This was a blockbuster hearing, which much the American public needs to hear, but not one Senator from the Democratic Party attended.

“Dr. Fauci’s role in the cover-up was intentional,” Erdman told the committee, adding that Fauci had corrupted the intelligence community’s assessment of Covid origins by ensuring that the CIA and the other intelligence agencies only consulted with his list of area experts, public health officials and scientists.

Erdman noted that over the years these experts had received millions of dollars in funding from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and they were therefore indebted to Fauci for their careers. He described a research ecosystem where virologists and vaccinologists, many of whom were engaged in gain-of-function research (GoF), were well paid by Fauci.

Relationships with scientists in China also compromised the ability of Americans to provide accurate assessments of what may have transpired.

According to Erdman, a 20-year veteran of the CIA, American friendships with Chinese scientists around GoF research developed to the point where Chinese scientists had “infiltrated” the scientific community.

Wednesday’s hearing, chaired by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (R-KY), exposed the corrupt and dangerous nature of GoF and how the money Fauci quietly pumped into it altered the judgement of scientists. Fauci’s power stemmed from the purse he controlled. If Fauci’s experts stated what they believed privately (as we now know from emails) – that the pandemic was a result of a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) – their funding would have been put in jeopardy.

Did Fauci ever inform intelligence analysts that his agency funded GoF research at the Wuhan lab? Not likely.’

Erdman stated that the majority of people working in the intelligence community are honest patriots who want the best for America.

But the CIA was not happy with Senator Paul for subpoenaing Erdman. Liz Lyons, CIA Director of Public Affairs, stated that the committee acted in “bad faith” and described the hearing as“political theatre.” Lyons added, “As the CIA has already assessed, COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak, and efforts to undermine that conclusion are disingenuous.”

While the CIA currently agrees that the pandemic started as a lab leak, that was not what the agency promoted in 2021.

Senator Johnson called on CIA Director John Radcliff to apologize for the agency’s characterization of the hearing and stated, “This is not political theatre. This is serious oversight work.”

Under the Biden administration, Fauci was at the height of his power. Scientists knew what they had to tell intelligence analysts.

In 2021, scientists employed by the CIA determined that the virus most likely ‘leaked’ from the WIV, and filed a report with their superiors documenting how they reached that conclusion. However, the CIA’s upper management pushed back. They issued a statement declaring that the virus had a zoonotic origin – in other words, it came from animals. That was to be the official narrative.

The Biden administration endorsed the zoonotic origin theory even when the intelligence community, as well as the medical community, knew it to be false. The legacy media trumpeted this narrative as fact, in many cases unwittingly championing mass censorship of Americans from questioning their government and thereby exercising their Constitutional right to free speech. Most legacy media continue to propose the natural origins theory or ignore the question of Covid’s origin entirely. In 2021, with Covid vaccines being distributed and eventually mandated, the false claim regarding Covid’s origins influenced public acceptance of Biden administration pandemic policies.

In his testimony, Erdman noted that within the intelligence community there was concern that the public’s perception of government pandemic policies – from masking, social distancing to vaccination - would turn if they knew the truth: That U.S. government funding led to the creation of the Covid virus.

During the hearing, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked, “Who runs the deep state?” and called for a special committee to examine it. Johnson noted that, as chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he’d uncovered emails where Dr. Peter Marks, then director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), who was responsible for ensuring vaccine safety, covered up 21,000 Covid-19 vaccine injuries early in 2021.

Johnson also asked why Marks, Fauci, and the Biden administration failed to warn the public and why the mainstream media still isn’t covering it.

But there’s more.

Wednesday’s hearing, and a recent hearing on the Biden administration’s role in covering up information about vaccine risks, paints a devastating picture of Fauci’s role in a coverup that could reasonably be called the biggest scandal of the century.

In April, Senator Johnson chaired a hearing titled, “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals,” held before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Senators were told that as early as March 2021, during the second full month of the Biden administration, that officials were aware mRNA Covid shots had resulted in sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy, pulmonary infarction, acute myocardial infarction, embolism/thrombosis, dementia, and increased mortality signals. At the time, Fauci led NIAID while also serving as chief medical advisor to the president.

Wednesday’s hearing, seen through the context of April’s hearing, suggests that Fauci was both aware of U.S. tax dollars funding systemically unsafe and inefficacious GoF research in China and that he was the ringleader of a coverup of the true origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes Covid.

Moreover, when the Biden administration mandated experimental mRNA vaccines, Fauci lied not only about their efficacy, but also about their potentially deadly side effects. And a growing body of evidence reveals that Fauci also lied about masks preventing Covid and vaccines preventing transmission.

At its core, Wednesday’s hearing was about crimes of the Covid era that ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions. One refrain rang throughout: Fauci knew how to game the system. By controlling the money and ‘the experts,’ Fauci would get the results he wanted.

Why was this hearing necessary? As Senator Paul explained: “If we don’t expose this, it will happen again.”

Thorsen, who fled to Europe 15 years ago, is accused of stealing $1 million in CDC grant money for autism and genetics research. According to Georgia authorities, Germany agreed to extradite Thorsen earlier this year.

Thorsen, 65, was arrested last year in Germany after evading arrest in Denmark for over fifteen years. German authorities discovered an Interpol notice indicating that he was wanted.

In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General on 22 counts of wire fraud. He fled to Europe before he could be arrested and has been a wanted man ever since.

Thorsen had been working as a gynecologist at a medical practice in Middelfart, Denmark, and somehow evaded capture until Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of HHS and re-invigorated the effort to bring him to justice.

Germany’s Der Spiegel headlined its coverage last week, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. nennt ihn »dunklen Zauberer«, Deutschland will ihn ausliefern” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls him a “dark wizard,” Germany wants to extradite him.)

Thorsen is being held in detention in Atlanta and will face federal charges for wire fraud and money laundering.

“Poul Thorsen allegedly stole more than $1 million in federal grant money by submitting fabricated invoices and diverting funds to his personal bank accounts,” said U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg, as quoted in a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia. “International fugitives who think they can avoid responsibility for serious federal crimes by living overseas are wrong. Due to the unwavering persistence of my office and our law enforcement partners, Thorsen has been extradited to the United States and will face justice in federal court.”

According to author and investigator James Ottar Grundvig, Thorsen traveled freely around Denmark and all of Scandinavia, and even purchased a second home in Sweden, after his indictment and after a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Previous administrations did not appear interested in pursuing Thorsen, but Grundvig, author of Master Manipulator, easily located Thorsen living openly, apparently without concern of being captured in Denmark.

“The master manipulator behind the CDC fraudulent autism and vaccine studies is no longer on the lam,” Grundvig told The MAHA Report. “HHS Secretary Kennedy now has the leader of CDC’s corruption in custody. Will Thorsen cooperate? Will he expose his old-guard collaborators? The 22-count indictment and his age – 65 – says he will. It is time to name names.” Grundvig added, “An entire generation of vaccine-injured children who are scarred for life, are waiting for the truth to emerge.”

Thorsen is accused of using CDC money to purchase a house in Georgia, two cars, and a motorcycle. He also allegedly used the agency’s money to fuel his organization, the North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliance (NANEA). The purpose of NANEA’s research was to take health data from Denmark – not America – to conduct studies to determine whether vaccines were behind the rise in autism in the U.S.

NANEA was known to throw extravagant, catered parties in Denmark, where expensive liquor flowed.

As I detailed in our August 8, 2025 article, Aluminum, Vaccines, and the Wild Boys From Denmark, Thorsen’s organization lived the high life. And the NANEA researchers had exclusive access to Denmark’s autism data.

U.S. researchers do not have access to Danish medical data because of laws restricting access to foreigners in that country. Back in the 2000s, the CDC needed Thorsen, NANEA and Danish data.

Why American public health data was not used begs a lot of questions.

Thorsen’s NANEA no longer exists but it became the template of the Danish research on environmental causes of autism and other chronic diseases. His research buddies have continued to receive CDC research money and enjoy extensive coverage in U.S. legacy media outlets despite the tainted legacy of Thorsen’s research racketeering.

At NANEA, Thorsen’s team included Anders Hviid, the lead author of last year’s paper that once again used health data from Denmark to claim that aluminum in vaccines is not linked to autism and other chronic health conditions.

Last year, Kennedy wrote an editorial in the TS News entitled “Flawed Science, Bought Conclusions: The Aluminum Vaccine Study the Media Won’t Question,” and called for a retraction of Hviid’s aluminum paper.

Danish research recently emerged with another paper exonerating Tylenol in the increase in autism. Autism Speaks, which has a history of denying the autism epidemic, and all non-genetic causes for the disorder,while providing cover for Big Pharma, immediately published an article supporting the Danish Tylenol paper.

In April, Kennedy criticized the Danish Tylenol paper on X, writing,“The study is a garbage study; it should be retracted.” Kennedy noted that the study took its data solely from prescriptions, which he said limited the scope of women who took acetaminophen. In the U.S., Tylenol can be purchased over the counter.

Kennedy is not alone in criticizing Danish research as this article, What’s Wrong with “The Danish Study”? from Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, clearly enumerates.

Good information on the link between Tylenol and Autism is available in Dr. William Parker’s Tylenol and Autism.

The CDC has a history of using Danish research to produce papers to exonerate pharmaceutical companies from accusations that their products lead to spikes in autism rates and other chronic childhood illnesses. Pro pharma media and often promote Danish research, ignore the history of Thorsen’s research racketeering and the manipulation of shady data that is restricted from anyone who is not a resident of Denmark.

