By Peter C. Gøtzsche at Brownstone dot org.

In my vaccine book, I give numerous examples that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot be trusted in relation to vaccines and infections. The CDC has claimed, for example, that influenza vaccines reduce hospitalisations and mortality even though the randomised trials did not find this. The CDC did not provide a single comment that its claims were based on deeply flawed case-control studies.

On 17 August, Maryanne Demasi published a very disturbing article showing that corruption and scientific misconduct at the CDC are not things of the past.

In June, the CDC's vaccine advisory panel met for the first time since being overhauled by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in order to get rid of the financial conflicts of interest. Kennedy had promised that his new appointees would demand full transparency and scrutinise the evidence before making recommendations.

However, if the documentation provided by the CDC to its advisory panel is flawed, it is difficult or impossible for the panel to make rational, evidence-based recommendations. This is exactly what happened when the panel voted about whether to endorse Merck's monoclonal antibody for babies against the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), nearly identical to Sanofi's version approved in 2023.

The CDC assured the committee there were "no safety concerns," but there surely were. Professor Retsef Levi, who cast one of the two dissenting votes, noticed a troubling pattern across four major clinical trials conducted by Sanofi. In each, there was a consistent imbalance in "nervous system" serious adverse events, most often including seizures, in the treatment groups compared to controls.

Merck's Dr. Anushua Sinha downplayed the concerns, saying there had been "extensive analysis of the events" and that Merck's investigators had deemed that none of the nervous system harms were related to its product. This is not reassuring.

Two days after Maryanne's article, I published a book where I document - in my capacity as an expert witness in a US lawsuit that gave me access to 112,000 pages of Merck's confidential study reports - that Merck committed scientific misconduct when it concealed serious neurological harms of its Gardasil vaccines against the human papillomavirus (HPV) and that the European Medicines Agency was complicit in the fraud.

Levi acknowledged that the numbers in the clinical trials were small and indicated that his decision would hinge on the post-marketing surveillance data. This data, on Sanofi's drug, came from the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) system. The presentation was delivered by Matthew Daley, a paediatrician at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, part of an organisation that has received funding from Sanofi.

When seizure outcomes appeared on the screen, the slide stayed up for barely a minute.

The results were split into two groups based on the age when babies received the injection:

Daley's conclusion, that CDC's data showed "no significant increased risk," was false. If the two age groups are combined in a meta-analysis, the risk is significantly increased, risk ratio 3.93, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 12.79, P = 0.02.

The only reason I can see for splitting the data and not telling the panel what the whole data set shows is to have a deliberate intention to deceive. Scientifically, it makes zero sense to split the data. Moreover, the age groups are also nonsensical. The neonatal period is defined as the first four weeks of life, so why choose a cutoff of 37 days?

The observation periods are also weird. One would expect the risk ratio for the youngest group to be 4.00, but it was 3.50 because the risk window is not one week, but eight days. Thus, the risk ratio becomes (4/8) (2/14) = 3.5.

I believe that the CDC defrauded its vaccine advisory panel and that the approval of monoclonal antibodies against RSV by the FDA and the CDC was a harmful decision.

Despite all Bob Kennedy's g...

By Allon Friedman at Brownstone dot org.

As the Trump administration expands its battle to stamp out Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ideology by targeting medical schools and hospitals, recent interactions with medical trainees highlighted just how entrenched this ideology has become in the education of doctors.

I am a medical faculty member at a major Midwestern medical school and am frequently accompanied by medical students and residents during hospital rounds. In recent years, I have noticed that fewer and fewer of them wear the traditional white coat. On that particular day, for example, I happened to be the only one in my team of six wearing one. So I asked them why.

The response? Wearing white coats was discouraged by medical educators due to concerns about power inequalities between doctors and patients.

After my initial shock wore off, I realized that this line of thinking was familiar. It came from critical theory, a political school of thought developed by Marxist thinkers in early 20th century Germany. Critical theory views societal interactions - from the individual to group level - entirely through the lens of power dynamics, and when this theory was imported to America's shores, it morphed into critical race theory and ultimately into DEI.

Applying DEI to the wearing of white coats introduces obvious contradictions and problems. Though medical schools have "white coat" ceremonies to remind their students that they have entered an ancient profession dedicated to humanism and patient care, nowadays students are apparently dissuaded from wearing such garb when caring for actual, real-life patients.

