Kennedy posted on X , reminding the public that he had promised four things: to end covid vaccine mandates; to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable; to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies; and to end the emergency.

“In a series of FDA actions today we accomplished all four goals,” Kennedy wrote. “The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded.”

In a press release posted on the HHS website, Kennedy further stated, “Americans deserve a regulatory system that is transparent, accountable, and rooted in the rule of law. By ending these COVID-19 emergency use authorization declarations, we’re reinforcing public confidence that emergency authorities are temporary and targeted.”

Kennedy noted that the FDA is promulgating marketing authorization for high-risk groups: Moderna (6+ months), Pfizer (5+), and Novavax (12+).

“These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors,” Kennedy wrote on X. “The American people demanded science, safety, and common sense. This framework delivers all three.”

EUAs are granted by the FDA to medical products when no approved, alternative product is available. The Covid vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna were both made available through EUAs prior to receiving full FDA approval in 2021 and 2022.

The standards for EUAs and full FDA approval are different. In order for a product to receive an EUA, it must be determined that its potential benefits outweigh its potential risks. This is different from the standard that medical products must achieve for full FDA approval, which requires that manufacturers prove that those products are safe and effective.

In May, the FDA granted full approval to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for at-risk children, making it the first Covid vaccine, not through an EUA, available for children between 6 months and 11 years old.

Covid vaccines had been available to all children. In many states, these vaccines were mandatory for children. However, Kennedy announced earlier this year that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) no longer recommended the vaccine to healthy children and pregnant women.

Kennedy’s latest move will likely raise the ire of major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which has been instructing pediatricians to ignore federal recommendations and follow AAP’s guidance: that all children receive Covid vaccines – not only those at risk.

Last August, Kennedy criticized the AAP for being captured by corporate interests, noting that four companies “make virtually every vaccine on the CDC recommended childhood schedule.”

As an increasing percentage of the American public grows suspicious of the vaccine burden placed on America’s youth, the AAP appears woefully out of step.

And while many in the medical establishment oppose the latest changes that Kennedy has implemented, he has not reduced the availability of Covid vaccines for those who want them.

Shop our merch store to support the MAHA Report and the MAHA movement.

All proceeds go to supporting the cause.

MAHA Merch Store

“Accountability starts with acknowledging there’s a problem,” says Stephanie Weidle, the executive director of Feds for Freedom, which formed hastily in 2021 after the Biden administration announced the vaccine mandate on the entire federal workforce.

On Wednesday, at a conference at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington, D.C. called “National Security Beyond the Headlines,” the organization will push for that accountability, framing the issue of health freedom in the broader context of national security as America celebrates 250 years of independence.

Watch live starting at 8 a.m. Wednesday!

The lineup of speakers includes Joe Kent, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned over the Iran War; Dr. Robert Malone, the co-inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology; Steve Baker, an investigative journalist who was arrested by the FBI; Dr. Meryl Nass, an expert on the broad spectrum of injuries that can be caused by vaccines; Ivan Raiklin, a constitutional attorney and former Green Beret; Emily Kopp, a journalist who has investigated the origins of the Covid virus; Chris Martenson, founder of Peak Prosperity; and Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute.

Conference organizers will be asking the following questions throughout the day: Is glyphosate the answer to national security, or is it the actual risk? Are vaccines protecting our soldiers and citizens or harming them? Does heightened government surveillance protect Americans or does it pose the ultimate risk? Is the lack of accountability in the U.S. government in fact the greatest threat to America itself?

At the end of the day on Wednesday, the organizers will identify the most promising solutions and present them to senior U.S. leaders.

More than a million Americans died from Covid, according to the official numbers – the highest of any country in the world – though many have speculated that half or more of these are likely not Covid deaths per se, but deaths caused by hospital protocols administered by doctors and nurses. No one has been held accountable.

Thousands of federal employees were injured by the Covid vaccine, and their injuries in most cases have been denied by doctors and the federal government. Because of the PREP act, they cannot sue. There is no one to hold accountable.

Feds for Freedom came together in the fall of 2021, in the weeks after President Joe Biden announced that all federal employees would be mandated to get the Covid vaccine. It was the first time a vaccine had ever been mandated for the entire federal workforce.

Marcus Thornton was a Foreign Service Officer with the State Department and was in Russian-language training when the mandate came down. He and other federal employees quickly organized. One of them was Jim Erdman, a CIA officer. Together, they co-founded Feds for Freedom.

