What happened to RFK Jr.’s red line on risky vaccines?



For nearly half a century after the catastrophic 1967 trial, the U.S. government failed to approve a safe and effective RSV vaccine. Then came the COVID-19 debacle — and suddenly, we’re supposed to believe the science caught up. As if by magic, after the mRNA disaster and its lingering questions, federal agencies now bless an endless stream of RSV shots for children and adults alike.

Never mind that just two years ago, Anthony Fauci co-authored a paper admitting that safe RSV vaccine development faced “many and complex” challenges. He cited risks like antigenic drift and called for “outside-the-box” thinking to make next-generation vaccines possible.

If Kennedy truly doubts the safety of older vaccines, why would his handpicked advisers endorse new injections for a virus that rarely warrants immunization?

Apparently, that box got checked quickly — at least according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted last month to approve Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody shot, Enflonsia, for prophylactic use in infants. The treatment mimics a vaccine in function and application.

The approval came despite glaring trial results.

Yes, the Phase 2b/3 CLEVER trial included a legitimate placebo group — finally. But the vaccinated group suffered more deaths and injuries than the placebo group. All-cause mortality ran slightly higher among those who received Enflonsia.

How can any vaccine win approval without reducing the risk of death?

Trial data showed three deaths linked to the vaccinated group, compared to just one among the placebo group. Statistically underpowered or not, that outcome suggests a 50% higher risk of death. That alone should have triggered demands for further study.

Instead, the CDC approved it.

The vaccinated group also faced a 350% higher incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a 63% higher rate of lower respiratory infections, and a 41% higher risk of febrile seizures. The sample size wasn’t large enough to detect rarer events — yet regulators waved it through anyway. And all this for a virus that most infants overcome with basic care and a nebulizer.

ACIP passed the recommendation 5-2 on June 26. Dissenters Retsef Levi and Vicky Pebsworth cited the higher death rate and adverse reactions. Levi raised additional concerns about immune enhancement — where vaccination worsens the disease in later exposure — and called for longer trials focused on high-risk groups.

History supports his skepticism. In the 1960s, trial participants who received the RSV vaccine developed worse outcomes in subsequent years. We’ve seen similar patterns with some newer RSV formulations. None of today’s trials followed participants long enough to rule out antibody-dependent enhancement.

Even Moderna’s RSV/hMPV combo trial in infants aged 5 to 8 months had to be halted last year due to signs of enhanced respiratory disease. Yet, in May 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved a similar mRNA shot for adults 60 and older. On June 12, Trump's Health and Human Services expanded that approval to adults over 18 deemed “at risk” — despite all we’ve learned about the dangers of mRNA and respiratory virus vaccines.

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

Hailshadow via iStock/Getty Images

The FDA under Joe Biden approved Abrysvo, Pfizer’s RSV vaccine for seniors and pregnant women, despite serious warning signs. Post-licensure data linked the shot to elevated risks of Guillain-Barré syndrome within 42 days of injection. And in trials involving pregnant women, 5.7% of infants were born prematurely in the vaccinated group — compared to 4.7% in the placebo group.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. deserves credit for demanding more rigorous placebo-controlled trials. But what’s the point if agencies approve vaccines even when trials raise red flags?

RFK Jr. has publicly questioned links between childhood vaccines and autism — especially the hepatitis B shot. If he truly doubts the safety of older vaccines, why would his handpicked advisers endorse new injections for a virus that rarely warrants immunization?

Merck’s Enflonsia includes genomic material derived from an ovarian cancer cell line. Why on earth would we inject even a minimal amount of tumorigenic cells for a bad cold that we’ve been treating successfully with a nebulizer for years?

No one expects RFK Jr. to overhaul the CDC overnight, especially given internal resistance and pro-mRNA holdouts within the White House. But at the very least, many hoped the reckless approval of unnecessary vaccines would stop under his watch.

Instead, the CDC pressed forward with the same reckless momentum.

What happened to “first, do no harm”?

HHS’s New Vaccine Board To Look Into ‘Cumulative Effects’ Of Vaccines For Children

After replacing the Big Pharma-tied members of the vaccine advisory committee at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a systematic review of the childhood immunization schedule to determine its “cumulative effects.” Kennedy announced the review at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on […]

Exclusive: Biden Admin ‘Ignored’ Vaccine Safety Protocols To Fast-Track Its Covid Shot Mandates

"The Administration ignored or silenced voices that questioned the merits of universal vaccination."