What proponents of critical theory in medical education clearly miss is that while there is an obvious power imbalance between physicians and their patients, patients willingly enter into such relationships because they trust that physicians will use their power not to oppress, but to heal.

In fact, studies find that physicians who wear white coats instill greater confidence in their patients than those who do not, so the application of DEI in this instance actually undermines the physician-patient relationship.

After rounds, I helped review a medical student's medical note-writing skills. Writing a patient's medical notes, including the initial one usually referred to as the "History and Physical," is a foundational skill taught to all medical students and an essential part of medical practice.

More than just a medico-legal document, the H&P is designed to encapsulate the patient's background information, presenting illness, physical exam, and laboratory findings in a manner that leads in a logical fashion to identifying the most likely diagnosis and establishing an appropriate treatment plan. The skill of H&P writing is an art and its perfection can take years.

For decades, medical students were taught to begin the H&P with a simple descriptive sentence that included the patient's age, sex, and race as fundamental identifiers that help in beginning to hone in on the cause of the patient's illness. In this instance, the medical student notified me that educators now teach that race should be removed from the opening sentence and relegated to a less perused subsection of the H&P.

This did not surprise me. In recent years, the concept of race in medicine has been treated in a strangely paradoxical manner. On the one hand, advocates of DEI in medical education and research obsess over race in ways that relegate it to supreme status, similar to what has been seen in society-at-large. On the other hand, using race as a neutral concept that can help properly diagnose patients has been deprioritized, as in this example.

Physicians are now routinely taught that race is a "social" concept that has no biological relevance, despite indisputable evidence that some inherited diseases are more or less likely to exist depending on a patient's genetic heritage, which is reflected in large part by race.

While most physicians likely ...

By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org.

[The following is an excerpt from Jeffrey Tucker's book, Spirits of America: On the Semiquincentennial.]

In my youth, we sang a hymn that went: "You ask me how I know he lives; he lives within my heart."

Honestly, I'm not sure that this line made much sense to me as a kid, at least not to an aspirational rationalist. As years have gone by, I have a better understanding. It's a distinctly American idea.

It seems to be pointing to the truth that faith is ultimately a personal matter, the most personal matter. It is something we accept or reject as a matter of the life of the individual mind and heart. That is how we know.

That is the very essence of the American experience with religion, which is the subject of the sixth chapter of Eric Sloane's book. This chapter is on "godliness."

Regardless of the belief structure, faith tradition, or denominational affiliation, the American experience has required that every religion draw its adherents based on personal choice. You can accept or reject.

Maybe that doesn't sound radical today, but there was a time when such a system was outlandish and seemingly unworkable. Around the time that the colonists arrived at Plymouth, the religious wars were still raging in Europe, as fallout from the Reformation. The perception was that every country had to choose: Protestant or Catholic. You could not have freedom of choice.

Why was this? Because church and state had been long tied together. The church signed off on the political leadership, and the political leadership gave protection to the church. They had made a deal that lasted a millennium. When the Reformation took place, chaos broke out. People fought it out.

In time, of course, and about the same period that American colonial life was emerging as a rich and good experience, the religious wars gradually came to an end. They were expensive in lives and property. The notion of liberty in the modern sense was born and germinated over time.

As it turns out, everyone is better off simply deciding for themselves and their families what faith to follow. All this system asks is that we tolerate the decisions of others as they tolerate ours. There is peace at last.

The colonies at first attempted official religions with a European-style mix of church and state, but it never really took hold. People were moving around too much. Many were only in America because they were religious dissidents. They had a history of being put upon. Why would they do that to others? They were grateful enough for the freedom to believe and practice.

Plus, there were better things to do than fight over faith. They had houses to build, towns to found, civic matters to tend to, and the crops and livestock always needed attention.

The Americans were simply too busy to bother with religious wars. By the time of the founding, it seemed pretty obvious what the new system should be. There should be absolute freedom of religion. It was put in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Amazing words! The whole of recorded history was a story about people killing and dying and pillaging over religious struggles. The Americans had this crazy idea: let people believe what they want to believe just so long as they let others do the same.

This did not harm religious practice. Quite the opposite. Films recreating the Colonial and Founding experience don't show this, but faith was everywhere present in people's lives. Religion was the basis of education, civic celebrations, health care and hospitals, care for widows and orphans, and so much more.

Faith was life and life was faith. Both were woven together by this idea called freedom.

It began to catch on around the world, while the Americans began to embrace it even more. In the 19th century, there were waves of religious revivalism leading to every manner of belief structure an...