“We came to the realization that no one was going to save us,” Thornton told The MAHA Report.

Within a few weeks, they had 3,000 members. They got to work finding a lawyer who could file an injunction to stop the vaccine mandate.

“We called probably 50 or 60 law firms before we finally found one that would represent us. No one wanted to take the case,” said Thornton.

They also hired a PR firm to get their case in the news. It didn’t do much good. Even Fox News wasn’t interested in the story.

Meanwhile in Washington, you couldn’t go to a restaurant to eat a meal without showing proof of vaccination, and thousands of employees of federal agencies allowed an injection into their bodies that they did not want.

“What was shocking to me was how willing people were to do that in violation of their conscience,” says Thornton.

In January of 2022, an injunction against mandates was approved by a federal judge. But a lot of the damage was done, and federal employees who’d objected and spoken out were starting to lose their security clearances, effectively ending their careers.

In 2023, while serving in the U.S. Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, Thornton went to his office one day to find that his badge didn’t work. He couldn’t get in the door. He contacted a supervisor who told him the ambassador, Lesslie Viguerie, wanted to speak with him.

“I met with the ambassador and he informed me that I was being relieved from my post for loss of confidence,” says Thornton. He and his family had to pack up and go back to D.C. He managed to hang on as Foreign Service Officer, and get another post in the State Department. But no one who was involved in punishing him for speaking out has ever faced any accountability. Lesslie Virguerie, to this day, remains the U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. There’s been no apology, no retraction of the negative notes in his personnel file. Nothing.

But Thornton, Erdman and the other federal employees aren’t looking for retribution. They want things to change.

“It did serious damage to our national security,” says Thornton. It’s for this reason, he says, that he wants accountability.

Across the government, he said, people need to face consequences as individuals for having violated the rights of others, or it could all happen again.

“The accountability needs to be on par with what you would face in the private sector if you engaged in egregious, unethical behavior,” he says.

Shop our merch store to support the MAHA Report and the MAHA movement.

All proceeds go to supporting the cause.

MAHA Merch Store

The now censored article found that 2,605 infant deaths (under age one) were reported to VAERS within 60 days of vaccination: 58% of cases were reported within 24 hours of vaccination while a supermajority (over 78%) of cases were reported within a week of vaccination. The uncensored article can still be read at the National Library of Medicine.

Writing on X, Secretary Kennedy explained his rationale for writing the letter.

“I sent this letter to the Editor-in-Chief of Toxicology Reports demanding a full explanation for the removal of a published article examining vaccines and sudden infant death. Americans have a right to know why scientific papers are removed, who made those decisions, what evidence supported them, and whether the same standards are applied consistently.”

In the letter, addressed to Lawrence H. Lash, the editor-in-chief of the journal and a professor of pharmacology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Kennedy writes, “We will restore trust in public health by insisting on transparency, accountability, and open scientific inquiry—not by asking the public to accept decisions behind closed doors.”

HHS Secretary Kennedy demanded the following of Lash:

1. How the removal decision was reached;

2. If, and which, experts were consulted in the investigation;

3. Clarification of treatment of corroborating literature cited by Miller;

4. Criteria for “potential implications for medical practice” as a reason for retraction.

In his article, Miller states that otherwise unexplained infant deaths after vaccination are often labeled as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), suffocation, or unknown causes. He argues that such sloppy labeling helps to conceal links between vaccines and infant deaths.

The peer reviewed article was apparently reviewed and retracted in May because nearly six years after its initial publication Toxicology Reports found the VAERS data was not reliable.

In an ironic twist, Secretary Kennedy is currently working to restructure VAERS in order to collect larger and therefore more accurate data samples. Many of the same forces that have previously censored or outright dismissed scientific research on vaccine safety have also resisted Kennedy’s attempts to improve VAERS.

But until such reforms happen, VAERS remains the largest repository of information related to vaccine injuries and deaths.

In his letter, Kennedy made it clear that the explanation provided by the medical journal was insufficient.

“The notice of removal you [Lash] issued had only two sentences explaining the retraction,” Kennedy wrote. “Given the high levels of public interest in vaccine safety and a history of both overt and obscure pressure against the study of some of these topics, such a brief notice of removal is woefully insufficient.”

