Braindead Senate Democrats Make Impotent Noises About RFK Jr While The World Yawns
They're like a horn on a clown's bicycle: When you squeeze it, it goes honk. It won't ever make a new noise, because it's a horn on a clown's bicycle.They're like a horn on a clown's bicycle: When you squeeze it, it goes honk. It won't ever make a new noise, because it's a horn on a clown's bicycle.Who’s afraid of the Amish data?
Nothing scares the vaccine establishment more than a meaningful control group. Some vaccine trials do use inert placebos, but most compare a new product with an existing vaccine or another formulation. What we almost never get is long-term randomized evidence comparing children who receive the full schedule with children who receive none of it.
Thanks to ubiquitous mandates, cultural taboos, and pressure from pediatricians, truly unvaccinated children are also increasingly difficult to find in large numbers. That is why the Amish data are so revealing — and why they should be studied rather than waved away.
Why treat a naturally occurring unvaccinated cohort as an inconvenience rather than an opportunity?
Last year, the Supreme Court vacated a shocking Second Circuit decision siding with the state of New York against Amish parents who declined to vaccinate their children. In Miller v. McDonald, the parents argued that forcing the Amish to violate their religious beliefs in their own private schools violates the First Amendment. Yet after the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration in light of its recent religious-liberty precedent, the Second Circuit last month again ruled for New York.
The legal fight continues and so does the coercion.
Putting aside the legal and moral issues at stake, the facts presented during discovery about the health of the unvaccinated Amish should be newsworthy across the world, especially as we debate both the new mRNA flu shot and the discovery that Anthony Fauci was aware of COVID vaccine injuries from the beginning.
Siri & Glimstad LLP, which represents the Amish families, provided the federal district court in New York with sworn expert medical evidence about the health status of 168 students in the three Amish schools targeted by the state for financial penalties.
The doctor’s declaration states: “I am advised that there are 26 families across the three Amish schools at issue, which have a total of 168 unvaccinated children (meaning they have received no vaccines) and that none of them have any health issue that arose after birth.”
The declaration then compares those 168 children with national background rates for allergies, autism, asthma, and ADHD. Using those rates, a random sample of 168 U.S. children would be expected to include several cases of each condition. According to the declaration, however, there were no documented cases of autism, ADHD, asthma, or food allergies among the 168 Amish children.
RELATED: Fauci is yesterday’s fight. Medical freedom is today’s.
No, that does not magically turn 168 Amish children into a randomized clinical trial. The Amish differ from the broader population in diet, lifestyle, environment, genetics, health care use, and countless other ways. But it does make them a rare, naturally occurring cohort of completely unvaccinated children — exactly the kind of population serious researchers should want to examine.
And the court filing does not rely only on the Amish. It also presents records from 99 unvaccinated children who had religious exemptions in four contiguous school districts in Ulster County, New York. Those records were drawn from state school health examination forms completed by physicians. Here is the comparison presented in the filing:
The numbers are striking. The filing reports zero cases of autism and diabetes in the Ulster County group, lower rates of ADHD and allergies, and a much lower asthma rate than the cited background figures.
Those differences do not prove vaccination caused the higher general population rates. They do raise an obvious question: Why not study the difference rigorously?
The court-filed evidence also notes that the expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule has occurred during the same decades in which autoimmune, developmental, and neurological diagnoses have risen sharply. Correlation is not causation, and anyone pretending otherwise is doing bad science. But correlation can be a reason to investigate — especially when government is mandating the products in question.
RELATED: What happened to RFK Jr.’s red line on risky vaccines?
These retrospective comparisons do not prove that vaccines cause autism, asthma, allergies, ADHD, or any other condition. They cannot control for all the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. But when government mandates a growing schedule of products for healthy children, shouldn't the burden be on public health authorities to pursue the strongest possible long-term safety evidence?
Why treat a naturally occurring unvaccinated cohort as an inconvenience rather than an opportunity?