By Julie Ponesse at Brownstone dot org.

[The following is an excerpt from Julie Ponesse's book, Our Last Innocent Moment.]

Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.

Genesis 11:4

Oh we may have sharper tools

But we don't always know how to use them

After all we're only human

Matthew Barber, "Viral"

About 5,000 years ago, somewhere in the middle of the desert in the land of Shinar (south of what is now Baghdad, Iraq), a group of migrants decided to stop and build a city. One among them, quite possibly Nimrod, suggested that they build a tower so tall it will reach to the heavens." But the Lord came down and, so displeased with what they were up to, confused their language and scattered them over the face of the earth.

In 2020, our modern civilization experienced a similar system failure on a global scale. We were building something. Or so it seemed. And then it all went terribly wrong. Now, bodies are invaded by the state, children are killing themselves, and the world is burning. We are more disconnected than ever before and we have lost our ability to communicate with each other. And yet our destruction is well masked in the pretence of progress and unity.

We seem to be having another "Babel Moment," a punctuated moment in history when excessive pride in our own abilities leads to our own destruction. Like other similar moments in history - the fall in Eden, the Late Bronze Age collapse, the Destruction of the Roman Empire - it's a story of the natural consequences of human ingenuity running ahead of wisdom. It's a story about misguided unification projects.

It's a story echoed in so many of the fractures we see today: between the left and right, liberals and conservatives, Israelis and Palestinians, truth and lies. It's a story about what's breaking between us and within each of us.

I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that we are reeling. Like different tribes who inhabit the same country and are subject to the same laws, we have wildly different views about what it is to be good, whether we are citizens or subjects, whether history can teach us anything, and whether human life, in all its forms and at all of its stages, is sacred. We look at our neighbour and are disoriented, unable to understand the person staring back at us.

We are a people adrift in a historical no-man's place, "unmoored" as Bret Weinstein poetically but hauntingly said. We are orphans of history, of liberty, and even of our own sense of conscience.

"…piling mountains up to the distant stars"

The story of Babel, like so many in the Bible, is frustratingly brief, offering only a few lines and few specific clues about what the tower looked like, whether the Babylonians thought they succeeded or failed, and why their punishment was to be radically dispersed.

Artists' renderings of the tower mimic the sort of prestige architecture that was common in the ancient world, possibly modelled on Etemenanki, a stone ziggurat the height of New York's Flatiron building dedicated to the Mesopotamian god Marduk. What we do know is how the story ended: God was so displeased that he confused their language and spread them as far apart from one another as they could be.

Cautionary tales about the costs of human pride running amok are not unique to the Christian tradition. There is the love origins story from Plato's Symposium that I mentioned earlier, in which humans became "so lofty in their notions" that Zeus cut them in two leaving each one cursed to roam the earth searching for their other half.

In Greek mythology, the "Gigantomachy" myth describes the desperate struggle between the Gigantes (giants) and the Olympian gods to rule over the universe. In Ovid's telling of the story, the twin giants Ephialtes and Otis attempt to reach the heavens by stacking the Ossa, Pelion, and Thessaly mountain ranges on top of...

By Maryanne Demasi at Brownstone dot org.

Autism has long been the untouchable subject in American politics. For decades, federal agencies tiptoed around it, steering research toward genetics while carefully avoiding controversial environmental or pharmaceutical questions.

That ended at the White House this morning, when President Donald Trump tore through the taboo with a blunt and sometimes incendiary performance that left even his own health chiefs scrambling to keep pace.

Flanked by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, CMS Adminstrator Dr Mehmet Oz, and other senior officials, Trump declared autism a "horrible, horrible crisis" and recounted its rise in startling terms.

"Just a few decades ago, one in 10,000 children had autism…now it's one in 31, but in some areas, it's much worse than that, if you can believe it, one in 31 and…for boys, it's one in 12 in California," Trump said.

The President insisted the trend was "artificially induced," adding: "You don't go from one in 20,000 to one in 10,000 and then you go to 12, you know, there's something artificial. They're taking something."

Trump's Blunt Tylenol Warning

The headline moment came when Trump zeroed in on acetaminophen, the common painkiller sold as Tylenol - known as paracetamol in Australia.

While Kennedy and Makary described a cautious process of label changes and physician advisories, Trump dispensed with nuance.

"Don't take Tylenol," Trump said flatly. "Don't take it unless it's absolutely necessary…fight like hell not to take it."