Kennedy has repeatedly called out corruption and Big Pharma’s influence on what is published in medical journals. In 2025, he noted that in June of 2021, The Lancet published a letter, authored by Peter Daszak and his associates, titled, “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.”

In his letter, Kennedy called on the scientific community to resist criticisms of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the theory that the pandemic originated there. Daszak, it was later revealed, funded the lab in Wuhan through his organization, EcoHealth Alliance.

After Kennedy posted his letter on Monday, researcher Nicholas Hulscher responded that his recent study on the link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) and infant deaths corroborated the findings of the Toxicology Reports article. It, too, Hulscher wrote, was recently removed from a publication — in this case, ResearchGate, an online platform that scientists use to share research with one another.

“It’s time to take more direct action against the Journal Cartel,” Hulscher wrote in his response to Kennedy.

The topic of a potential link between vaccines and the sudden death of infants in the United States is particularly poignant given the alarming number of babies that die unexpectedly every year, leaving families devastated.

CDC data shows 3,700 sudden, unexpected deaths of infants in the U.S. in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available. Of these, 1,529 were classified as SIDS deaths while 1,131 were said to be from unknown causes and another 1,040 from accidental suffocation or strangulation in a bed.

He and two other top doctors, including the head of the cancer center at Brown University and a top British cardiologist, all warned senators at the hearing that the mRNA Covid vaccines are likely causing cancer, and that millions of Americans may be at risk.

For years, a handful of doctors including pathologist Ryan Cole had warned of an increase in cancers following Covid vaccination, and said that these cancers were more aggressive, referring to them as “turbo cancers.” But they were ignored by the legacy media, called conspiracy theorists, and faced disciplinary action from medical boards. Now, it appears that they were right all along.

On June 3, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) chaired the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, hearing testimony from, among others, Angus Dalgleish, professor emeritus of oncology at City St. George’s at the University of London. Dalgleish is known as one of the top cancer doctors in the world, and is credited with pioneering immunotherapy to treat cancer.

He told the committee that in early 2022 he saw six of his patients relapse with melanoma after having been cancer-free for between three and 18 years.

“Being investigative, I asked, you know, what was the thing that was common. And the thing that was common is they’d all received a booster vaccine from their general practitioners,” Dalgleish said in his testimony.

Dr. Dalgleish said he suspected that the T-Cell response, which had been keeping his patients’ cancer at bay, was thrown off by the mRNA vaccine and that this was later confirmed by a paper published in a medical journal entitled, “The Evidence of Exhausted Lymphocytes After the Third Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Dose in Cancer Patients.”

“I mean, this was absolutely staggering, that they showed across hundreds of patients, that you get this T-Cell suppression,” he said.

Soon after, Dalgleish recounted, there were many reports of IGG immunoglobulin switching in patients who’d gotten a Covid vaccine booster, in which the immune system seemed to be converted from a system that fights invaders like cancer cells to one that tolerates them. Now, he said, the medical literature shows that there are at least a dozen “mechanisms” where messenger RNA can insert into the DNA and suppress the body’s natural defenses against cancer.

“So as an oncologist who is starting to see that, it’s not only my patients now, it’s people I know really well who are going down with cancer,” he said, “and they’re going down more aggressively, and the treatment is not working nearly as well.”

Dalgleish said he and other doctors and researchers have learned enough to know what must be done regarding mRNA technology.

“Myself and others feel that there is no way you can control this technology, and its use for future vaccines should be banned and the Covid ones stopped now,” he said.

An American doctor named Wafik El-Deiry, the director of the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, amplified these concerns in his testimony to the committee, saying that in 2024, he published evidence that the spike protein associated with both Covid infection and the Covid vaccines could hurt the ability of P-53, a protein in the human body, to activate genes involved in suppressing cancer.

“Based on these findings we emphasized that effective vaccines against viruses such as Covid should strengthen immunity against infection without interfering with the body’s natural defenses against cancer,” he said. “These concerns were raised through normal scientific channels, yet the response was not open scientific engagement but escalating attacks. Instead of contributing to scientific dialogue, the findings triggered attacks on both the research and the researchers involved.”

Those attacks were primarily on a platform called PubPeer, which had been created in 2012 to identify fraud and scientific misconduct but which had morphed into a site that allowed anonymous commenters to attack any scientist challenging the prevailing narrative – attacks that were then amplified on social media.