Thorsen’s NANEA research team produced a series of papers in the early 2000s which were used by the CDC to claim that vaccines do not cause autism. The research was enormously valuable at that time because 5,000 families had filed claims against the Secretary of HHS in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the NVICP, otherwise known as the ‘Vaccine Court’), claiming that vaccine injuries triggered their children’s autism.

In a series of decisions by the Special Masters, who adjudicate cases in NVICP, Thorsen and Hviid’s research was used to rule against the families in a proceeding known as the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.

Had HHS lost in those proceedings, the payouts to injured children would have been in the billions. The reputation of vaccines would be forever tarnished.

Unfortunately, the CDC was complicit in using Thorsen’s research to deny justice and compensation for those families who had their cases wrongly dismissed by the illegitimate science that Thorsen produced.

Thorsen’s legacy has tainted the research that Denmark produces on vaccines. Public health authorities and media outlets should stop reporting on Danish research from Thorsen associates as, time after time, the studies produced are flawed and serve only the interests of Big Pharma.

Poul Thorsen now sits in detention in a federal holding facility in Georgia. He will soon face the American justice system.

Will Thorsen disclose damaging information about public health officials who facilitated his corrupt research? Will the mainstream medical associations and the legacy media finally admit that the autism research Thorsen directed was flawed?

We shall see.

The former head of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID), Fauci told Congress that he had not funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

As Senator Rand Paul (R–KY) recently noted, the statute of limitations on that crime expire on Monday, May 11. Paul is calling for a Fauci indictment. As the clock ticks down, Congress is making a grave mistake not to follow Paul’s lead.

On May 11, 2021, Senator Paul and Fauci had a heated exchange during a Senate Hearing in which Fauci adamantly denied funding gain-of-function research at the WIV. “We did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology!” Fauci said for the third and final time, under oath.

For those of you not sure what gain-of-function research is, here’s a quick summary courtesy of Congress.gov: “The term gain of function (GOF) refers to any genetic mutation in an organism that confers a new or enhanced ability . . . . One area of GOF research is the study of both naturally occurring and experimentally induced changes in viruses to better understand transmission, infection, and pathogenesis. Current U.S. policy focuses on GOF research that involves altered or enhanced pathogens with the potential to cause a pandemic.”

In other words, GOF is not child’s play; what is researched and created in biolabs can be benign but it also has a potential to kill tens of millions of people. Of course Fauci would deny any involvement with such labs.

The truth is that Fauci signed off on grants, awarded to Peter Daszak’s EccoHealth Alliance, which then passed taxpayer dollars to Dr. Shi Zhengli, a virologist at the Wuhan Lab, for her to manipulate Corona viruses to make them more lethal to human beings.

That truth comes dropping slow.

In the waning days of the Biden administration, Daszak and EccoHealth Alliance were cut off from federal funding and debarred from future government grants for facilitating “gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight and willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant.”

Their debarment by the Biden administration is as good as an acknowledgement that Sen. Paul was right: Fauci had lied. There were other scientists assiduously working at biolabs and now they, too, are under investigation.

For several years, Shi Zhengli collaborated with Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist from the University of North Carolina (UNC), on gain-of-function experiments. Baric is generally credited as the world’s leading expert on Corona virusesDr. Shi Zhengli

In an expose published by Paul Thacker at Real Clear Investigations, the author reveals that Baric and UNC are being investigated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Baric has been removed from all NIH grants and UNC has placed Baric on leave. (According to Thacker, UNC is not cooperating with the investigation.

The cast of characters close to Fauci, now being investigated, doesn’t end with Baric.

On April 28, the U.S. Justice Department indicted Dr. David Morens, 78, for “conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting.” Morens served as a senior advisor in NIAID’s Office of the Director (i.e., Dr. Fauci) from 2006 through 2022.

Morens was Fauci’s right-hand man.

He allegedly concealed and falsified information to suppress alternative theories of COVID-19‘s origins. During congressional testimony that virtually guaranteed his prosecution, Morens admitted that he and other government officials working under Fauci actively concealed information from those seeking to know more about the origins of Covid via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Morens disclosed that he and others received training on how to evade FOIA requests by NIAID’s “FOIA lady” and “to make emails disappear.”

Under Fauci’s leadership, NIAID became a viper’s den of corruption. One may assume that Fauci and Daszak are unindicted co-conspirators.

The corruption is no surprise to those who read Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s epic book, The Real Anthony Fauci. Kennedy lays out Fauci’s history of corruption in stunning detail, revealing how Fauci continually sacrificed public health and the American people for the enrichment of Big Pharma.

The Real Anthony Fauci is a treatise on how corporate capture can wreck once proud government institutions.

In the book, Kennedy exposes so much damaging information that Fauci would have easily won a defamation case against him, if Kennedy had made up any aspect of Fauci’s atrocious record.

Fauci’s problem is that the truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases.

Kennedy told America the truth.

The legacy media refused to cover The Real Anthony Fauci. No legacy media reviewed what many people now regard as the quintessential book on the insanity of the Covid era. Five years on and The Real Anthony Fauci stands as a testament to truth in an era of lies.

It is now clear why Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted a ‘pre-emptive pardon’ by former President Biden – or by someone who got access to the White House autopen.

Fauci was pardoned because he was guilty of lying to Congress. He was pardoned because he bypassed President Obama’s moratorium on gain-of-function research.

He lied to President Trump about research exonerating vaccines in the autism epidemic and about countless other issues during the Covid pandemic.

Anthony Fauci lied to all of us.

Now, as May 11 rapidly approaches, should an illogical, preemptive pardon go unchallenged? In the name of the millions who died as a result of Fauci’s lies, I say ‘no.’

Justice must be served.

“We have a sick care system where people are compensated more for keeping patients sick” – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Something is shifting in healthcare, and it is becoming impossible to ignore.

As chronic disease continues to rise and trust in conventional systems erodes, the questions are getting louder. Patients are no longer satisfied with symptom management alone. Practitioners are looking beyond protocols. The MAHA movement is helping to bring this reckoning into the open, creating space for approaches that have long been marginalized to be reconsidered – approaches like homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a system of medicine that has been used for over 200 years. It is based on the principle of similia similibus curentur (“like cures like”), in which a substance that can produce symptoms in a healthy person may, in highly diluted form, be used to stimulate the body’s self-healing response in someone experiencing similar symptoms. It emphasizes individualized treatment, selecting remedies based on a person’s unique physical, mental, and emotional presentation rather than a single diagnosis.

This year’s Joint American Homeopathic Conference, held in Reston, Virginia, brought the global homeopathic community together for a three-day gathering, April 17–19. Attendees traveled from around the globe, creating a distinctly international vibe. The program featured highly credentialed speakers exploring a wide range of topics, from chronic illness and women’s health to addiction, epidemics, and the role of homeopathy in supporting microbiome health and reducing antibiotic use. I was honored to present on the connection between MAHA and homeopathy, highlighting this moment as an opportunity for increased visibility, collaboration, and integration within the broader healthcare conversation.

For many, the conference offered a rare opportunity to meet distinguished leaders in the field, people like Kim Elia, producer of the film Introducing Homeopathy; Amy Lansky, author of the book Impossible Cure; Paul Herscu, who wrote The Homeopathic Treatment for Autism; and Kate Birch, the director of the nonprofit organization Free and Healthy Children International. And just as meaningful were the moments between sessions. Conversations in hallways, over coffee, and during informal gatherings allowed connections to deepen and ideas to unfold naturally.

The conference also served as the culminating celebration of World Homeopathy Awareness Week, bringing a week of global outreach and education to a close. A highlight was the screening of the pilot episode of Investigating Homeopathy.

Saturday evening brought a shift in tone. The awards dinner honored leaders in the field, followed by a lively 1970s-themed dance party. Before long, nearly everyone was dancing, fully immersed in the moment. It felt authentic, like a community that trusts each other and isn’t afraid to show up fully.

The conference concluded on Sunday evening, April 19, with a sparkling toast at the 126-year-old Hahnemann Monument in Washington, D.C.

Standing together to reflect on the weekend and honor Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, there was a quiet sense of gratitude and purpose. As the sun set, conversations lingered, and goodbyes were filled with long hugs and tears. As one chapter closed, a more powerful one opened—one that has the potential to elevate the future of healthcare.

Reactions to the conference were overwhelmingly positive, with many attendees emphasizing both the clinical depth and the growing momentum surrounding homeopathy. Dr. Jamie Oskin described the conference as “one of the most energizing and affirming gatherings” he has attended as a naturopathic physician. He noted the breadth of homeopathy’s applications, from complex autoimmunity to chronic disease. What stood out most to him, however, was the momentum supporting advocacy for homeopathy that is now possible because of MAHA.

“MAHA isn’t just about removing toxins from our food supply,” he said. “It’s about restoring trust in whole-person, low-risk medicine that honors the body’s innate capacity to heal.”

At a time when questions around pharmaceutical overuse, environmental toxins, and root causes of disease are becoming more urgent, he emphasized that homeopathy deserves a seat at the table.

Paola Brown, president of Americans for Homeopathy Choice Action, expressed optimism about the introduction of H.R. 7050, a bill aimed at modernizing the regulatory framework while safeguarding access to homeopathic medicines.

“Homeopathic medicines are not supplements,” said Dr. Lisa Amerine, president of the American Institute of Homeopathy. “They are not fringe products. They are legal drugs with nearly a century of federal recognition behind them, and they deserve a regulatory framework that reflects that.”