Kennedy laid out the evidence base, citing "clinical and laboratory studies that suggest a potential association between acetaminophen used during pregnancy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including later diagnosis for ADHD and autism."

Makary reinforced the point with references to the Boston Birth Cohort, the Nurses' Health Study, and a recent Harvard review, before adding: "To quote the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, there is a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders of ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. We cannot wait any longer."

But where the officials spoke of "lowest effective dose" and "shortest possible duration," Trump thundered over the top: "I just want to say it like it is, don't take Tylenol. Don't take it if you just can't. I mean, it says, fight like hell not to take it."

Vaccines Back on Center Stage

The President then pivoted to vaccines, reviving arguments that the medical establishment has long sought to bury. He blasted the practice of giving infants multiple injections at a single visit.

"They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it's a disgrace…you get a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends, and they pump it in," Trump said.

His solution was simple: "Go to the doctor four times instead of once, or five times instead of once…it can only help."

On the measles, mumps, and rubella shot, Trump insisted: "The MMR, I think should be taken separately…when you mix them, there could be a problem. So there's no downside in taking them separately."

The moment was astonishing - echoing arguments that had once seen doctors like Andrew Wakefield excommunicated from medical circles.

It was the kind of line of questioning the establishment had spent decades trying to banish from mainstream debate.

Hep B Vaccine under Attack

Trump dismissed the rationale for giving the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

"Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's just born hepatitis B [vaccine]. So I would say, wait till the baby is 12 years old," he said.

He made clear that he was "not a doctor," stressing that he was simply offering his personal opinion. But the move could also be interpreted as Trump choosing to take the heat himself, to shield Kennedy's HHS from what was sure to be an onslaught of criticism.

The timing was remarkable....

By James Lyons-Weiler at Brownstone dot org.

The federal government just signaled a serious course correction on autism. In a joint appearance that felt less like a press conference and more like a policy pivot, President Donald J. Trump stood alongside HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, and CMS Director Mehmet Oz to outline an all-agency plan that treats autism as an urgent, tractable public-health crisis - not a career-long grant treadmill.

The package is sweeping. It elevates environmental and pharmaceutical exposures to first-class research questions, directs label changes with clinical relevance, and begins to dismantle sacred cows that have stifled honest inquiry for a generation.

The Headline Moves

Trump led with the cultural taboo: acetaminophen. He urged that during pregnancy it be used "only when medically necessary," warned against reflexive dosing of children "every time they receive a vaccine," and linked these positions to rising rates of autism that have "destroyed families" and imposed massive social costs.

He also called for smaller vaccine doses on a more spread-out schedule, and he previewed a CDC policy modernization: the separation of MMRV into its component measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccinations. He called ending the routine HepB birth dose a "revolution," arguing that a sexually transmitted infection does not justify a blanket neonatal exposure.

Kennedy matched that candor point for point. He called the decades-long fixation on "the genetics of autism" fruitless by design, the equivalent of studying lung-cancer genomes while banning the word "cigarettes." He announced that HHS will move on acetaminophen: FDA will require safety-label changes on acetaminophen-containing products, with specific caution in pregnancy and prudent use in children.

He insisted on the "lowest effective dose" standards and promised a series of follow-on reports that will examine all plausible contributors - vaccines included - with "no taboos." Mothers will not be gaslit. The period of neglect is over.

From Rhetoric to Levers

Makary put the FDA's levers on the table. He announced updated labeling requirements for acetaminophen. He referenced major cohort and pooled analyses - Boston Birth Cohort, Nurses' Health Study, and a Mount Sinai review/meta-analysis - describing the totality of evidence as consistent with causal signals for prenatal acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism.

He challenged the "mindless" fever-suppression reflex that dominates pediatric practice, even noting evidence that treating fever may prolong illness in young children because fever serves a host-defense function. This is what regulatory science looks like when it remembers physiology.

Makary also announced a label change with immediate bedside implications: prescription leucovorin (folinic acid). He summarized the evidence that a subset of autistic children exhibit autoimmunity to folate receptors in the brain and reported response rates as high as two in three in studies where leucovorin was used to address cerebral folate deficiency. That label change matters because it tells clinicians: you have a defined pathway to try, with guardrails.