Despite such attacks, El-Deiry said he agreed to serve on an HHS Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices beginning last summer, and joined the working group on Covid vaccination.

“I therefore looked into everything we know about cancer and Covid infection and Covid vaccination and by the fall, found nearly 70 papers ascribing more than 300 reported cancer cases from 27 countries following one or more Covid mRNA vaccine injections,” he said. “The reported cancers occurred near injection sites, like sarcomas or lymphomas, right at the injection site, within the head and neck region, within an L square, including…brain tumors and other tumors, and in some reported cases, spike protein was identified within tumor tissue.”

After the findings of his review of the scientific literature were published in January of 2026, a former Japanese minister contacted him, saying he had a large B-cell lymphoma that had spread into his tonsil and that a biopsy had found the spike protein in it.

“There should be no spike (protein) in tumors,” said El-Deiry.

Also testifying at the hearing was Aseem Malhotra, a well-known British cardiologist.

Malhotra told Johnson’s subcommittee that after getting two doses of the Pfizer vaccine himself, and initially advocating for mass vaccination, including during an appearance on the popular television show Good Morning Britain, he reversed course. After the sudden death of his previously healthy 73-year-old father and after being diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, both of which he attributes to the vaccine, he could no longer recommend it.

In a paper published in 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, he called for a moratorium on Covid vaccines, calling them “unsafe and defective products.”

“The most damning evidence was a re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s original trials,” he said in his testimony. “It determined the frequency of serious harm from the product was 2-4 times more likely than being hospitalized with severe Covid. In my view, if the system had been more transparent, this prophylactic gene therapy would likely not have been injected into a single human being in the first place.”

Malhotra also recounted what happened when he spoke at Britain’s Reform Party conference, quoting Dr. Dalgleish who thought the Covid mRNA vaccines were likely responsible for the cancers of members of the British Royal Family. (Both Kate Middleton, now Princess Katherine, and King Charles were diagnosed with cancer just weeks apart from one another in 2024; both spent several months in the hospital.) Malhotra told senators that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer railed against him in a speech before Parliament, saying he’d said that all vaccines cause cancer and that “dangerous conspiracies cost lives.”

Malhotra ended his testimony with a warning that the cancer rate, which has increased among Americans under 50, will likely continue to rise.

“Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence and what you’ve heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer,” he told the committee. “Without allowing all scientists to debate this openly without fear of censure, we will not be able to identify who is most at risk and how these risks can be mitigated.”

The full hearing, entitled “Plausible Mechanisms of Covid-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications and Research,” is available on the website of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Related reading:

Thorsen was a fugitive from American justice for fifteen years before he was finally arrested and extradited to the United States on May 7, as reported here.

In Master Manipulator, published by Skyhorse in 2016 with a foreword by Sharyl Attkisson and an introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Grundvig argues that Thorsen’s activities exposed deep problems at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He writes of studies poorly managed and research ethics severely compromised, especially investigations of the connection between vaccines and autism.

Grundvig traces Thorsen’s rise from relative obscurity to prominence through his access to Denmark’s extensive national health registries – comprehensive databases covering virtually all citizens’ medical histories. Denmark has one of the oldest, most comprehensive, health registries. As a researcher with Danish citizenship, Thorsen had access to the Danish health data that American scientists are not permitted to access.

Why would Danish health registry data be more useful for someone trying to disconnect vaccination as a cause for autism? Because Denmark mandates fewer vaccines and has a lower incidence of autism than the U.S.

Denmark’s autism rates are estimated to be between .26% to 1.47%. According to the CDC, autism rates in the United States are 3.2%.

Twenty years ago, CDC officials were well aware of the trends in U.S. autism data. They understood that using data from Denmark was likely to give them the results that favored their position that vaccines do not cause autism.

On the other hand, CDC officials were fearful of what American health data would reveal.,Thorsen understood the CDC’s fears and leveraged his access to Danish health data for financial gain and increased professional prestige.

And besides, no American researcher would ever be allowed to access the raw data that Thorsen, as a Dane, could access. By creating research based on data no one could independently verify, Thorsen became the man who saved the vaccine industry with research that exonerated vaccines from causing autism.

As Grundvig reveals in his book, Thorsen used Danish data – even though the countries have very different vaccination rates – to claim that there was no causal link between children taking vaccines and their developing autism. He expected Big Pharma, via the CDC, to contract him and to pay him well. They did both.