Florida Surgeon General Declares Covid Jabs ‘Not Appropriate’ For Any ‘Human Beings’ Over DNA Fragment Concerns

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced on Wednesday that his office is advising against further use of the Covid-19 shots.
FG Trade/Getty Images

Horowitz: Report from UK government flagged lack of safety data on vaccine for pregnant and nursing women

Think of the number of pregnant and nursing women in the military, health care, education, and many other professions who were forced to get shots that the U.K. government admitted at the time should not have been given. The “fact checkers” are sputtering about minutiae of the timing of this document, but the reality is that the establishment pressured and even forced some pregnant and nursing women to get a shot that even they admitted at the time had no reliable data, and although they now say it’s safe, the reality paints a very different picture.

Last week, Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management at Queen Mary University of London, among other U.K. researchers, posted a link to a report titled, “Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech,” in which researchers clearly recommend against vaccinating pregnant and nursing women. The report was originally posted in December 2020, but like many CDC reports, this U.K. government paper has been updated a few times, the most recent of which was Aug. 16, 2022. The money quote from the paper is as follows:

The U.K. media immediately pounced on those drawing attention to this report, asserting that it’s really an old report from December 2020 and has only had minor updates since then. And of course, in the ensuing year or so, the vaccines have been proven to be pristine for everyone, including nursing and pregnant women. But the noise around the date of publication obfuscates the main point: that at the time they forced many pregnant and nursing women to get the shot, the government knew the shots were not proven safe for those cohorts. Moreover, the question remains why this document has indeed been updated many times – however minor those updates may have been – yet this paragraph has never been changed and still remains on the website, even as militaries, health care facilities, and regular doctors continue to pressure and even force pregnant women to get the shots.

In response to those drawing attention to this report, whoever runs this government website posted an updated text block clarifying that this document was from December 2020 and that the government’s recommendation on vaccination has not changed.

Yet they still list the most recent update to this page as August 16, rather than September 2, which is when this box was inserted.

This is the same cat-and-mouse game the U.S. government has played every time researchers point to damaging statements from their own websites; they seek to tamper with the website and then dispatch their media allies (that we now know worked directly with them) to label it as misinformation.

However, in this case we need not haggle over the semantics of the U.K. government’s current recommendation vs. the timing of their post raising concerns about vaccinating nursing and pregnant women. We can simply open our eyes to what we are seeing epidemiologically throughout the world. It is now a proven fact that these shots can potentially cause thousands of categories of injuries and that there is a causal relationship with excess deaths and severe adverse events. While it’s not proven yet that they cause specific fetal-maternal issues, the correlations are too strong to ignore, especially when we usually take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach with new therapeutics administered to pregnant women – even those that aren’t associated with so many injuries to non-pregnant women.

Nowhere is this violation of the Nuremberg Code with reproductive health more apparent than with a recent study published by the Israeli government. Israel’s Ministry of Health tasked Prof. Mati Berkowitz, a leading Israeli expert on pharmacology and toxicology, to put together a group of experts to examine vaccine injury from Dec. 2021 through May 2022. After the results were concealed for two months, among many of the report’s findings was that for 90% of those who experienced menstrual irregularities from the shot, they lasted for at least three months.

Researchers further established causality between the menstrual irregularities and the timing of the shot, because a number of Israelis who experienced the problem after the first dose suffered from a relapse right after the second dose.

Israeli health reporter Yaffa Shir-Raz translated parts of the report in Hebrew. Here is the money quote:

Studies carried out on the above-mentioned subject noted short-term abnormalities (up to a few days) in the menstrual cycle. However, over 90% of the reports detailing the characteristics of the duration of this adverse event indicate long-term changes (emphasis in the original. Y.S). Over 60% indicate duration of over 3 months.

Steve Kirsch has an exhaustive report on the Israeli government’s cover-up of the report and how officials dragged their feet reporting this to the public, then distorted the magnitude of the findings by misusing denominators from the study period.

Now, does this alone mean the shots are necessarily causing maternal-fetal problems? Not proven, but when you put it together with the VAERS reports of nearly 5,000 miscarriages and 11,300 reports of vaginal hemorrhaging, the sudden decline in birth rates in numerous countries perfectly coinciding with nine months from the period of vaccine take-up, the sudden rise in stillbirths over a similar time period, the studies showing decreased sperm count and motility, and that the pro-inflammatory lipid nanoparticles deposit in the ovaries and testes, it is immoral to continue with this until the vaccine is definitively ruled out as a cause. Long-term suspension of menstrual cycles is nothing to scoff at.