Oz then did something rare for CMS: he connected reimbursement to real-world evidence generation. CMS will issue guidance to states to ensure coverage and to capture outcomes data on leucovorin as the first FDA-recognized treatment pathway in autism. He cited a five-fold increase in autism diagnoses as reason enough to stop waiting for perfect RCTs before supporting access. Coverage with learning loops - long overdue.

NIH: From Slogans to Study Designs

Bhattacharya described imminent awards under the Autism Data Science Initiative - thirteen grants that foreground Exposomics to reflect the reality that autism arises from interacting factors, not single-gene myths. He emphasized collaboration with the FDA and CMS t...

By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org.

[This is the foreword to the new book by Douglas French: When Movements Become Rackets (2025)]

Dante Alighieri, in his book Inferno, places those who betray benefactors in the deepest circle of hell. If that is true, the place is likely overpopulated with the managers and executives of nonprofit organizations.

In recent years, such organizations have been implicated in egregious schemes to launder money and influence for every sundry and malevolent cause and hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. But even those not on the take from taxpayers have vast problems, so much so it is a wonder why anyone donates to them at all.

The more you study this stuff, the more cynical you become. The pandemic period gave rise to hundreds of these things designed to plan for pandemics and end them. Many were funded by crypto scams born of stimulus payments provided so that people could work from home. Some had fancy philosophical cover such as "effective altruism," about which the scandals never end. Tens of billions in fraudulent court judgments have come down.

Sometimes the racket benefits forever just from a name. Consider the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA. My God, who doesn't want to stop cruelty to animals? It was founded in 1866 and maybe did some good, I don't know. But these days, it is a main force to stop working-class people from making money by breeding and selling dogs and cats, taking from people a lucrative business that also helps people have companions at a low price.

This doesn't stop cruelty; it bolsters an industrial cartel of professional breeders.

But then you look up the organization. Assets: $553,325,000; contributions: $338,217,130; programs: $25,068,713; investment income: $13,573,862; book royalties: $3,953,489; fundraising fees: $11,884,368. The CEO gets a million plus a year. The fundraiser alone makes $500,000. The 14 top executives earn more than $275,000 a year each. More than a thousand people work there.

I cannot say with certainty, but this has all the earmarks of a racket, all in the name of not stopping but actually creating "puppy mills."

With those kinds of assets, why doesn't it just become a foundation? Because it has a massive organization to support and can raise $338M per year. Why leave that kind of money on the table? But being a nonprofit also requires them to raise money to keep up appearances, per rules via the IRS. So the fundraising letters arrive like a tsunami, every dime pouring in in order to keep up appearances.

For all I know, that might be among the best. No comment is necessary on the Southern Poverty Law Center (as ably exposed and surveyed by Doug French in Chapter 1), which depends foundationally on spreading the word that America has a massive problem with racism and Nazism that they alone can solve. Ex-employees have blown the whistle many times on this scam, but it never makes a dent in the organization, which everyone knows is a scam but it somehow keeps lasting.

As for Harvard University, another nonprofit but with assets of $53 billion, the less said the better. I would also put in this bucket countless fake libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute, which somehow weighed in eight months after the start of the pandemic period to endorse lockdowns, masking, tax-funded medical interventions, and mandatory injections. There's some liberty right there!

I looked up the 990s of an organization founded in the postwar period that has long since failed to pursue its mission, which was once about backing economic freedom; indeed now it does nothing at all except vamp for social media. What I found was a long list of legacy foundations, institutions that are forced to give a percentage of interest and dividends to other nonprofits. It's a gravy train.

Once you are on it, you stay there seemingly forever even if your nonprofit only pretends to operate and do what it claims to do.

And yet people...

By el gato malo at Brownstone dot org.

We can argue about just how much democracy is even desirable in a republic where the rights of the individual are supposed to stand paramount to the whims of the demos and that most oppressive of forms of governance, "tyranny of the majority," but I suspect just about all of us can agree on a basic issue:

If we are to have democracy, counting the votes is vital and, as a subset of such, determining which votes are valid and who is allowed to cast them is critical.

If one person can simply grab 10,000 mail in ballots, fill them out by machine, and drop them in mailboxes, that's not democracy, that's fraud.

If people who are not US citizens are eligible to vote, that too is fraud.

This seems a pretty uncontroversial set of ideas, but the obviousness and ethics of such seem to stand increasingly in opposition to the actual black letter law.

Consider Arizona, whose bizarre two-tier voter registration provides a poignant example.

In order to vote in state or local elections, you must submit "valid proof of citizenship," which includes several options like passports and birth certificates or an AZ driver's license (which requires the same to get it).