Thorsen established the North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliance (NANEA). The research papers produced by NANEA were enormously valuable to the CDC and Big Pharma in the late 2000’s.

Why? Because over 5,000 families filed cases against Health and Human Services alleging vaccine injuries resulting in autism. They did so in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, commonly referred to as the ‘Vaccine Court.’ As a result, the U.S. government and Big Pharma faced billions of dollars in compensation payments in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) in the ‘Vaccine Court.’

Thorsen knew that he could create research papers that, using Danish data, could reach conclusions that CDC and Big Pharma desperately needed in order to defend themselves in the OAP.

Thorsen collaborated with CDC scientists on influential epidemiological studies in the early 2000s, most notably the 2002 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the MMR vaccine and autism, and the 2003 Pediatrics paper on thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used in vaccines.

According to mainstream medicine and legacy media, both studies concluded there was no causal link between the MMR and the incidence of autism.

That was and still is the official narrative.

However, when one digs deeper, as Grundvig did in his book, the official narratives built upon these papers collapse.

According to a peer-reviewed analysis of the MMR paper by Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., the research is corrupted by whacky statistical analysis to such a degree that the ‘Numbers Literally Don’t Add Up.’ Even worse is the fact that it is not possible to replicate the NEJM study’s findings because the raw data the researchers used are not available to other researchers.

Let that sink in: the raw data in the research that mainstream medicine asserts, data that proves vaccines do not cause autism, is still not available to American scientists to analyze.

The ghost of Thorsen haunts Danish science – much like the ghost of Hamlet’s father haunts Shakespeare’s Denmark-based classic.

In 2014, Kennedy exposed the flaws of Thorsen’s thimerosal research – and documented real science – arguing for the removal of mercury from vaccines in Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. In chapter 15, Kennedy calls out Thorsen’s and the CDC’s reliance on flawed European studies.

A series of decisions by the Special Masters, who adjudicate cases in Vaccine Court, all came out flatly against the families in Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Grundvig’s son’s case, for example, was dismissed.

One can feel Grundvig’s personal stake and drive for justice burning through Master Manipulator as he documents his hunt for Thorsen, the man who falsified data that caused his case against the government to fail.

Grundvig found Thorsen living openly in Denmark. He traveled about freely, without a care in the world, as though everyone else in the Danish scientific community had also stolen U.S tax dollars.

Thorsen purchased a home in Sweden and practiced gynecology in nearby Middelfart, Denmark. He lived as though the 22 counts of wire fraud that the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General pinned on him were of no consequence.

Why did Thorsen commit fraud after already making good money from CDC grants? Perhaps as the man responsible for saving the vaccine industry, Thorsen felt that he was entitled to a few extra million dollars.

Maybe some people in the CDC and federal government felt the same way. Is that why he comfortably avoided arrest for so long?

But Grundvig never stopped pursuing Thorsen.

Grundvig knew that Thorsen’s crimes were more than just fraud; they were crimes against America’s children and families.

Had the truth about the link between vaccine injury and autism not been suppressed – and Thorsen’s science helped suppress it – people would no longer treat vaccines as medicine’s sacred cow. And here might be fewer young people with autism. We might also have seen a different public health approach to the Covid pandemic.

I caught up with Grundvig a few days ago and asked him questions, which are edited below for clarity and length.

The MAHA Report: You describe Thorsen as a master manipulator. Why? Why do you believe he is anything more than just a common criminal?

Grundvig: Thorsen was the quintessential “accidental” foreign visiting scientist at the CDC in 1999-2000. When he learned about the CDC’s vaccine-autism problem, Thorsen leveraged his knowledge of Danish health data to give CDC what they needed. And Thorsen knew that they needed him because only a member of the Danish scientific community could get access to Danish health registry data.

Beyond the 22-count indictment of money laundering and wire fraud, Thorsen manipulated his employees at NANEA, at Aarhus University in Denmark, at the CDC, and beyond.

The MAHA Report: Thorsen established NANEA. Give us background on that organization. Why did it serve as a template for the research that was conducted on autism and vaccines?

Grundvig: Dr. Poul Thorsen’s dream of turning his neuro-epidemiology startup into a hub for science research, solving the CDC’s problems of not doing double-blind placebo clinical trials by mining the Danish Health Registry, must have looked brilliant at the time. But Thorsen’s ego, thirst for money and fame, and lack of moral clarity derailed those plans.

