend is even more concerning:

The fall from peak cases to the most recent data point is also interesting. Case rates in the unvaccinated, single dosed and the double dosed have all fallen approximately 45% since their respective peaks, however, case rates in the triple vaccinated have only fallen approximately 20% since their peak. This is rather concerning, as it suggests that we might find that the boosted population maintain a viral reservoir for Covid, ensuring that case rates take much longer to fall to trivial levels and hindering attempts to get society back to a post-Covid normal.

Thus, until now, the “fact-checkers” kept suggesting that the reason why most of the cases are among the vaccinated is because the pure-bloods were careless rubes who all already had COVID last year. Putting aside that such a premise lays waste to their mandates on those with previous infection, New Zealand lays waste to this hypothesis because very few people there got COVID, and we see that even now the injection-free people have low case rates so far.

To cap it off, the Daily Skeptic notes that there is a disturbing trend of excess deaths in New Zealand correlating with the take-up of the vaccine, not COVID cases. In many other countries, people want to blame the excess deaths in 2021 on Delta, not the vaccine. However, in New Zealand there is nowhere to escape the obvious fact that there were basically no COVID deaths until 2022. Yet New Zealand experienced excess deaths in the latter half of 2021.

Keep in mind that nearly everyone in New Zealand is jabbed with Pfizer’s mRNA shot, which lends credence to the findings of the Danish study that the mRNAs don’t seem to protect against all-cause mortality and seem to be associated with a higher risk of non-COVID deaths.

Now contrast New Zealand with Nigeria, a country that has over 200 million people and barely experienced any deaths, despite (or perhaps because of) a 4% vaccination rate and no boosters in sight.

Both countries, until recently, fared equally well. However, they started diverging with the mass vaccination and boosting. And no, this is not because the virus has not come to Nigeria yet. A recent WHO study found that true infections were 97% greater in Africa than officially confirmed, which means that 65% of the entire continent has already been infected. The authors estimate that the infection rate reached 76% in West Africa. And that was as of the end of the third quarter of 2021, before Omicron.

Over the course of the pandemic, New Zealand suffered 94 COVID deaths per million compared to 15 in Nigeria. But the bad news for the lockdown capital of the world is that, unlike Nigeria, New Zealand still has a long way to go to achieve herd immunity, and that’s assuming one can still achieve natural immunity following the mRNA shots.

Perforce, prior infection is clearly the active ingredient, not the vaccines, because Nigeria (and other African countries) could not possibly diverge more from the experience of New Zealand. Yes, to a certain extent it’s possible that death rates could be somewhat underestimated, but there is no evidence of excess mortality in these countries or anecdotes of bodies piling up.

Perhaps, more than any other time in history, we see that the Western world, which has run off the cliff of post-enlightenment, is now behind the primitive and developing countries in aspects of health. And it was all man-made.

Twitter suspends Dr. Robert Malone, 'inventor' of mRNA vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine skeptic



Twitter on Wednesday suspended the account operated by Dr. Robert Malone, a U.S.-based virologist and immunologist who claims to be the inventor of mRNA technology and is an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Malone is an internationally recognized vaccine researcher who has authored dozens of scientific papers and been cited thousands of times. He was the primary author of a 1989 paper that demonstrated how RNA could be delivered into cells and a co-author on a 1990 paper that showed how injecting pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells can lead to the transcription of new proteins. His work has been described as "seminal" in the field of mRNA-vaccine development.

Although Malone supports vaccines as a medical doctor, he believes that the steps the United States government has taken to bring mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to market from Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna "have been detrimental and contrary to globally accepted standards for developing and regulating safe and effective licensed products." He shares his views on social media.

In a post on Substack Wednesday, he wrote that his Twitter account had over half a million followers when it was permanently suspended.

"Over a half million followers gone in a blink of an eye. That means I must have been on the mark, so to speak. Over the target. It also means we lost a critical component in our fight to stop these vaccines being mandated for children and to stop the corruption in our governments, as well as the medical-industrial complex and pharmaceutical industries," Malone wrote.

He did not give a specific reason for his suspension, and Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But Malone has gathered a large following in conservative media for his opposition to government vaccine mandates and recommendations against having children under age 18 get vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shots received emergency use authorization in the United States for children aged 5 through 11 on Oct. 29, and for adolescents aged 12 to 15 in May.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone age 5 years and older get a COVID-19 vaccine to help protect against severe illness and death caused by COVID-19, and public health officials have repeatedly insisted that the vaccines are safe and effective for children and adults.