She said she especially appreciated Dr. Mike Knapp’s presentation.

“He delivered exactly what this profession needs more of—real case management, without glitz or performance, just honest, precise homeopathic practice presented before a room of colleagues,” she told me. “He reminded everyone why we chose this medicine and what it truly looks like when practiced well.”

As the cracks in our healthcare system become harder to ignore, conversations around chronic disease, pharmaceutical overuse, and patient centered care are no longer fringe; they are front and center. Once dismissed, homeopathy is now being reexamined with renewed curiosity.

This year’s Joint American Homeopathic Conference did not simply reflect this change; it embodied it, revealing a global community stepping forward with clarity and conviction to help shape the future of healthcare.

Unfortunately, this year’s conference was the last one that will be in-person, as the National Center for Homeopathy will shift to focusing on strengthening engagement, while also taking on the role of hosting World Homeopathy Awareness Week.

Gabrielle Traub is a board-certified classical homeopath and M.Tech (Hom, CCH, HD (Hon). She is also the author of the 2022 book Live Right For Your Remedy Type.

MAHA leaders, many of whom gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court two days earlier to make their voices heard, felt vindicated. While their activism was around Monsanto v. Durnell (a ‘failure to warn’ case brought by John Durnell against Bayer/ Monsanto), the House victory was nothing short of a major win for them.

But not everyone felt that way. Many people derided the bill as an upsetting compromise. Moreover, the bill still has to pass in the U.S. Senate, no small hurdle.

Part of the complexity of crafting any Farm Bill is the sheer magnitude of policy areas encompassed by the USDA, which oversees agriculture (impacting the nation’s farmers but also a myriad of industrial manufacturers); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); and the National School Lunch Programs (NSLP).

The budgetary impact here is profound, affecting hundreds of billions of dollars of annual public spending. The House bill was designed to be “revenue neutral,” resulting in all “stakeholders” scampering and battling for every scrap.

Fiscal policy converges in the Farm Bill with environmental lobbyists, farming organizations, industrial interests, and advocates for SNAP recipients. All of these policy areas intersect with the MAHA movement’s agenda.

The most salient issue of concern for MAHA was a win – the House voted in support of the (Rep. Anna Paulina) Luna amendment, which stripped pesticide liability immunity from the larger bill. Environmental groups and MAHA moms across the nation rejoiced that this pernicious, industry-favoring provision was chopped from the bill by strong bipartisan opposition.

Sadly, the battle for food and family safety is not over, as Monsanto and other chemical industry lobbyists petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to implement a de facto liability shield that would circumvent this legislative win by judicial fiat under federal preemption in the Monsanto v. Durnell case.

The Farm Bill process originated during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal to provide price supports to struggling U.S. farmers, and quickly expanded to include conservation practices, crop subsidies, and nutrition support for low-income Americans. It seemed bureaucratically sensible for USDA to be tasked with matching commodity surpluses with needy citizens, but the resulting system has become so gargantuan and complex that many critics have suggested bifurcating farming from food relief.

Until that happens, the Farm Bill will remain the unwieldy albatross for resolving numerous conflicting special interests and hundreds of provisions. The nation’s farmers, currently struggling with high input costs (especially fertilizers) and anemic commodity prices, are held hostage by these complexities. This tangled web explains why the Farm Bill is routinely kicked down the road, and why this one is at least three years overdue. It also explains why there are so many trade-offs in its creation.

The big win for pesticide liability included some other positives hailed by farming groups. The creation of a pilot program to expand local slaughter and processing services for small farms, a variation of the long-fought-for PRIME Act, is a positive for both consumers and farmers. And the House version expanded payments for livestock losses to predators, increased crop insurance availability, and included incentives for new farmers. It also bans foreign nations (i.e., China) from buying up U.S. farmland.

Not all farming is the same, and thus some provisions in the bill received conflicting responses. This is especially true of the incorporation of the so-called “Save the Bacon” provisions that elevate federal agricultural practices above state regulations that conflict, an indirect assault on California’s Proposition 12, which mandated improved housing and treatment for swine.

Small farmers opposed the Save the Bacon initiative, while large farms, especially in pork-producing states, hailed it as a way to prevent conflicting state-law patchworks that undermine profitability.

Most farmers would oppose the electronic ear tags for interstate transport of cows, yet Congress gave the nod to continue government tracking by a vote of 355-69.

And most consumers would oppose the decision to refuse states the ability to restrict access to soda by SNAP beneficiaries (though the current version allows for hot, whole chickens!) A majority of voters oppose sickening SNAP beneficiaries with soda: A majority of Congress still appears beholden to the influential beverage industry that lobbied hard to continue its federal support subsidies, which is sickening in itself.

Perhaps the most controversial provision of the current House version of the Farm Bill is its failure to restore full funding for SNAP. However, that battle is hardly over and will very likely resume in a contentious Senate battle to reshape the bill in an ongoing back-and-forth.

Typical of responses to the House version of the bill is this one from Judith McGeary, a food rights veteran, attorney, and founder and executive director of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA): “I was very relieved to see a strong, bipartisan vote to strip out the pesticide manufacturers’ liability shield, and of course, we have been strong supporters of the PRIME Act, and we’re pleased to see a pilot version of the program included,” said McGeary.

She continued, “Having said that, the bill as a whole still reinforces the current corporate-controlled, chemically-intensive structure for our agriculture, made worse by the inclusion of the so-called Save Our Bacon Act, removing local control over livestock production and undermining market opportunities for regenerative farms.”

In sum, the Farm Bill as currently hashed out by the House is a good step forward, but it has a long way yet to go. The MAHA movement has already made its mark by blocking a pesticide liability shield for manufacturers. More importantly, it is making a profound and enduring impact as millions of Americans scrutinize their food ingredient labels and the Farm Bill’s provisions like never before.

The title tips the paper’s hand: “Profound Autism Is Difficult Enough Without This Debunked Method.” The ‘method’ the Times’ guest author, Amy Lutz, says is debunked is, not surprisingly, not debunked. In fact, it is helping thousands of Americans with profound autism communicate in a way they never have before.

Lutz writes, “Facilitated Communication, or F. C., is an intervention in which profoundly autistic individuals spell messages with the physical support of a nondisabled facilitator, who generally provides direct touch to the speller’s hand, wrist, elbow or shoulder.”

Two paragraphs later she writes: “Here’s the thing about F.C., though: the science doesn’t back it up.”

If I had a quarter for every time I’ve heard the word “science” used in this way, I’d be a rich man. Science on just about everything, but especially autism, is evolving. It’s no monolith.

Citing a variety of studies, none of which is by any measure definitive, Lutz argues that people with profound autism are not actually using F.C. to communicate; rather, it is their facilitators doing the heavy lifting.

“Over time,” Lutz writes, “many such studies have reported essentially the same thing: Spellers could not communicate information unknown to their facilitators.”

But what does this mean? Does it negate their ability to communicate if those who are closest to profoundly autistic people are assisting in the process? I have seen and heard how well the method in fact does work. Such empirical evidence is a blessing; it is not, as Lutz concludes, “almost irresistible” false hope.

Which brings me back to the meeting last week in Bethesda, Maryland, where a federal autism committee took the boldest action that it’s taken in its 25-year history, putting people with autism and their families at the forefront of driving recommendations for federal government programs for the first time.

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) was established in the year 2000 to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on all federal programs related to autism spectrum disorder. Unfortunately, the IACC has had a history of funding projects that have had a negligible impact on the lives of people with autism. Representatives of the public health establishment, many of whom denied the existence of the autism epidemic, steered research dollars away from scientific inquiry that would address environmental causes of autism or other controversial areas of investigation.

But that is now changing.

At the April 28 meeting, under the leadership of IACC ‘public members’ – committee members from the autism community who were not representing federal public health agencies – votes were cast in favor of several crucial initiatives that will recharge the federal government’s response to the autism epidemic. The initiatives seek to provide the first meaningful improvements in the lives of people with autism and for the families who love them.

The committee approved several important proposals that addressed issues such as establishing Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) diagnosis codes and safety measures; policy objectives to address the dangerous wandering behavior that plagues many people with autism; and a framework intended to support more consistent clinical recognition of co-occurring medical conditions, reduce ‘diagnostic overshadowing’ (the tendency to attribute physical symptoms to mental illness), and improve safety assessments in autism care.

Finally, the committee voted to acknowledge an important and underserved subgroup – people with “profound autism” – those with the highest and most persistent support needs. [Full descriptions of the proposals and other important IACC meeting information is provided here.]

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, IACC Chairwoman

Under the guidance of IACC Chairwoman Dr. Sylvia Fogel, working groups were established to begin work on committee initiatives ranging from biomedical treatments for autism, autism causation, and the need to provide care for people with autism throughout their lives.

One may ask: “Shouldn’t all of this have been done before?”

It should have been

The fact is that previous iterations of the committee took little meaningful action and avoided decisions that were controversial despite calls from the autism community for bolder action.

In January, the 21 public members of the IACC were all replaced by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with the replacements representing some of the strongest advocates for advancing the fight against autism.

“President Trump directed us to bring autism research into the 21st century. We are doing that by appointing the most qualified experts –leaders with decades of experience studying, researching, and treating autism,” Kennedy said at the time. “These public servants will pursue rigorous science and deliver the answers Americans deserve.”