As Dr. Madsen told me in a July 2015 interview, “Thorsen was a used car salesman.” To me that signaled Thorsen was neither a topflight scientist nor a businessman fit to grow and scale a scientific research startup. He might have been a “rainmaker” to keep CDC money flowing into Denmark scientific institutions and universities, but he did not have the ability to raise investor capital or manage a team of employees.

The MAHA Report: Do you believe that Thorsen had inside help in perpetrating his fraud? Wasn’t he supposed to be supervised by CDC staff?

Grundvig: Yes. In order to conduct the embezzlement, Thorsen needed inside help. As a foreign visiting scientist, he did have a CDC Credit Union bank account. But I doubt he used his own personal account. I believe he may have had help from his mistress, a former CDC administrator who was supposed to supervise Thorsen’s grant activities and her boss, Dr. Coleen Boyle.

For falsified invoices to work, he needed a CDC email address that was not his as well as CDC letterhead, so that bills could be sent from the CDC to [the Danish] Aarhus University health department. Then, money wired to the CDC Credit Union bank account would not raise suspicion.

That money conduit worked for a while and Thorsen lived the high life. It worked all the way into the 2008 financial crash—his last two withdrawals came on Halloween 2008—when governments and the programs worldwide came under stress, review, audit, and belt-tightening.

You could say that one silver lining to the 2008 great recession not only exposed the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, but also Thorsen’s theft of U.S. taxpayers’ money.

The MAHA Report: What did Thorsen do at Aarhus University? Why was he let go from that university?

Grundvig: Fallout from the 2008 financial crash exposed fault lines in the finances of Aarhus University. By spring of 2009, a new dean was tasked to run financial audits on past expenditures. It was during that time period that the university was tipped off about Thorsen’s and NANEA’s improprieties.

It took a while for the new dean to come to understand the full scope of Thorsen’s crimes. On January 22, 2010, the dean wrote an unusual, three-page public statement disassociating all ties with their former rainmaker, Thorsen.

Just like the U.S. Department of Justice, Denmark began investigating Thorsen and his debris field of financial crimes.

The MAHA Report: Do vaccine advocates like Paul Offit claim to minimize Thorsen’s impact on the science his organization produced?

Grundvig: I met Dr. Paul Offit at the fall 2016 Advisory Commission on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting at the CDC headquarters. I approached him with a copy of my book, Master Manipulator. Offit threw his hands up in the air as if the book was radioactive.

I was amused. I said, “Look, Paul, the introduction is by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., I autographed it for you, and it’s the story about the other Poul.”

Offit snapped, “Get that shit out of here.”

Offit, like others at the CDC, like Diana Schendel and Danish institutions – they all spew the same lie and say they stand by their science.

The MAHA Report: What impact did Thorsen’s studies have on cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings?

Grundvig: Unfortunately for my son’s case and the 5,400 other cases, none of their injuries and claims were ever heard. That also impacted millions of other vaccine-injured children with autism during that time and afterwards.

The U.S. government, in particular the old guard at the CDC and the Obama Justice Department, committed more than fraud. They destroyed a major swath of the millennial generation by being criminally complicit with scientific fraud.

The MAHA Report: Do you believe Thorsen would have been brought to justice without the work of RFK Jr?

Grundvig: Denmark would never have extradited fugitive and rogue scientist Poul Thorsen under any circumstances. It would have opened a much bigger Pandora’s box than a few million missing dollars. It would have triggered an investigation into Denmark’s stellar reputation in epidemiology research and the way it leverages its world-renowned health database.

HSS Secretary Kennedy understood this and moved swiftly to have Interpol arrest Thorsen in Germany at a conference in June 2025. This was done with the assistance of the U.S. State Department and with the blessing of President Trump. All kudos to Secretary Kennedy and the rest of the U.S. government for making it happen.

The MAHA Report: What do you think will ultimately happen to Thorsen now that he’s in U.S. custody in Atlanta – what do you hope will happen to him?

Grundvig: I believe Thorsen has no more cons left to pull. At age 65, he’s looking at 22 counts that each carry over one year of jail time. He is looking at dying in jail so I am sure he’s looking to cut a deal to get the sentence down to something like five years.

I wonder if he might have some bad blood with CDC executives. He wouldn’t have any problem throwing them under the bus.