In a leaked video of the video meeting of the committee experts, Prof. Berkowitz says, in reference to the long-lasting side effects:

Here we will need to think about this medico-legally. Why? Because for not a few side-effects, we said, “OK, it exists and there’s a report, but please get vaccinated.” So we need to think about how to write it and present it in the correct way, so they won’t come afterwards with lawsuits: “Wait a second, you said it would go away and it’s OK to get vaccinated, now look what happened to me.”

Fortunately for Pfizer, the voices of those victims are drowned out because there are no lawsuits. Pfizer and Moderna are completely exempt, even as they get billions in taxpayer funding, free marketing and distribution, and government-sponsored censorship on their behalf. This is why they can continue injecting them into the most sensitive demographics without any accountability.

Why Aren’t The FDA And CDC Informing The Public About Documented Adverse Events After mRNA Injections?

FDA and CDC pharmacists, physicians, and nurses are violating ethical oaths and licensure obligations to protect their patients.

Former Senior FDA Official: Manufacturers, FDA Negligent In Not Investigating Covid-19 Vaccine Risks To Heart Health

Manufacturers, FDA, and CDC must investigate serious cardiovascular incidents related to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines.

Horowitz: Why did Scotland experience a spike in infant deaths?



One of the most durable public health trajectories over the past 50 years has been the consistent decline in infant mortality in countries with first-world health care. Yet in September, Scotland experienced such a spike at least in neonatal deaths that it rivaled levels not seen since the 1980s. What on earth would cause such a sudden bizarre spike? Nobody seems to have the answer — nor do they want to study all of the potential culprits.

In September, Public Health Scotland announced that 21 newborns had died that month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. According to the Herald Scotland, “the figure for September - at 4.9 per 1000 live births - is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.”

As you can see from the Public Health Scotland (PHS) data, the upper control limit was breached in September, which PHS believes "indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred." After all, the five-year average appears to be about 2.2 per 1,000 live births, so September’s numbers are more than double the average.

Although the incidents of neonatal death tend to fluctuate every other month, the levels appear to be elevated, on average, without the usual intermittent dips below the baseline throughout the entire year of 2021. This is astounding given how much the general trend of infant mortality has declined since the 1980s.

Based on media reports, it appears that the entirety of the public health investigation revolved around whether COVID itself was the culprit of the unusual number of neonatal deaths. The problem is that we didn’t see any of this death in the first year of the pandemic. Also, it was only infants who seemed to experience a sharp increase in death, the least likely cohort to be affected by the pandemic.

Scottish children recently born die abnormally more in 2021 than in 2020.\n\nAnd only them.\n\nWhy is that?\n\nI dread to think of the likely answer.\nhttps://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/covid19stats\u00a0pic.twitter.com/dhWhEVFSIG
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641260109

In December, PHS announced that based on preliminary findings, it has no evidence that COVID was the culprit. "There is no information at this stage to suggest that any of the neonatal deaths in September 2021 were due to Covid-19 infection of the baby,” said PHS, according to the BBC. "Likewise, preliminary review does not indicate that maternal Covid-19 infection played a role in these events.”

Well, that’s pretty obvious, but what is the culprit for such an unusual trend?

"Preliminary information on prematurity suggests that the number of babies born at less than 32 weeks gestation in September 2021 was at the upper end of monthly numbers seen in 2021 to date. This may contribute to the neonatal mortality rate, as prematurity is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death."

But why would that cause neonatal deaths not seen since the 1980s, and why would there be more prematurely born babies?

With so many other vaccine safety signals being seen, there is no desire to even look at the possibility that an experimental shot that was not studied in pregnant women – yet was widely distributed to them – had something to do with it. We have no idea what caused this spike, but here’s why any logical person would commence an inquiry around the shots.

  • We know that this shot has caused menstrual irregularities like we’ve never seen before. A University of Chicago survey sought to recruit 500 women with menstrual irregularities in order to study the cause and effect, and instead, researchers got 140,000 submissions. One study found that 42% of women experienced heavier bleeding, while only 44% reported no changes to their menstrual cycles. A whopping 66% of post-menopausal women experienced breakthrough bleeding. This all goes to show how the 20,000 menstrual irregularities reported in VAERS are a joke because the system only captures a fraction of the adverse events.
  • As of Dec. 31, there were 3,511 miscarriages reported to VAERS. Remember, this is something that is extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. Here is the presentation from Open VAERS, which shows the number of reported miscarriages peaking around August/September in the United States.