John Gilmore, the founder and executive director of the Autism Action Network, is one of the new members appointed by Kennedy.

“The public members of the committee are leading the way, and we will finally see meaningful progress for the autism community after years of broken promises,” Gilmore said at the April 28 meeting. He added that it was good to see that many government committee members had joined them at the meeting.

The IACC includes members representing the CDC, NIH and several other federal agencies.

The restructured IACC is charting a new course toward meaningful research and a more hopeful future for all people with autism.

This, and Facilitated Communication for the profoundly autistic, is not false hope.

President Trump did not mince words when assigning direct blame to Cassidy. He said the senator made it impossible to advance Dr. Means’ nomination to the Senate floor for a full vote, calling him a “very disloyal person.”

Taking to his platform of choice, Truth Social, the president wrote, “I nominated Casey, a strong MAHA Warrior, at the recommendation of Secretary Kennedy, who understands the MAHA Movement better than anyone, with perhaps the possible exception of ME!”

The president continued, “Nevertheless, despite Senator Cassidy’s intransigence and political games, Casey will continue to fight for MAHA on the many important health issues facing our country, such as the rising childhood disease epidemic, increased autism rates, poor nutrition, over-medicalization, and researching the root causes of infertility, and many other difficult medical problems. Casey, thank you for your service to our nation!”

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reposted President Trump’s post on X, lauding Means for having the courage to walk away from her medical practice and commit her life to “transforming American health care.”:

He also excoriated Cassidy.

“By sabotaging this appointment, Bill Cassidy once again did the dirty work for entrenched interests seeking to stall the MAHA movement and protect the very status quo that has made America the sickest nation on earth,” Secretary Kennedy wrote.

Both President Trump and Secretary Kennedy went on to express their support for Dr. Nicole Saphier, the president’s new Surgeon General nominee.

Kennedy described Saphier as a “long-time warrior for the MAHA movement” who, as a radiologist working with breast cancer patients, understands the importance of early detection and prevention. “That experience is essential as we take on the chronic disease epidemic and put prevention at the center of our health system,” Kennedy wrote. “I look forward to partnering with her as our next Surgeon General.”

MAHA Action President Tony Lyons added: “Pharma-funded politicians like Senator Bill Cassidy have dealt another powerful blow against public health in America. These corrupt politicians are defending a system that has produced the worst health outcomes of any of the 30 industrialized countries—at more than three times the cost. Senator Cassidy is an existential threat to every child in America and he must be stopped.”

As Cassidy struggles for re-election in a suddenly competitive Republican senate primary against challengers Rep. Julia Letlow (backed by Trump and MAHA) and Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming, Cassidy has staked his political future on opposing MAHA.

That could prove to be a poor move for the senator.

Related reading:

– Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that both America’s birth and fertility rates remain near historic lows. In 2024, the U.S. recorded roughly 700,000 fewer births than in 2007, the recent high point for total annual births.

But those numbers tell only part of the story. While 2007 marked the modern peak in the total number of babies born, America’s true fertility peak, measured by the average number of children women had, occurred during the 1950’s baby boom era, when the birth rate was 3.5 children per woman, compared with 2.1 in 2007.

Why is this happening?

Most headlines point to economics or delayed family planning. Both matter, but they mask a deeper, more urgent contributor, the menstrual cycle itself.

The Hidden Shift in Hormonal Patterns

For decades, the fertility conversation has largely focused on one variable: age. We all know American women are giving birth later, with today’s average nearly 30 years old, up from 1960, when it averaged close to 25. But a far bigger and more underreported story may be unfolding beneath the surface.

Later maternal age is only one piece of the puzzle. Metabolic dysfunction, chronic stress, poor sleep, and rising exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates and bisphenols are now adding up in ways that may be quietly reshaping reproductive health. While we lack long-term hormone data needed to make accurate comparisons with previous generations, new cycle-tracking technologies are exposing patterns that much of medicine is currently overlooking.

Across full menstrual cycles, more women are showing irregular or incomplete ovulation, subtle but clinically important progesterone deficiencies, and surprising cycle-to-cycle hormonal instability even when standard bloodwork appears “normal.” The emerging story is not just about hormone levels being too high or too low. It may be about something even more consequential: growing disruption in the communication between the brain and the ovaries. And when that signaling becomes less stable, fertility itself becomes increasingly fragile.

Why Our Current Fertility Tools May Be Missing the Bigger Picture

In most medical settings, fertility is still often evaluated through a handful of one-time blood tests, typically checking estrogen early in the cycle and progesterone after suspected ovulation. These tests can offer helpful clues, but they are just snapshots: a single moment used to represent an entire month of hormonal activity.

That approach may miss far more than many women realize.

Hormones are not static. They rise, fall, and interact in carefully timed patterns throughout the month, and for women with irregular cycles, delayed ovulation, or subtle hormonal dysfunction, one “normal” lab result may not tell the full story. Increasingly, newer research suggests that fertility may be far more dynamic and far less predictable than conventional medical textbooks teach.

This is where newer at-home hormone monitoring tools like Oova and Mira are beginning to reshape the conversation. By using daily urine testing throughout the cycle, these platforms allow women to track changing hormone patterns over time rather than relying on a single blood draw. In simple terms, they may help answer a bigger question: not just whether hormones are present, but whether the entire system is functioning optimally.

Oova’s large-scale cycle research found that nearly one in five women experienced a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, the hormonal signal that typically precedes ovulation, without confirmed ovulation. More than half of ovulatory cycles showed lower-than-expected progesterone during the luteal phase, a key hormone for implantation and early pregnancy support. Perhaps the most important finding was that hormone patterns varied significantly from cycle to cycle, challenging the familiar textbook image of the menstrual cycle as a smooth, predictable 28-day process.

Mira’s research reinforces a similar message. By tracking multiple hormones across the full cycle, including LH, estrogen, progesterone metabolites, and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), the data suggest that important disruptions in hormone timing, coordination, and rhythm may easily go undetected when fertility is reduced to isolated lab values alone.

The takeaway is both simple and profound: fertility may not be as straightforward as “you ovulated” or “your labs are normal.”

The menstrual cycle can be thought of as a dynamic vital sign, much like blood pressure or heart rate, because it often reflects what is happening in the body as a whole. Just as blood pressure can change in response to stress, diet, sleep, or illness, menstrual cycles can also shift in response to sleep quality, stress levels, nutrition, metabolic health, age, and environmental exposures. Some month-to-month variation is completely normal.

But when cycles become increasingly irregular, ovulation becomes inconsistent, or hormonal patterns change significantly, it could be an early signal that broader aspects of health, such as hormone balance, metabolic function, or overall physiologic resilience, deserve closer attention.

A System Under Strain

Emerging hormone research is beginning to confirm what MAHA has long warned: fertility cannot be separated from the broader metabolic and environmental conditions shaping modern health.

Reproductive health is deeply influenced by blood sugar regulation, insulin sensitivity, nutrition, sleep, chronic stress, and exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

That reality is especially relevant in a country where more than 40 percent of U.S. adults are living with obesity, according to the CDC. This is not simply about weight; it is about metabolic dysfunction, inflammation, and hormonal disruption that can directly affect ovulation, progesterone, and overall reproductive resilience. Research suggests women with obesity may face two to three times the risk of infertility related to ovulatory disorders.

The rise of GLP-1 medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide is adding a new and rapidly evolving layer to the fertility conversation. Originally developed for diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, these drugs can improve insulin resistance, reduce inflammation, and, in some women, particularly those with obesity or PCOS, may help restore more regular ovulation by improving underlying metabolic health. At the same time, rapid weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, or unplanned conception during treatment may introduce significant risks if not carefully monitored, and long-term fertility-specific data are still limited.

GLP-1s may offer meaningful benefits for some individuals, particularly when metabolic dysfunction is playing a significant role in hormonal or reproductive challenges. But on a population level, fertility is unlikely to be restored by medication alone. The rapid rise of GLP-1s may instead highlight a deeper truth: when metabolic health improves, reproductive health often improves alongside it. The larger opportunity at the policy level is to address the root-cause systemic drivers affecting metabolic health, such as the quality of nutrition, food systems, and environmental exposures, which contribute to both chronic disease and fertility decline.

What Needs to Change

If there is a single takeaway from this story, it is this: women’s hormonal health is not static. It is rhythmic, adaptive, and influenced by the world women live in, from metabolic health and nutrition to sleep, stress, and environmental exposures.

The path forward is clear: Move beyond isolated lab snapshots and toward longitudinal hormone tracking that reflects the true complexity of female physiology. Expand fertility care beyond ovulation prediction alone to include metabolic resilience, blood sugar regulation, nutrient optimization, toxin reduction, and whole-person lifestyle medicine. Invest in research that finally studies women’s bodies the way they actually function, across full cycles, across decades, and across major hormonal transitions.

Most importantly, this moment offers an opportunity to shift from reactive fertility care to proactive reproductive health.

And while this story has focused primarily on women’s health, fertility is never solely a woman’s issue. Male fertility matters, and mounting research suggests that many of the same upstream forces, including metabolic dysfunction, ultra-processed diets, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, chronic stress, poor sleep, and environmental toxins, also contribute to declining sperm quality and lower testosterone levels in men. The health of future generations depends on both sides of the equation, and any serious fertility conversation must ultimately address reproductive resilience as a shared biological and societal priority.

For too long, women have been given fragmented answers inside fragmented systems. But if declining fertility is, in part, a reflection of broader upstream dysfunction, then improving fertility may also become one of the clearest measures of whether we are truly improving overall human health.