That problem remains with the latest mRNA flu vaccine, which is being compared against another flu vaccine rather than an unvaccinated cohort. If officials want to mandate these products, why not demand the strongest possible evidence about their long-term effects? And why did the New York Department of Health decline to engage the data the Amish families placed before the court rather than explain why the comparisons are misleading?
What is self-evident is that vaccine mandates make these questions harder to answer by shrinking the pool of children who remain completely unvaccinated. New York is willing to coerce Amish families in the name of public health? Then public health officials should be willing to confront the data those families have put before them and show their work.
Religious liberty demands no less. Neither does science.
Rural health is the next MAHA frontier
As a Virginia farmer, I have spent years fighting regulatory overreach and corporate consolidation that hollow out rural America.
So when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) recently led the effort to remove a pesticide-liability shield from the House farm bill, rural families had reason to cheer.
If we are serious about children’s health in rural America, we should examine whether newer technologies can reduce toxic exposures.
The provision would have given pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer broad protection from “failure to warn” lawsuits brought by Americans who allege glyphosate caused their cancer. It also would have limited the ability of states and local communities to establish no-spray zones near schools and weakened protections for waterways.
In other words, it was top-down federal overreach and a corporate handout disguised as “regulatory uniformity.” It had no place in legislation meant to serve farmers and rural families.
Luna’s amendment passed 280-142, with more than 70 House Republicans joining all but six Democrats.
Republicans such as Luna deserve credit for refusing to grant blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. They also showed that Make America Healthy Again can become a governing philosophy — one that puts children, families, and farmers ahead of well-connected industries.
More than three years after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his presidential campaign and later joined forces with President Donald Trump, the MAHA movement continues to secure policy victories with consequences that families may feel for decades.
The pesticide fight is only one part of a much larger question. Once policymakers begin examining preventable chemical exposures, the issue does not stop at the edge of the field.
Former Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), a nurse and Tea Party leader, has noted that many of the same rural children whose schools and waterways Luna’s amendment would protect also spend hours each week riding older diesel school buses. Exposure to diesel exhaust has been linked to pediatric asthma, ADHD, and other health and developmental concerns.
If we are serious about children’s health in rural America, we should examine whether newer technologies can reduce those exposures.
That does not mean Washington should dictate transportation choices to rural districts. It means farmers and small-town families should have a seat at the table and access to resources when cleaner options, including electric school buses, become practical.
RELATED: Big Pharma’s miracle drugs have a nasty side effect
The American Lung Association projects more than $43,000 in health savings per electric bus through reductions in asthma attacks and respiratory illness. Electric buses are also substantially quieter than diesel models, which could benefit students with autism or sensory sensitivities.
Each community should weigh the costs and benefits for itself. But the issue deserves serious local consideration.
Rural water quality deserves the same attention.
A recent national analysis found that more than one in five Americans receive drinking water from systems with elevated nitrate levels associated with cancer and birth defects. Many of the hardest-hit communities are in agricultural regions.
Researchers and public health advocates have also raised concerns about PFAS “forever chemicals” contaminating farmland and groundwater, sometimes forcing farming operations to shut down.
Farmers understand better than anyone that stewardship has consequences. The land, water, and infrastructure we pass to the next generation will shape rural health long after today’s political battles are forgotten.
Reducing unnecessary exposures and modernizing aging infrastructure where it makes sense are practical, pro-family goals that fit squarely within the MAHA vision.
Luna and her colleagues showed that Congress can still deliver for rural American families when lawmakers put them ahead of corporate interests.
They should keep going.
Congressional Laziness About To Restart Taxpayer Funds For Biggest U.S. Abortion And Transgender Kids Mill
Planned Parenthood has expanded into 'transgender medicine' in a big way and Congress should cut any future federal funding.
RFK Jr.’s Push For Nutrition Education Could Save Taxpayers Trillions
Kennedy’s new educational program could change the course of America’s health crisis, one medical student at a time.Republicans should take the easy win and stop medical testing on animals
The federal government has spent decades funneling taxpayer dollars into animal testing programs that are increasingly cruel, scientifically obsolete, and wholly unaccountable. Almost no one in Washington has had the courage to say so until now.