However, astonishingly, no such stricture applies to federal elections. You can register to vote for the House, the Senate, and the President by simply filling out a form (link conveniently provided) that has no verification requirements whatsoever.

It's the electoral equivalent of a liar loan.

You can read it on their state website HERE.

This is a pretty astonishing divergence and one that could, given the truly massive influx of illegal immigration, have profound effects on electoral outcomes.

The dichotomy is striking.

You need to prove that you are a US citizen and an Arizona native to vote for the Maricopa County dog catcher, but to vote for President, just fill out a form. nothing else needed.

This is a pretty wild intersection of NIMBY and manipulation.

"Well, absolutely not. THOSE people cannot be allowed to vote to take OUR resources. Oh, NATIONAL resources, sure, by all means, go ahead!"

I am struggling to envision any sound ethical basis for this sort of policy or why "federal should be different."

This leads to some questions:

Is this some sort of federal loophole?

Are states somehow prohibited from validating federal voting eligibility?

Is this a situation unique to Arizona, or is it one present in other states as well?

Because one can certainly see how it could provide the basis for some truly astonishing election manipulation.

The US is the richest and most technologically advanced country in the history of countries. The idea that we could not count votes in real time with perfect precision is an absurdity. Of course, we could.

We are choosing not to because someone wants it that way.

And the ramifications of this are obvious to anyone able to think by analogy.

Trusting governments to run elections is like trusting orcas to manage a seal migration.

Voting in the US should be a zero-trust system.

It would not be that difficult to build.

I outlined some ideas in the back half of this piece.

But even this is pointless if we're not going to pay any attention at all to who is allowed to register.

Flooding voter rolls with unverified registrants seems assured to render valid elections impossible. It breaks a system to the point where you simply cannot trust anything, especially if these people do not even need to vote in person but can, instead, do so by mail.

This is a blueprint for fraud to the point of complete absurdity and abnegation of the idea of representation.

It's astonishing watching the same people who were demanding "vaccine passports to be allowed to eat in a restaurant or go to school" then flip and proclaim "demanding valid voter ID is racist as it harms minorities" is like some sort of master class in hypocrisy.

There is no burden there. It's invented nonsense rooted in presumptive bigotry that somehow "minorities"...

By Jessica Rose at Brownstone dot org.

I promised a "Jess write-up" of our newest paper that was published on 06 Sep 2025 in the journal Autoimmunity after many years of preprintage, peer review, and attacks.

It is entitled: "Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada" and it was submitted as evidence in the Congressional Record by the honorable Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) as part of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that took place on Sept. 9, 2025.1

You want it simple? Well, here's simple.

You know the vials that were Operation Warp Speeded into commercialization by Pfizer and Moderna during the Covid era? The ones that represented brand new technologies (LNPs + spike coding material) that were going to save the world? You remember how we were told by the recommenders, CDC, FDA, and HHS, that they are safe and effective and that the stuff in the vials:

1. Stays in the arm.

2. Does not pose a problem in terms of DNA/integration?

Well, in fact, if you head to the CDC website as of today (September 15, 2025), you will see that the CDC are STILL claiming no biodistribution (that the stuff stays in the muscle cells of the arm (or leg, if baby)):

and STILL claiming no DNA integration issues. In bold, in fact, as if to make a point.

The first claim is a lie, and they knew that. Biodistribution of LNPs is the bread-and-butter modus operandi of LNPs. In fact, they are often studded with specific proteins to enable location-specific trafficking in the body, like to the liver to deliver pro-drugs, for example.

The second statement is categorically false and you know how I know that? Because they have no scientific evidence to make this claim, and in light of the fact that multiple studies from multiple labs (reproduced finding from non-conflicted labs) have identified DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vials, it is a false statement.

If there's DNA in the vials with appropriate mammalian promoters, then host cell genomic damage is a concern. In fact, Moderna acknowledges in their own patent from 2018 that foreign DNA introduction is a no-no because of the potential for "alterations and/or damage to host cell genomic DNA."

Here's the punchline. Because of all of the ignorance, deception, and lies, we now KNOW that there is DNA in the vials. Moderna's patent's danger prediction came true.

Here's how we know.

We tested 32 vials of Pfizer and Moderna Covid products that included 16 unique lots. We measured the amount of DNA in the vials using 2 methods: one involves measuring specific DNA fragments by amplification of DNA from samples (qPCR), and one involves measuring DNA using fluorescent dyes that bind to DNA and emit light when excited, called fluorometry. So exciting!