The fertility story does not have to end in decline. This moment can be a turning point. MAHA’s larger message has never been solely about preventing chronic disease; it is about protecting future generations. Healthier food, cleaner environments, and stronger metabolic health are not just wellness goals; they are fundamental fertility interventions.

If we are willing to address these upstream drivers with the urgency they deserve at the system and policy levels, we have an opportunity not only to avoid a national security threat posed by falling fertility rates but also to strengthen the health, resilience, and reproductive vitality of families for generations to come.

Related reading:

Few substances have fueled controversy the way glyphosate, a weed killer and pre-harvest desiccant, has. The MAHA movement has targeted the chemical as hazardous, but the chemical industry and Big Ag dismiss health claims as unfounded, citing decades of regulatory approval. Yet, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been explaining for years, regulatory capture by lobbyists and special interests has compromised scientific inquiry. As more studies of the subject accumulate, the evidence continues to prove that glyphosate is harmful, especially to children. This also proves Secretary Kennedy correct – U.S. regulators have looked the other way from “real science.”

In March, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer research agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), issued a determination by 17 experts that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has persistently found the chemical to be safe and effective, even increasing acceptable exposure levels in food. Since 2015, more studies of glyphosate have been conducted, and not just examining carcinogenicity.

At the same time, more than 181,000 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against glyphosate manufacturer Bayer, which owns Monsanto, claiming their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by glyphosate and the company’s failure to properly warn of its dangers. Many juries have agreed.

Industrial critics of MAHA supporters’ claims that glyphosate causes cancer often poo-poo the IARC as a source, pointing out (correctly) that MAHA is hardly a fan of the WHO, especially regarding vaccine recommendations. IARC also claims sunlight is carcinogenic (in large doses, which is common knowledge and affirmed by the American Cancer Society), and that red meat is cancer-causing. The IARC actually found that it is the cooking of red meat that creates carcinogens, and that “red meat contains proteins of high biological value, and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc.”

Glyphosate does not contain high biological value: Quite the opposite. Those raising alarms about glyphosate no longer need to point to the IARC for authority. A growing body of scientific study is accumulating like logs behind a bursting dam, recently reviewed by 50 scientists and academics at a March 25-26 conference called the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium.

The symposium focused on studies conducted after IARC’s 2015 determination and addressed health threats beyond cancer. At the conclusion of the two-day assessment, a statement (the “Seattle Statement”) was adopted that recounted the many potential deleterious impacts of glyphosate on humans, condemned the use of biased, industry-commissioned research by regulatory agencies to skew safety determinations, and called for more rigorous, unbiased “real science” to resolve this decades-long controversy conclusively.

It’s not looking good for glyphosate, or for the humans who ingest it (biomonitoring surveys have detected glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined).

Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in the world, and its use as a pre-harvest desiccant just days before harvest of food crops leads to relatively high levels of residues accumulating in many foods.

The U.S. EPA has long stood by the Monsanto/Bayer narrative that glyphosate is harmless, despite successful court challenges and the recent retraction of a long-used study (ghost-written by Monsanto) that argued the substance is safe.

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to grant Bayer and other chemical manufacturers legal immunity from personal injury claims so long as they comply with federal labeling requirements based on EPA safety determinations, public scrutiny has soared to unprecedented levels.

The Seattle Statement warns, in part: “There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible.”

The statement continues, “Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion….. The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified.”

This laundry list of potential (probable) harms to human health connects glyphosate to the chronic disease epidemic and the food Americans eat. It is not just farmers who are exposed: glyphosate is ubiquitous.

As more science emerges demonstrating the central importance to health of the human gut microbiome (and the brain-gut connection), the role of an ingested weed killer like glyphosate is obvious. Glyphosate works by interrupting the shikimate pathway in plants. Humans don’t rely on the shimitake pathway – but many beneficial bacteria in their guts do. Moreover, some harmful bacteria appear to develop resistance to glyphosate, allowing them to thrive in a condition known as dysbiosis. Research has shown that bees also suffer from glyphosate-induced microbiome damage, weakening their immune systems. One recent study linked glyphosate and gut microbe imbalance with anxiety.

One needn’t earn a master’s degree or PhD (as most of the signatories to the Seattle Statement possess) to understand this threat. Earthworms and other important soil critters, as well as the vital soil microbes that feed plants, are also at risk. The risk of glyphosate extends far beyond cancer, and far beyond humans – much of the current research has studied livestock and other animals.

Dr. Robert Malone has chronicled dozens of studies that show the dire impact of glyphosate on fetal development, fertility, and the human reproductive system. High amounts of glyphosate have been detected in 30% of tested baby foods and 90% of tested breakfast cereals. Glyphosate is particularly prevalent in oats, wheat, soy, and lentils.

Following the Seattle Symposium, Bayer issued a statement defending its product, reportedly stating that it “stands behind the safety of our glyphosate-based products which have been tested extensively, approved by regulators and used around the globe for more than 50 years… [N]o health regulator anywhere in the world has ever found glyphosate to pose a threat to human health.”

In view of the voluminous evidence of threats to microbes, bees, earthworms, and humans, this statement is more incriminating than exculpatory. Bayer is unwittingly confirming RFK Jr.’s warning that regulators ignore or dismiss the “real science” of health risks (much like with vaccine injuries). It is also calling 181,000 sick plaintiffs liars.

Thanks to the MAHA movement and research such as that reviewed at the Seattle conference, the cultural noose is closing on glyphosate’s neck. The political and regulatory nooses will follow, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Durnell. Health-conscious Americans no longer need to cite the dated IARC study now that they have a decade’s worth of subsequent incriminating scientific evidence that glyphosate causes human harm. In another decade, the evidence will be even more abundant, and the free market will extinguish glyphosate if the EPA has not.

If the regulatory agencies charged with protecting Americans fail to acknowledge the known risks of glyphosate, and the SCOTUS uses labeling laws designed to protect consumers to instead shield chemical companies, then the job of protecting the future health of children will depend on We the People.

Related Reading:

Is Congress Shielding Chemical Corporations From Accountability? - Liberty Nation News

Why Kennedy Is Right About Glyphosate - by John Klar

Legal Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers? - American Thinker

Justices to hear dispute over cancer warnings on pesticide labels | SCOTUSblog

World Autism Month is brought to us by an organization that has devoted millions of dollars to fund years of genetic research in the hope of finding ‘autism genes.’

It is estimated that 200 to 1,000 genes are implicated in autism. But don’t worry, a new Columbia University study recently identified another 60 new genes. The number of implicated genes informs you that environmental triggers are causing the autism epidemic.

All those wasted research dollars have yielded little information about what causes autism.

But every April, we’re supposed to celebrate this futility?

I do not find the pretty blue lights or bright puzzle pieces charming in any way. To me it has all become signaling to accept the terms of surrender. In my opinion, Autism Awareness has mutated over the past 20 years into Autism Surrender.

And I am not down with surrender.

For me, the response to autism has been advocating and fighting for my kids.

Over the past two decades, I have learned that others are engaged in the same battle – warrior moms and warrior dads.

These are my people. These mothers, fathers, and those who care about them, are the people I advocate for. They are the reasons I write the things I write.

Twenty-five years ago, I could never have envisioned this long strange journey.

I attained autism awareness on a cold, gray March day in 2003.

My wife called me at work to tell me that a psychologist came to our home, assessed my sons and, in about ten minutes, rendered his verdict: Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), an autism spectrum disorder.

And just like that, my sons’ lives, and our lives, were forever changed. What followed was an endless stream of therapies, medical appointments, and often brutal, special education committee meetings.

Caring for our sons dominated every aspect of our lives. Every therapy session, every dollar spent, every decision made, was to help my sons.

Along the way, I met some of those warrior moms and dads who also struggled to help their children, keep their jobs, and keep their families afloat. They have been inspirational to me. These are the toughest, most loving, most generous people you will ever meet.

Their children, like my children, are remarkable.

Do not buy the nonsense that people with autism do not love or do not feel for others.

That is bullshit.

My sons care deeply about their family and others. I have heard other parents say the same thing about their children with autism.

Do not allow the puzzle pieces and blue light propaganda to serve as cover for those who want to deny the humanity of people with autism.

People with autism navigate their lives in quirky, often creative ways. They use everything from keypads to spelling boards to sign language to no language, but, somehow, carve out meaningful lives.

People with autism are to be respected. Their lives are of value.

This is not to minimize the pain, the suffering, the isolation, the judgmental looks of others.

Everyone in my community has seen the judgement in the faces of others when their kids melt down, when a parent has to wrestle their kid to the sidewalk to prevent them from running into city traffic, or when the child has a seizure.

“What is wrong with that kid?”

Just about 20 years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came to know some of the warrior moms and dads when he was fighting to clean up America’s waterways. As he explained to Joe Rogan, 14:20 into the recording, “These women kept following me when I would present (at conferences)…They were the mothers of children who believed their children had been intellectually disabled by vaccines…They were rational. They had done their research…The public authorities said these women were crazy, but they didn’t look crazy to me…I felt that I should listen to them.”

Kennedy recounted to Rogan how one warrior mom named Sarah Bridges, a psychologist from Minnesota, had shown up on his doorstep in Hyannisport, Cape Cod, with a pile of studies and said: “I’m not leaving until you read those.”