In April, roughly 1,000 animal welfare activists stormed Ridglan Farms, a Wisconsin research and breeding facility that has been supplying beagles for biomedical testing. Police fired rubber bullets and pepper spray into the crowd, and the group's leader was arrested.
Why were people willing to get arrested over a dog farm? Because of what was happening inside.
Washington has the images of 2,000 beagles crammed into cages in rural Wisconsin. But the checks keep getting written.
Ridglan housed an estimated 2,000 beagles bred specifically to be sold to research laboratories. The facility had been cited for hundreds of animal welfare violations and ultimately agreed to surrender its state breeding license as part of a deal to avoid prosecution on animal mistreatment charges. However, it continued supplying animals to federally funded labs.
If you're wondering why beagles are the preferred breed for animal testing, it's because of their docile nature. This means they can be tortured without fighting back as other dog breeds might. These dogs never saw a home, a yard, or a family. They lived their entire lives in cages, underwriting a research pipeline that Washington has never seriously scrutinized.
The issue finally started picking up steam last year when RFK Jr. said that reducing unnecessary animal testing would become a priority. While Kennedy has made the right noises, the lag still needs to be addressed.
The FDA announced last year that it would phase out animal testing requirements for monoclonal antibodies. The NIH shut down its last in-house beagle lab in May. In May 2025, the Navy announced it would no longer use dogs or cats in research. Those are serious wins, but the fight is far from over.
White Coat Waste launched a national ad campaign this April calling out Secretary Kennedy directly, documenting how NIH has renewed funding for deadly tests on dogs, cats, and primates. This NIH funding was first approved under Dr. Anthony Fauci and doled out millions more to those same projects. The message to Kennedy is simple: The rhetoric is there. Now show us the receipts.
A 2024 Morning Consult poll commissioned by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine found that 80% of Americans agree the federal government should commit to a plan to phase out animal experiments. Roughly 85% agreed that government funding should prioritize non-animal research methods and that animal experimentation should be phased out in favor of modern alternatives.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), backed by GOP Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) and more than a dozen colleagues, announced his push to ban federal funding for animal experiments in the FY2027 spending bill. The push was prompted by revelations that NIH awarded $584,117 to UC San Diego in FY2026 alone to continue experiments on mice. These taxpayer dollars are being used to surgically mimic transgender humans, subjecting nearly 10,000 animals to invasive surgeries, hormone injections, and skull drilling.
RELATED: Hasan Piker tests the line between dissent and enemy aid
Just last week, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) led 34 House members in sending a letter to Secretary Kennedy urging him to close the loophole that allows facilities like Ridglan to receive federal contracts after losing their state licenses for documented welfare violations, simply because they hold a USDA Class A license.
Recent studies have confirmed that the majority of drugs that work on animals ultimately fail in humans, driving up research costs while producing unnecessary animal suffering. AI-driven modeling, organoids, and human cell-based testing are not futuristic concepts. They are available, cheaper, and more accurate.
HHS has acknowledged this fact, with both the FDA and NIH releasing updated guidelines this spring advocating for phasing out live animal models in favor of alternative technologies. The bureaucracy is just moving too slowly to match its own stated goals.
Washington has the data. Washington has the images of 2,000 beagles crammed into cages in rural Wisconsin. But the checks keep getting written.
These programs do not reflect our values, they do not produce real results, and they do not deserve another dime of taxpayer money.
Now, do I think every politician rushing to take a stand on this issue is doing so out of the goodness of their heart? Absolutely not, but here's the thing: I don't care. If political self-interest is what finally gets Washington to stop funding the torture of beagles, then so be it. Use the issue. Grab the headline.
At the end of the day, if the outcome is that fewer animals suffer, fewer taxpayer dollars are wasted, and a broken system gets reformed, then the motivation behind it doesn't matter one bit to the dogs still sitting in cages waiting for someone to act.
Republicans, take an easy win and keep the animal lovers in your corner. Get it done.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
Media Covers Up Fauci’s Exposed Diary Scandal 🚨