It’s time for Poul Thorsen to start singing.

The Pfizer/ BioNTech trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an updated Covid vaccine for healthy adults aged 50 to 64 by comparing vaccine recipients with a placebo-control group.

In a March 30 letter, however, Pfizer told trial investigators that the company would stop surveillance on all study participants after April 3, Reuters reported.

The letter explained that enrollment in the trial was closed on March 6 after a review of current epidemiological trends.

The decision to halt the trial was made at a time of weakened demand for the shots. CDC data shows that only 18 percent ⁠of Americans received ​a Covid booster in the 2025–26 season.

Just 8.1 percent of children and 16 percent of adults took the Covid-19 vaccine in 2025, according to CDC figures.

Doses given in pharmacies and doctor offices declined from 27.8 million in 2024 to 20.5 million in 2025.

No Covid-19 vaccine currently has full FDA approval for healthy adults 50-64.

In 2025, the FDA withdrew emergency authorization for Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax. The agency did approve Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax Covid-19 vaccines for people aged 65 and older.

Last August, Pfizer and BioNTech said they would implement a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their Covid-19 vaccine in adults 50 to 64 who do not have any health conditions that place them at an increased risk for the virus.

The FDA approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people 65 and older, and those 5 to 64 with a risk condition, in 2025.

Following the FDA’s updated approvals, the CDC announced that people who wanted a Covid-19 vaccine should consult with a medical professional and consider individual health factors, along with risks and benefits of the shots.

Last May, HHS stopped recommending the Covid-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women.

The CDC no longer broadly recommends the Covid 19 shot. Each person should consider individual factors and consult with their doctor before getting a vaccine, the agency noted.

“Informed consent is back,” then acting director of the CDC Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Oct. 6. He continued, “CDC’s 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual Covid-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today.”

The Pfizer/BioNTech trial intended to register between 25,000 to 30,000 healthy adults between the ages of 50 and 64. That is a population the FDA required to be studied in a large, placebo-controlled trial before the vaccine could be recommended for people in that age range.

Pfizer and BioNTech insisted that their decision was not made because of safety concerns.

“The study is not ending as a result of any safety or benefit-risk concerns,” Pfizer and BioNTech said in a statement to Reuters. “We intend to stop the study due to slow enrollment and therefore the inability to generate relevant post-marketing data.”

It was difficult to build enrollment because participants were required to have no chronic conditions, a contract research organization executive said. “This is a very difficult population to recruit.”

A similar Moderna study targeting 30,000 volunteers is also facing recruitment challenges at multiple sites, Reuters reported. The trial remains ongoing and is expected to be completed in June 2027.

On March 16, a federal judge temporarily halted sweeping changes to the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule, putting Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine reform efforts on pause and setting off a new phase in an already heated national debate.

To many, the ruling appears to be influenced by pro-vaccine ideology, couched in strained legal contortions that defy legal precedent and logic. Critics allege that federal Judge Brian Murphy, whose rulings against the Trump administration regarding immigration enforcement have been repeatedly overturned, is just at it again, replacing HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s administrative authority with his own opinion. As Rick Jaffe, Esq., of Children’s Health Defense explains, Judge Murphy effectively shut down any comprehensive review of vaccine safety or recommendations of vaccines, indefinitely.

The court’s decision raises a fundamental question: who should have the authority to shape public health policy in America? A federal judge or, as is typically done, an outside advisory committee of science experts? Judge Murphy objected to HHS Secretary Kennedy’s dismissal of ACIP committee members for conflicts of interest, and dismissed Kennedy’s conflict-free selections for not being pro-vaccine. That’s pretty ideological!

As Americans call for greater transparency and accountability in health decision-making that affects every family with children, Judge Murphy’s legal construction offers them the opposite. Secretary Kennedy has often warned that U.S. regulatory agencies are “captured” by corporate interests. They appear to have captured some judges as well.

In Massachusetts, at least, the question of who determines vaccine policy was answered when Judge Murphy sided with major medical groups that claimed the recent vaccine changes were not based on science. Murphy issued a preliminary injunction blocking key elements of HHS’s vaccine recommendations and preventing the outside Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) from holding its next scheduled meeting.