Sarah’s son, Porter Bridges, “had been a perfectly normal kid, when he got a battery of vaccines at age two,” Kennedy told Rogan. “He lost the ability to speak, he lost his toilet training. He began head banging, he engaged in other stereotypical behaviors like stimming, hand flapping, toe walking, and got an autism diagnosis…And the vaccine court had awarded him 20 million dollars for acknowledging that the child (Porter) had gotten autism from the vaccines. She didn’t want that to happen to other kids.”

Kennedy listened to Sarah and other parents and had the courage to ask why these kids developed autism.

I found Porter Bridges’ case when I investigated the vaccine court and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, starting in 2008. I found a total of 83 cases of vaccine-induced brain damage that included autism. The findings are published in Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury

I know this is a stunning realization for some, but it seems that the government was lying to us about the connection between vaccine injury and autism.

Sarah Bridges, the author of A Bad Reaction: A Memoir by Sarah Bridges, connected me to Kennedy.

I recall Kennedy telling me all those years ago: “You have to have data. I respect you, but we need data. We need good science.”

Now as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy is still pounding away with the same theme.

We may soon get the good science that Kennedy has been seeking for two decades as Kennedy’s National Autism Coordinator Diana Diaz recently explained to Leland Vittert on News Nation.

Vittert said that he has autism and supports the government search for a cause for autism. Diaz told him that the data on the causes of autism is soon to be released through the national Autism Data Science Initiative.

And it may not just be about vaccine injury.

In September, Kennedy and President Trump announced some concerns about the connection between Tylenol and autism. There is important science for you to consider in the forthcoming book, Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong, by Dr. William Parker.

Earlier this week, Dr. Robert Malone wrote The Rise of Autism Becomes Clearer on his Substack. It seems that a recent study shows that a number of pharmaceutical products, when taken by pregnant women, are associated with increases in autism.

None of this is welcome news for Big Pharma. They want all of us to believe that autism is caused by bum genes. They want us to believe that people with autism were just unlucky. Sadly, it was their destiny.

There are no environmental causes. Big Pharma is not responsible.

The message is clear: Surrender. Take your puzzle pieces and disappear into the landscape of America where we offer you acceptance but avoid the truth about what got you here.

Surrender is unacceptable.

Finding the truth about the cause – or causes – of autism is something I have been fighting for years. When we understand the causes of autism, we will understand how to prevent it.

Kennedy is leading that fight.

One fine April day in the future, we may get to celebrate Autism Truth Month.

I, for one, will be down for that.

Related Stories:

Sanders pitched Kennedy a softball, asking him if he agrees with the president’s nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Casey Means, who is opposed to junk food advertisements on TV. Kennedy affirmed his long-standing opposition to such ads.

Given past explosive confrontations between Sanders and Kennedy, the Vermont Senator’s response to Kennedy’s answer surprised some.

“What we are seeing now is these Big Food industry companies spending huge amounts of money telling kids to eat crap,” said Sanders, sounding a lot like Kennedy. “And I think it would make a lot of sense if we banned those ads from TV. I’m hearing you say that you agree with me on that?”

This is the same man who, in a New York Times Opinion piece published last August, called for Kennedy to resign for “endangering the health of the American people now and into the future.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Kennedy calmly answered Sanders, “The only hesitation I had was we tried to do a smoking ban on TV, and the tobacco companies voluntarily came to the table, which was a good thing. I think the same arguments apply for junk foods; they’re probably even worse for Americans than smoking.”

Sanders reiterated his agreement with Kennedy.

During the 2024 election cycle, Kennedy made his position on ads for ultra processed food clear. “We are the only nation in the world that allows this kind of poison to be marketed directly to our children on their television screens 24 hours a day,” Kennedy said. “Our children are being systematically targeted by predatory marketing for ultra-processed foods that are designed in laboratories to be addictive. These companies use cartoons and bright colors to lure children who don’t have the cognitive ability to know they are being lied to. We must implement a ‘watershed’ ban on these commercials, just as other civilized nations have done, to protect our children’s brains and bodies from the mass poisoning that has become the American norm.”

Following Mike Tyson’s public service announcement promoting healthy diets during the Super Bowl, Kennedy similarly said, “The saturation of these [junk food] advertisements during our most-watched cultural events is a form of spiritual warfare on the American public. It creates an environment where ‘choice’ is a lie because the consumer is being bombarded by chemical triggers before they even walk into a grocery store.”

Although portrayed otherwise, Secretary Kennedy’s positions on a wide range of issues have remained remarkably consistent. Polls now show widespread support for many of his views among Republicans, Democrats, and even independents like Bernie Sanders.

After nearly 20 years as a pharmacist, I have heard the same story in different forms: A patient begins to struggle, often in the context of stress, trauma, hormonal change, or a major life transition. There is little time to understand the full picture. A diagnosis is made, a prescription is written, and the plan is to follow up later. For some, that first medication becomes a second, then a third. Over time, what began as a search for relief can turn into long-term dependence, with diminishing clarity about what is driving symptoms and what is masked by treatment.

This is not a failure of individual clinicians. It is the predictable outcome of a system designed to move quickly through complex human problems. Most antidepressants are prescribed in primary care, where the average visit lasts about 18 minutes. Within that window, there is rarely space to explore diet, sleep, trauma, environmental exposures, or the broader context of a person’s life.

At the same time, the scientific foundation underpinning this model has quietly shifted. A major umbrella review published in Molecular Psychiatry found no convincing evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin activity or low serotonin concentration.

This calls into question the widespread use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), a class of antidepressants known to create dependence. While SSRIs clearly alter serotonergic signaling and may help some patients, particularly in more severe cases, the long-standing narrative that they simply correct a chemical imbalance is not supported by current evidence.

In fact, many antidepressants come with severe side effects. Medications such as sertraline, fluoxetine, and paroxetine can bring loss of libido, emotional blunting, weight changes, sleep disruption, and a persistent sense of feeling unlike themselves. And when patients attempt to stop, the system often reveals its limitations. Withdrawal symptoms, including dizziness, anxiety, insomnia, mood instability, and the sensation often described as brain zaps, can make tapering difficult enough that many restart medication simply to feel stable again. For some, discontinuation becomes a prolonged, carefully managed process over months.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is painfully aware of this problem. In a Washington Post op-ed published last September, Kennedy, along with Secretary of Education Linda McMahan, wrote about the need to “scrutinize overprescription of pharmaceuticals for child mental health.”

While focused on adult rehabilitation, Inner Fire, in Vermont, is a unique and inspiring wellness farm that reveals what is possible when one moves away from stress.

A Choice That Sparked a Movement

The story of Inner Fire begins with a question Beatrice Birch could not ignore: “I hate being medicated. Isn’t there a choice?”

She heard it repeatedly from individuals in a conventional psychiatric program. Different people, same underlying plea. They were not asking for another medication. They were asking for another way.

Birch knew that another way existed. After spending more than two decades in Europe working as a Hauschka Artistic Therapist in anthroposophical clinics where medication was not the default, Birch brought what she had learned back to the United States.

That included Anthroposophy, developed by the Austrian philosopher and social reformer Rudolf Steiner, who views the human being as an integration of body, soul, and spirit. Rather than reducing suffering to neurochemistry alone, it seeks to understand how imbalance expresses itself across the whole person. Healing is cultivated through rhythm, creativity, connection, and meaning.

But the turning point was not philosophical. It was devastatingly real. Birch learned that six of the individuals who had asked her about weaning off anti-depressants had died by suicide.

“That’s when I realized I cannot hide my head in the sand,” she told me.“ This is why I’ve returned to the United States – I have to take the best of my life experiences, and we simply offer a choice.”

Inner Fire was born in 2015, immediately following Birch’s return.

Rebuilding From the Inside Out

Inner Fire is not a short-term intervention or a traditional psychiatric facility. It is a residential, 47-acre farm-based program in Vermont where individuals, called seekers, commit to a year-long stay. Since its inception, 64 seekers have come to Inner Fire, which intentionally remains small due to the intensity of the tapering process. Many arrive after repeated hospitalizations, long-term medication use, or a deep sense that conventional care has not addressed the root of their suffering.

What they enter is a structured, immersive environment built around rhythm, responsibility, and relationship.

Each day follows a consistent cadence. Mornings are devoted to meaningful physical work such as splitting wood, tending gardens, and preparing meals. Afternoons focus on individualized therapies, including artistic work, counseling, and biographical exploration. Evenings center on community through music, reflection, and shared dialogue.

This structure is not incidental. It is therapeutic. “If we’re grounded, we will not hear voices,” Birch explained. The goal is not simply symptom management. It is a re-connection.

“The message is, ‘We just have to find the right pill. The chemistry in your brain is wrong.’ And that’s not true,” she told me.

At Inner Fire, tapering is gradual, supported, and never forced. It begins only after individuals are stabilized in rhythm and community.

What emerges is often more than symptom relief. It is a return to self.

“I’m beginning to feel inner movement,” one seeker told Birch.

Seekers report improved sleep, fewer intrusive thoughts, greater emotional range, and a renewed sense of agency. Many describe feeling present in their lives again, sometimes for the first time in years.

Protecting the Next Generation

If we are serious about changing the trajectory of mental health in this country, we have to start earlier.

The data is clear. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 40 percent of U.S. high school students report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, a signal that distress is becoming a defining feature of adolescence, not the exception. The CDC has been unequivocal in its assessment: “The mental health of our nation’s youth is in crisis.” And, in a film about America’s addiction crisis, Secretary Kennedy speaks of building hundreds of “healing farms where American kids can reconnect with America’s soil.”