We found DNA using both methods, which is more than can be said for what the manufacturers/regulators did. They cherry-picked one or the other to measure DNA (or RNA), and that's no good because there's something called cross-reactivity/non-specific binding that can mess up your measurement.

For example, if RNA is present in your sample (which it is), the fluorescence signal can overestimate the DNA concentration, especially in crude extracts or samples because the dyes can bind both DNA and RNA. What we did to resolve this issue is use something called RNAse (chews up RNA) to get rid of the RNA to yield a clean, beautiful, and accurate DNA reading.

We not only found DNA, we found it in ALL lots tested and most importantly, the DNA levels were all above pre-designated EMA thresholds of 10 ng/dose. This isn't even the worst of it because these thresholds are way too high to begin with. They are way too high because they were determined in the context of naked DNA, not lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated DNA, so they absolutely need to be redetermined to appropriately match the for-use case.

This isn't the worst of it.

We found SV40 promoter/enhancers in the...

By Robert Malone at Brownstone dot org.

Last weekend, Jill and I visited the uniquely experimental Polyface farm here in Virginia. A long-standing, successful older farm where its owner and operator, Joel Salatin, has developed regenerative farming methods grounded in the pragmatic realities of the small farm and homestead. Jill and I were lucky enough to get a private tour of the farm and to have Joel teach us about sylvan farming and pigs.

Joel has a system of paddocks, with low-lying electric fencing (two-wire) interspersed throughout his vast forest lands of about 2,000 acres. Although the amount of land used for his 400 pigs at any one time is much smaller. Pigs are kept in 35 animal "herds" and are rotated in lightly forested areas.

These pig paddocks have had some trees felled, so that the dappled earth grows vegetation that the pigs can eat. Old-growth forest (with the exception of acorn season) doesn't have much undergrowth and is less suited for sylvan farming. Joel moves a feeder - along with the pigs, so that they have access to tested, non-pesticide residue feed also.

Although the pigs eat every bit of vegetation, greenery, and all the scraps given, they also require feed in order to gain healthy weight for slaughter. In the fall, pigs are put into forest areas heavy with oaks, so that they can forage the acorns - their favorite!

Joel has basically developed his own breed of pig, although he is too modest to put a name on them. Although Jill did. The "Polyface Pig," as Jill calls them, is built like a torpedo, with a straight topline, and is a mix of heritage breeds. It is built for hardiness, the ability to build healthy muscle, and is less lean than the pig used on factory farms. It can tolerate changes in the weather more readily and has pigmented skin that doesn't burn to a crisp in the hot sun.

This is a hardy pig, developed from multiple heritage breeds, and is quite docile. What is important is hardiness, tractability, and meat quality. This is a pig being created for the small farm and particularly for rotational grazing.

Sylvan farming is essentially farming within a forest-like environment, blending agriculture with forestry to create a sustainable, diverse, and productive system. In the case of pigs, they need to be rotated often, or they do too much erosion damage and even uproot trees. However, in Virginia and in other states "east of the Mississippi," where forest is plentiful and most of it is not old-growth, pigs can be a wonderful addition to a homestead.

In the meantime, although more difficult to find, pork and ham can be bought from quality sources online and locally. It is absolutely worth going out of your way to buy pig meat from ethically sourced farms.

Pig factory farms pose risks not only to the animals inside but also to human health, the environment, and surrounding communities. The most significant issues are air and water pollution, antibiotic resistance, and inadequate animal welfare.

My hope is that one day the USDA will intercede and make this type of factory farm illegal in the United States.

On the home front, Jill has been wishing for a small dog that we can travel with, as our Aussies just don't fit under the seat on planes very well. Well, a small Pomeranian kind of fell into our laps via an old friend from Georgia last week. So we are now the proud(?) owners of a beautiful peach and white "dog-cat". Her age and history are largely unknown, and she has gone through a number of homes in a very short time this year.

No fault of her own - as she is cute as a button and has attached herself 200% to Jill.

The big dogs were at first a little taken aback, as Sunny (now named Kitty) is an adult dog in the size of a puppy, with so many silly behaviors. Within a day or so, they also have become smitten. We have never owned a small dog before, so we are having to figure some stuff out as we go. Of course, she will be a mostly indoor dog, but she is already learning that birds are ...