A week after Murphy’s decision, ACIP’s vice chair, Dr. Robert Malone, resigned, telling The New York Times, “Hundreds of hours of uncompensated labor, incredible hate from many quarters, hostile press, internal bickering, weaponized leaking, sabotage.” He added. “I have better things to do.”

It’s not difficult to understand why Dr. Malone would be frustrated. The ACIP, an expert panel of physicians, epidemiologists, and public health specialists, is empowered by the government to make vaccine recommendations; a federal court judge is not.

In this case, however, a federal judge found a way to side-step the ACIP, concluding that HHS likely violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in appointing the newly restructured ACIP, citing concerns about balance and independence. Supporters of Secretary Kennedy argue that this interpretation is unusually broad.

Kennedy has said the previous ACIP system had long been shaped by entrenched outside influence, and his allies contend that FACA was intended to prevent conflicts of interest and regulatory capture, not to exclude newly appointed experts who align with an administration’s reform agenda. Because ACIP appointments have historically followed a similar process, critics say the ruling reflects an unusually politicized interpretation of that precedent.

For Kennedy supporters, that creates a Catch-22: leave the existing system in place and critics say the same institutional interests remain in control; try to reform it, and the reform itself is challenged as procedurally illegitimate. Members are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest, but the panel has historically operated within the conventional public health framework, which emphasizes population-wide vaccination strategies over individualized decision-making. As a result, the court paused both the updated vaccine schedule and actions taken by a newly restructured advisory committee while the case moves forward.

The Boston decision is not final, but the ruling is meant to preserve the status quo until broader legal questions are resolved. Still, its impact is immediate. For most Americans, vaccine policy feels distant—something decided by experts behind closed doors rather than reflecting the voices and decisions of the people it affects.

In reality, these recommendations shape everyday medical care, influencing which vaccines are routinely offered to children, what insurance plans are required to cover, and what doctors recommend in clinical practice.

Programs like Vaccines for Children, which provides no-cost vaccines to millions of kids, are directly tied to these federal recommendations. When the schedule changes, or is blocked, it has real-world consequences for access, cost, and care decisions. The CDC has indicated that some vaccines moved from the routine schedule may still remain available through shared clinical decision-making and existing federal coverage pathways.

The legal arguments in this case are complex, but the broader divide is easier to understand.

At its core, the dispute centers on whether federal health agencies followed the required process for changing vaccine recommendations, including the role of the ACIP.

Secretary Kennedy and HHS say they are trying to address long-standing concerns around transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether current vaccine recommendations fully reflect the needs and realities of today’s families. Supporters argue that reform is needed to restore public trust and allow more flexibility in medical decision-making.

Some supporters of his approach argue that the existing framework has become too rigid and that reform is needed to restore public trust, reinforce informed consent, and allow more individual flexibility in medical decision-making.

At the same time, the MAHA movement argues that medical decisions ultimately belong with individuals and families, and not institutions or courts.

This is not just a policy disagreement, but a deeper conflict over how medical decisions should be made. Even if you’re entirely pro-vaccines, supporting Murphy’s decision means you support the notion that a district judge can shut down all policy in the federal government related to vaccines. In other words, if there’s an Ebola outbreak next week and you want a vaccine, you need to go through the federal judge to get a vaccine rather than the government.

It’s not surprising that trust in public health institutions has declined in recent years, particularly after COVID-19, while demand for transparency, credible research, and accountability has grown. At the same time, more Americans are asking to have a greater voice in their own medical decisions, and in decisions affecting their children. This case sits directly at the intersection of those concerns.

Both Children’s Health Defense (whose previous motion to intervene in the case was dismissed by Murphy) and the Federal Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to appeal the decision. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the judge’s March 16 ruling, and will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. CHD has already submitted its appeal to intervene and to overturn the judge’s ruling.

Depending on how that court rules, the dispute could quickly move to the U.S. Supreme Court, where larger questions about federal authority and public health policy may be decided. Many legal observers predict Murphy will rack up another reversal.

This pause may be temporary. But the broader debate is not. Regardless of how the courts ultimately rule, this moment has brought into sharper focus a deeper issue: who controls public health policy, and whether our citizens should have greater autonomy in their health decisions. At its core, this is about health sovereignty.

Key Takeaways:

– A federal district court judge has voided HHS Secretary Kennedy’s previous decisions regarding vaccine recommendations and appointment of a fresh Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

– The ruling is likely to be appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Murphy’s lengthy opinion will be challenged as partisan.