Birch sees the long arc of this story. Many of the people who arrive at Inner Fire began struggling in adolescence, often entering the mental health system early and accumulating layers of treatment without ever addressing the underlying drivers. “People who’ve been in the system have become totally disempowered,” she told me.

Prevention, in this context, is not a single intervention. It is a way of structuring our lived environments and relationships within families, schools, and communities.

What We Can Do Now

If there is a through-line between Inner Fire and the broader shift in mental health policy, it is this. Healing begins upstream for both adults and adolescents.

Birch points to three core elements.

Nutrition: Seekers eat an organic, nutrient-dense diet and learn to cook for themselves.

Rhythm: A consistent daily structure that regulates sleep, energy, and mood.

Meaningful work: Physical, purposeful activity that reconnects individuals to life.

“We’ve just started the keto diet,” she told me, noting that it seems to be making a big difference. The shift reflects a growing recognition that metabolic health and brain health are deeply connected – a link Harvard psychiatrist, Christopher Palmer, has made and to which Secretary Kennedy recently referred.

Meaningful physical work is one of the most overlooked yet essential components of the Inner Fire model. In a culture that often separates mental health from the body, physical labor is rarely considered therapeutic, yet at Inner Fire, it is foundational. Tasks like chopping wood, tending gardens, cooking meals, and caring for the land are not optional activities; they are central to the healing process.

“There’s meaning to every action you do, and you’re making a difference for the whole community,” says Birch.

This kind of work requires presence, engages the senses, and reconnects individuals to their bodies in a way that is difficult to achieve through conversation alone. It also restores something many seekers have lost – a sense of usefulness and contribution. In doing work that is tangible and necessary, individuals begin to experience themselves not as patients, but as participants in life again.

These are not abstract ideas. They are actionable.

Victims to Creators

Birch emphasized foundational elements essential for human thriving, yet too often overlooked or sidelined in favor of quick fixes that rarely come without consequences.

She teaches creating rhythm (wake and sleep at consistent times); engage your body (move daily with intention); eat real food (reduce ultra-processed inputs.); limit digital noise (protect space for quiet and presence); reconnect with nature (go outside, grow something, and observe the seasons); build community (share meals, conversations, and time); stay engaged (even when it is hard); and, perhaps most importantly, shift the frame.

“We treat everybody as creators and not victims,” Birch told me.

That shift alone changes everything.

A System Ready to Evolve

“We have to change the system and become much more humane and take an interest in each other,” Birch said.

That change is beginning, but it will not come from policy alone: It will come from rethinking what healing actually requires.

If we are serious about transforming mental health, we need to support models like Birch’s, invest in prevention, and rebuild systems that treat people as whole human beings.

Inner Fire is not the entire or only answer. But it is proof that another way is possible.

Meanwhile, the vaccine-infatuated have stridently blamed this shift on the vaccine-deniers. The American Academy of Pediatrics, mainstream media, and many state legislatures are ignoring the “real science” and pushing to compel Americans (and their young children) to keep taking these dubious “interventions.” This shameless fearmongering is sowing even greater vaccine hesitancy, displaying in the process the true source of growing public distrust.

Drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech recently halted a planned mRNA vaccine study due to the lack of a sufficient number of volunteers. The companies attributed the paucity of new guinea pigs to stricter FDA requirements for placebo-controlled trials, particularly in the 50-64 age group. The FDA required study participants to have no chronic conditions such as hypertension or diabetes: the companies say more than 80 percent of potential applicants fail to qualify. Ironically, so many Americans are chronically ill that there aren’t enough healthy people on whom to test new drugs.

Of course, this became a boot-strap circular logic for the pro-vaccine cult. As Reuters reports, “Experts warned that requiring large new trials could delay or limit the availability of updated shots for lower-risk groups.” Under this rubric, effective testing for drug safety is dangerous because it might delay people from taking the untested drugs.

It could be that Americans simply don’t trust mRNA vaccine technology enough to participate in new trials. Only about 18 percent ⁠of Americans got ​a Covid booster in the 2025–2026 season, according to the CDC, with Reuters lamenting this low number in a recent article, saying the virus, “continues to cause tens of thousands of deaths each year, including an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 among adults aged 50 to 64.”

Americans may have started to distrust such fearporn claims and begun to examine “real science” more carefully, including the growing evidence of vaccine injuries.

Much like food labels, the more one looks, the less one has an appetite for these corporate concoctions. Clearly, the safety ratio for these sketchy experimental vaccines is shifting: as Covid-19 becomes less deadly and more details emerge of immune function suppression, blood clots, turbo cancers, and other vaccine side effects, the risk-to-return ratio deteriorates.

Despite Reuters’ alarmist death statistics, Covid-19 is not killing very many Americans. Perhaps the “estimated 8,000 to 12,000” deaths in the 50 to 64 age group cited by Reuters is a global figure. According to the CDC, “deaths involving Covid” (dying from COVID, or with COVID?) are declining precipitously in the United States.

For the week ending January 9, 2021 (the height of the pandemic), the CDC reports 26,026 deaths “involving” Covid. For the week ended March 28, 2026, that number was 71, a 99.73 percent drop. The highest weekly number all winter (2025-2026) was 507 (week ended January 10, 2026). Deaths have not exceeded 1,000 since the week that ended January 18, 2025.

Covid-19 is waning, as viruses are inclined to do over time: It is mutating to become much less deadly.

But this has not dampened the histrionics in blue states, where they are sidestepping updated CDC recommendations that no longer include the experimental jab to strongly recommend such vaccines even for children. Yet from the very beginning of the pandemic, it has been axiomatic that healthy young children face a near-zero threat of death or serious bodily injury from Covid-19.

Americans’ fear of dying from Covid-19 is plummeting because so few people are now dying from the disease. But at the same time, more and more evidence of vaccine injuries is becoming public. It is incontrovertible, for instance, that young men suffered inordinate damage from mRNA-vaccine-inflicted myocarditis, even as Americans who asked questions about this phenomenon were gaslit and lied to for months before product labels were updated to disclose exactly that risk.

Children’s Health Defense recently published an article titled “Teens 5 Times More Likely to Develop Heart Conditions After mRNA COVID vaccines.” Headlines such as “‘My organs shut down, now I’m in a wheelchair’: The lives ruined by Covid jabs” tell a very different story from the “safe and effective” mantra of government agencies. That could make a properly informed patient pause – which is precisely the justification manufacturers and regulators used to avoid informing the public about the risk of myocarditis! (“If people hear about the injuries, they may not take the vaccines…”)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not sow vaccine hesitancy: the mRNA vaccines and their proponents did. This is why vaccine advocates routinely invoke smallpox or measles vaccines when championing jabs.

People took the mRNA vaccines, and they didn’t work as advertised – they were clearly ineffective (necessitating ever more “boosters”) and unsafe, and parents and patients were obviously misinformed by Big Pharma, federal agencies, the AAP, pharmacists, etc.

An entire fearporn industry lied people into submission: Many of those people later resented being duped. Social distancing? Made it up. Masking against a virus? What a joke. Alternative therapies? – deadly! Natural immunity? No good. Lab origin? Verboten!

The lying liars just keep lying, prompting ever more Americans to refuse to roll up their sleeves. Polls show that, even before the pandemic, an increasing number of parents were growing concerned about the sheer number of recommended vaccinations. At some point, sensible moms will tire of watching their children treated as pharmaceutical pin cushions.

Nevertheless, a persistent government/industry/MSM narrative about the Covid-19 pandemic is that “vaccine-hesitancy” fueled by misinformation from people such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threatened public health by influencing many people to decline mRNA vaccines. This a priori assumption has infused numerous “expert studies” of vaccine hesitancy, ignoring the glaring truth: misinformation (lies) about vaccine safety and efficacy by pharmaceutical companies and federal agencies engendered unprecedented and quite understandable hesitancy.

The vaccine industry and government thus project onto others the vaccine hesitancy they themselves have created. Americans are now more informed. They are suspicious of taking too many unnecessary vaccines, especially for less serious ailments. Polls show increasing concerns over vaccine safety. This sensible aversion is likely to persist as Covid-19 becomes even less dangerous: currently, Americans are at greater risk of illness from kidney disease or chronic liver disease than Covid-19.

On the other end of the health spectrum from risk of infection lies risk of injection. Most people know someone who was vaccine-injured by mRNA vaccines. Yet the U.S. government has prevented these injuries from being fully acknowledged, compensating just 51 people out of the hundreds of thousands who were injured, through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. A total of 97 claims were deemed eligible for compensation, compared to more than 24,000 in South Korea, where the government has accepted about 30 percent of some 96,000 vaccine injury claims, and recognized 11 side effects caused by Covid-19 vaccines.

The U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration reports that for all other vaccinations, more than 29,749 vaccine injury petitions have been filed since 1988, of which 12,925 have been deemed compensable. Yet it is acknowledged that vaccine injuries are vastly unreported, so the actual number of vaccine injuries is undoubtedly exponentially higher. With this information available, why wouldn’t informed parents hesitate to fully vaccinate their young children, especially with experimental mRNA vaccines?

This is what makes the recent ruling by Massachusetts Federal District Judge Brian E. Murphy so deeply offensive. Murphy’s order prevented the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) from implementing a diagnostic code to track vaccine injuries and blocked ACIP from hearing from vaccine injury victims. This judge, and others who have worked so hard to conceal the truth, should be brought before a court themselves.