Twitter has strict rules prohibiting users from spreading "false or misleading information" about COVID-19 or the vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. The platform prohibits users from making posts that claim the vaccines are dangerous or that adverse side effects have been covered up by governments or the medical industry.

Malone also has accounts on Gab and Gettr, two alternative social media platforms that are popular with users who believe Twitter censors conservative viewpoints. He posts links to his Substack articles on those accounts, some of which discuss COVID-19 and question the safety of the vaccines in adolescents and younger children, likely violating Twitter's rules.

In one recent video that went viral, Malone gave a statement making several claims about the mRNA COVID-19 shots being harmful to children. His claims were opposed by other health experts, who accused him of spreading misinformation about the vaccines.

AFP Fact Check reviewed Malone's video statement and cited medical experts who contested claims Malone made. For instance, Malone said that spike proteins in mRNA vaccines are "toxic" and can "cause permanent damage in children's critical organs."

Paul Offit, an infectious disease physician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia said that was false.

"There's no evidence, either in experimental animals or people," he told AFP.

"There is absolutely no evidence that the spike proteins generated in response to the Covid-19 vaccine are toxic," Deborah Greenhouse, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, added.

According to AFP, messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA, vaccines work by artificially replicating the coronavirus spike protein, which the body learns to recognize and develops an immune response to fight off later.

"The spike protein is a useful target for the vaccine because it is different than other proteins that humans can produce," Greenhouse explained. "So our immune system is able to recognize it as foreign and mount an immune response against it. There is also no evidence that the spike protein remains in the body longer than other typical proteins and no evidence that it causes significant damage."

While there is clear evidence that some younger men have developed heart inflammation as a side effect of the vaccine, the experts said such side effects are rare and temporary.

At the end of his video, Malone said "there's no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus." Each of the doctors that spoke to AFP emphatically rejected this claim.

"The theoretical risk of Covid vaccines absolutely do not outweigh the benefit of the vaccine," Greenhouse said.

"Over 1,000 children have now died from Covid infection. Tens of thousands have been hospitalized. One of my patients was hospitalized this past week with significant illness from Covid disease," she said.

"The vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective for children five years of age and older," Greenhouse said, adding: "The risk benefit ratio based upon data available to this point clearly favors vaccinating children ages five-11."

Offit told AFP Malone's video was "dangerously, flagrantly incorrect." If Malone promoted the video on his Twitter account, or made similar claims there, he would almost certainly have violated Twitter's rules and triggered the suspension.

Horowitz: ‘Your body, my choice’ is the new guiding principle



"What they can't do any more is prevent transmission."

Those were the words of CDC Director Rochelle Walensky to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, as she stated the obvious fact that the COVID shots do not stop symptomatic infection or transmission. Based on data from nearly universally vaccinated regions and countries, such as San Francisco, Israel, Gibraltar, and Iceland, it is abundantly clear that the virus is spreading in some places in greater numbers than before the vaccine was even distributed. Thus, there is no possible legal or moral justification under which any private or public entity can force another human being to take this experimental shot, unless "your body, my choice" is the new guiding principle.

Let's put aside the dubious assertion that the vaccines are an impervious defense against serious illness, a premise that is being seriously challenged by two Israeli studies showing waning efficacy. Even if the vaccines somehow conveyed long-term benefits against serious illness, we now know we were already lied to about the vaccine's use as a tool for source control. Not only should that give us pause about officials' evidence-free statements about the safety of the shots or their long-term efficacy against serious illness, but it should immediately end the debate over the ability of government to mandate these shots on anyone.

Their own position is that there is zero benefit to another human being if the person next to them is vaccinated; that is purely a risk-benefit decision for that person alone. Period. Full stop. Cutting through all the clutter, that was the most important news story to emerge from last week's imbroglio over the virus.

Back in December, the CDC stated clearly that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine "was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection." Indeed, in late March, Walensky promised, "Our data from the CDC suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus." Even those who had questions about transmission among the vaccinated were only concerned about asymptomatic transmission, whereas now we see that the vaccinated can contract the infection symptomatically.

There is nowhere for them to run or hide or seamlessly glide into a new position about the virus only working against critical illness. The more they lie about the past, the more it's quite likely they are lying about the future.