Does any of this mean we can conclusively say the shots are causing reproductive issues? No. But there certainly are a lot of safety signals that should be followed up on rather than dismissed. I asked Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB/GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 42 years of experience, if he was concerned about these signals. “To the extent of a broad statement that menstrual irregularities are usually minor issues is a true statement,” he said. “However, in the context of the massive increase in menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine, there are very serious potential implications. It supports the cumulative evidence that the jabs’ lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries and affect/infect/expose ALL ovum to the LNP and cargo mRNA [and] is extremely serious.”

Thorp notes that the LNPs can be inflammatory and they likely penetrate every area of the body and, by extension, the fetus. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) easily pass through all the natural barriers that God created in the human body. LNPs are extremely small spherical particles with an outer lipophilic (fat-soluble) membrane containing the mRNA cargo. There may be billions of LNPs in the COVID-19 jab that do not remain in the deltoid muscle; they are readily dispersed throughout ALL bodily tissues, easily pass through the maternal blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and the fetal blood-brain barrier.”

Thorp observes that whereas men continuously make more sperm throughout their lives, women have a finite number of eggs, which means that “every single one is exposed to the LNPs for life.”

Previous studies have shown nanoparticles to be a source of fetal inflammation. “Nobody knows the potentially catastrophic results of this,” warns Thorp. “In my area of expertise of maternal-fetal medicine, we have researched for decades on the catastrophic effect of inflammatory processes that may occur in the fetus and may result in miscarriage, fetal malformation, fetal death, neonatal death, infant death, permanent major newborn damage, permanent major autoimmune damage, permanent cognitive damage, permanent impairment of the immune health, and unleashing of infections and cancers.”

Just how concerning is the VAERS data so far? Dr. Thorp created a chart to compare the rate of miscarriages and fetal deaths (defined together as “pregnancy loss”) per month reported to the system for the COVID shots as compared to all other shots.

As you can see, we have seen 50 times the rate of reporting per month of miscarriages for this vaccine than the other vaccines put together. Thorp mentioned on my show that lest people think he opposes vaccines, he particularly recommends the flu and pertussis vaccines to his pregnant patients. You can see the rate of reporting for pregnancy loss among those shots is very low.

Now look at the rate of fetal malformations that have been reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines as compared to others.

Thorp requested that anyone who had the jab pushed on her in her pregnancy and believes she has suffered adverse effects in herself, her pregnancy, or her newborn to please contact him at jathorp@bellsouth.net.

Given that Scotland seemed to have experienced the most obvious safety alarm signal, why aren’t they looking into any of this? Well, in the richest of ironies, Glasgow Royal Fertility Clinic, one of the top fertility clinics in Scotland, has announced it will not serve any women without the shot. Why do they so badly not want a control group from which to study?

Forcing People Into COVID Vaccines Ignores Important Scientific Information

Now more than ever we need substantive debate about decisions that affect the health of hundreds of millions of people, including views counter to official positions. Instead, the attacks on free speech and science are unrelenting.

Biden admin reportedly plans to monitor your TEXTS for COVID-19 vaccine 'misinformation'



On Wednesday's episode of "The Rubin Report," BlazeTV host Dave Rubin discussed how the Biden administration reportedly plans to work with SMS carriers and begin monitoring and fact-checking people's private text messages to dispel misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

According to a Politico report, "The White House has decided to hit back harder on misinformation and scare tactics after Republican lawmakers and conservative activists pledged to fight the administration's stated plans to go 'door-to-door' to increase vaccination rates. The pushback will include directly calling out social media platforms and conservative news shows that promote such tactics."

The article went on to reveal that "Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee," are planning to "work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages."

"This is quite extraordinary. Did you catch that part about SMS carriers?" Dave said. "What they are saying is, if you send a text message to a friend, or to a family member, or to whomever, and it includes whatever they deem as misinformation, then somehow you're going to get a message from the government, and that includes the Democratic National Committee. What is going on here, and who is going to decide what misinformation is?"

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Dave Rubin:



Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.