A recent study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison concluded, "We find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine 'breakthrough' infections." This is why we are seeing an unprecedented spread in Iceland, more prolific than ever before, after nearly all the country's adults have been vaccinated. Because most of them have been recently vaccinated, there are few critical cases because the protection has not worn off yet. But we see clearly that even among those recently vaccinated, the shots failed to stop the spread. Which is why the CDC is now back to pushing masks on the vaccinated, even though they have never been proven to work against even the less transmissible strain of the virus.

Cases in Japan continue to rapidly spiral out of control, so I thought I’d check & see if mask compliance had dropp… https://t.co/kRrDLAYqx8

— IM (@ianmSC) 1628355946.0

Given the CDC's own narrative, how does anyone have a legal leg to stand on to mandate forced vaccination on employees? We already know that bodily integrity is an unassailable right that is likely untouchable by the state, even if it has a substantial reason to infringe upon it under a strict scrutiny test. The court said in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891), "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." The court implied it is unassailable because "the right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone."

However, at this point, given that according to the CDC's own narrative, vaccination can only be a personal benefit, not a benefit to others, the growing mandates can't even pass a rational basis test. Consider the fact that an uninterrupted stream of studies show immunity from prior infection (even mild cases) likely lasts long-term; T cells that have stem cell-like properties are in the bone marrow, are as durable as stem cells, and likely last a lifetime or very long. Nearly half the country already has immunity. Yet a person with a positive T cell test but no vaccination faces discrimination, while someone with a vaccine card but no prior immunity is admitted into society, despite being just as prone to spreading the virus as someone without immunity or the vaccine.

There is only one way to stop this tyranny and get the truth out to the public. Employers mandating the vaccine under the guise that it is "safe and effective" must be forced to put their money where their mouths are. Every state must convene an emergency session of the legislature and require that any employer mandating the shots be on the hook for workplace injury liability, pursuant to the original federal policies before they were reversed for political reasons.

On April 20, OSHA released new guidance in the frequently asked questions section of its website for COVID-19 safety compliance stating that employers requiring the vaccine must record all adverse events. The agency required any business with more than 10 employees to treat any vaccine injury or illness as work-related, as would have been the case under current law in any similar circumstance. Yet a month later, as reports of vaccine injuries were exploding, OSHA reversed course and was quite honest about the political nature of the new policy.

"The Department of Labor and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations," reads the new statement on the FAQ page of OSHA's COVID-19 section. "OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022."

There you have it! Forget about the law, science, safety and efficacy concerns, or standards of evidence – it's all about not hurting the agenda. Unless red states stand up and establish employer liability, we will have a new standard in this country: "Your body, my choice." Just remember, this will not end with COVID shots.

Study suggests Pfizer and Moderna vaccines provide long-term COVID-19 immunity, booster shots hopefully unnecessary



The COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna create a "persistent" immune response and appear to grant long-lasting protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to a new study.

The new research, published in the journal Nature Monday, is optimistic news in the ongoing discussion on whether individuals will need future booster shots to maintain their immunization to COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated.

According to a New York Times report on the study, the findings provide evidence that individuals who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with mRNA vaccines may not need boosters, provided the virus and its variants do not significantly evolve. The study also suggests people who've recovered from COVID-19 before being vaccinated may not need booster shots even if the virus does mutate unpredictably.

"It's a good sign for how durable our immunity is from this vaccine," Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis and one of the study's lead authors, said.

Ellebedy's team examined the lymph nodes where immune cells "train" to recognize and fight the virus. After a person is infected with the virus or vaccinated against it, a structure called a germinal center forms in lymph nodes. Within this germinal center, immune cells called B cells memorize the various genetic structures of the virus and adapt to be able to attack variants that may later enter the body.

In short, over time the body's B cells evolve to provide a person with immunity both against SARS-CoV-2 and possible variants. The researchers investigated whether those vaccinated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had anti-COVID B cells in their germinal centers and found that after 15 weeks the immune cells were both present and active, showing no signs of decline.

"The fact that the reactions continued for almost four months after vaccination — that's a very, very good sign," Ellebedy said.

It appears that a vast majority of vaccinated people will be protected against the existing viruses that cause COVID-19 for the long haul. Older adults, people with weak immune systems, and individuals who take drugs that suppress immunity may need booster shots; people who were infected with COVID-19, survived, and were later immunized may never need them at all.

The protection provided by mRNA vaccines could last a lifetime, assuming that no future evolution of the coronavirus changes so significantly that the body's immune cells cannot fight it off. Whether booster shots will be necessary depends on how the virus continues to evolve, but should they be needed scientists believe they will be effective in getting the body to create immune cells to fight off the virus.