In the meantime, the truth is seeping out about the number of vaccine injuries and the declining risk from Covid-19 infection. Arguably, the risks of injury from mRNA vaccination now exceed the risks of severe illness from Covid-19. Perhaps they always did.

Related Stories

You would think that an article with the above headline would be published in a news outlet such as this one – The MAHA Report. But on Feb. 16, just weeks after Health and Human Services (HHS) flipped the food pyramid, introducing new dietary guidelines that prioritize protein and vegetables, the above headline accompanied a story published by NPR, a news organization long critical of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

For years, left-leaning media characterized Secretary Kennedy as a kook and anything he did and said as kooky, against science, unfettered. As he rode into the Trump administration on the back of a powerful and growing coalition known as MAHA, it was all too convenient to bash MAHA as the brainchild of a kook.

But now something remarkable is happening. In real time, Kennedy’s MAHA messaging is breaking through and changing public perception and media coverage. The legacy media is curious about MAHA and its success addressing the chronic disease epidemic. They implicitly and at times reluctantly acknowledge that there is a health problem in America and ultra-processed foods are a big part of that problem.

In Troilus and Cressida (Act III, Scene III), Shakespeare writes, “things in motion sooner catch the eye/ Than what not stirs.” The MAHA movement has momentum and is news. Even if we believe the left-leaning media still have their reservations about MAHA, they don’t want to be seen as out of touch. Plus, there’s something irresistibly apolitical about the concept of making America healthy again. People on both sides of the political divide can put their differences aside and celebrate Americans’ health. That’s not kooky; it’s sane.

MAHA of course has its own eco system. It doesn’t need the mainstream media’s guidance and support. In fact, the mainstream media benefits from MAHA since it is evident that their readers and listeners care about MAHA issues and addressing obstacles standing in the way of improving the chronic disease epidemic.

Moreover, it’s becoming hip for young women to side with MAHA moms, as The New York Times Magazine revealed in its profiles published on April 12, featuring three young women.

NPR is losing support. Tired of the polarization, I stopped listening to NPR in 2020. It no longer felt like news coverage. Clearly, I was not alone in feeling this way. I don’t believe Americans want to be pitted against each other. We want to feel acknowledged and prioritized. We want our health, and the health of our children, to be prioritized.

Secretary Kennedy’s movement is evidence of this. I volunteered for and worked on his 2024 presidential campaign. I heard first-hand what brought us all together. What was said time and time again was that people no longer cared which team they supported; they cared about who was going to fight for Americans’ best interest.

Remember what Edna St. Vincent Millay said about politics and health? “Republican or Democrat at the bedside, the patient still dies.”

This shift in prioritizing our health over politics is powerful. Our power lies in our numbers and in the science that backs up what we know about healthcare and the American food industry.

NPR and other news outlets were quick to criticize Mike Tyson’s Super Bowl ad encouraging Americans to “Eat Real Food.” We get it. The mainstream media just can’t help but recoil from anything that is even remotely related to President Trump – even a positive topic like how eating real, minimally-processed foods can save your life, as Mike Tyson believes it did his.

Like Tyson, I experienced how a change in diet improved my life. I was only 18 when I became chronically sick, gained substantial weight, and developed chronic acne and out-of-control eczema.

I worked with a naturopathic physician, made dietary changes, and healed my body.

There are millions in the MAHA movement with similar stories.

There are millions of us who are fed up with being lied to and manipulated when it comes to health, and poisoned by our food.

MAHA’s numbers keep growing, which is why we are starting to see MAHA-aligned articles making their way into NPR, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among other outlets.

The signs are clear. The MAHA movement is changing the political landscape. It has rapidly become a voting block large enough to throw elections in the direction of MAHA-endorsed candidates.

While individuals at news organizations may still privately loathe Kennedy, the institutions themselves know MAHA is a movement that can’t be ignored.

In an exclusive interview with The MAHA Report, Elfenbein described how he and his employees treated thousands of Covid patients at the stadium that year.

“My company was the largest supplier of monoclonal antibodies in Maryland,” he said. “My team did over 5,000 infusions and we saved hundreds of lives and prevented countless hospitalizations.”

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules engineered to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens. During the Covid pandemic, they were used in the early phases of the illness with dramatically positive effects. They cured people with Covid.

“Patients recovered almost immediately,” Elfenbein said. “Out of the thousands of infusions, I had only three or four instances where people reported minor side effects.”

Despite the success, the Biden administration abruptly ended the use of monoclonal antibody infusions in December of 2021, claiming that the treatment was no longer effective against new Covid variants.

That wasn’t what Elfenbein saw on the ground. “This was the treatment that saved President Trump when he came down with Covid,” he said. “We were saving hundreds of lives.”

When Biden’s health officials pulled the plug, Elfenbein fought back. In late December of 2021, he gave an interview to Fox News, saying that public health administrators at HHS were using “faulty data” and “faulty logic” and throughout the pandemic had been using incorrect statistical modeling. “People are definitely going to die because of this or need hospitalization because [health officials] misread the statistics,” he said on Fox.

Looking back, Dr. Elfenbein remembers the irrationality of the Biden administration’s Covid pandemic policies that began to take shape in the summer of 2021.

“All of a sudden, there were mandatory vaccines for everyone, even for people who recovered from the virus,” Elfenbein said. “Nurses, who were called heroes in 2020 and caught Covid treating patients, were fired for declining to take the vaccines when they already had immunity. That was unprecedented in medical history.”

Four months after Elfenbein spoke out, the Department of Justice indicted him.

“They indicted me because I called them out, because I was a whistleblower,” said Elfenbein.

The case highlights the Biden administration’s willingness to employ lawfare to suppress those who questioned Covid public health policies.

Elfenbein said court transcripts show that the judge presiding over the case excused the jury from the room. Elfenbein recalls, “[The judge] then called the DOJ attorneys and my lawyers to the bench and asked, ‘Where is the crime here?’”

The Department of Justice eventually claimed that Elfenbein had engaged in fraudulent billing and coding practices.

Elfenbein noted that federal investigators never reached out to ask him any questions about his billing practices. “No one from the federal government called to ask questions about the billing or coding issues,” he said. “I would have been happy to talk to them. It was a crazy time, and I was working with HHS closely during the pandemic.”

Elfenbein never knew there was an issue until he was charged.

“The whole case was chucked together,” he said. “They didn’t even get my name right on the legal documents. They called me Ronald when my legal name is Ron. I’ve never been ‘Ronald.’ And they even gave me a middle initial that I didn’t have. Their sloppiness begs the question: Why did they do this?”

Elfenbein said that at a pre-trial conference, the judge called out the prosecution, saying that it all looked “like a case of ‘shoot first and ask questions later.’”

Ultimately, the case against Elfenbein was dismissed by U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar of Maryland, who issued a stunning 93-page opinion. However, the DOJ appealed just before President Trump’s inauguration and Dr. Elfenbein now faces a new trial in August.

It is not clear what the Trump administration’s DOJ is going to do with the case.

“I am wondering what they intend to do,” Elfenbein said. “In my view, I should be free of this nonsense and treated like a whistleblower, which is what I am.”

Monoclonal antibody treatment offered an alternative to the Covid vaccines, Elfenbein points out. Having an alternative to the vaccines meant that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the vaccines was invalid.

“Monoclonal antibody therapy was a direct threat to the Emergency Use Authorization,” Elfenbein says. “Secretary Kennedy said the same thing on Joe Rogan at that time.”

Last August, Kennedy rescinded the Emergency Use Authorizations for the Covid vaccines.

The case against Elfenbein now rests with the DOJ. Will we finally see accountability for the unjust lawfare perpetrated against him and others who dared to question Biden administration public health dogma?

Let’s hope so.

Kennedy wrote in his X post, “Today, we took long-overdue action to restore science, accountability, and the rule of law.”

Continued Kennedy, “Now, after nominators withdrew 12 peptides, the FDA will remove them from Category 2 and will bring them to PCAC [Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee] at its next two meetings, beginning in July—where independent experts will rigorously evaluate each substance on its scientific merits using full clinical, pharmacological, and safety evidence.”

After listing the 12 peptides the FDA will review during the PCAC’s summer meetings, Kennedy added, “This action begins to restore regulated access and will immediately begin shifting demand away from the black market. We will follow the science, enforce the law, and deliver the clarity patients, providers, and pharmacies deserve.”

Wednesday’s move tracks with Secretary Kennedy’s broader (and very MAHA) pledge to bring radical transparency to HHS and its sub-agencies. While some legacy media shot down Kennedy’s X post, castigating peptides as “unapproved therapies” used by influencers and celebrities, many MAHA supporters and proponents of medical freedom were ecstatic. “This is what we’ve been waiting for!!!” wrote Jesse Morse, M.D. on X.

For current users, legalization would be a blessing.

Every day, in bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens across America, thousands of people draw up compounds from tiny vials and inject themselves with substances with names like: BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, Ipamorelin, Semax, Selank, KPV, KLOW, Wolverine, and MOTS-c – many of which are on Kennedy’s ‘to review’ list.

Many users operate outside the medical system, finding suppliers online and ordering syringes and bacteriostatic water from Amazon while following dosing advice from influencers on Instagram or TikTok. What began in quiet corners of functional medicine has moved into homes across the country.

Why Did Peptide Demand Explode?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids that are signaling molecules in the body, regulating tissue repair, collagen production, appetite, and hormone activity. Synthetic versions of peptides are marketed for recovery, fat burning, performance, and healthy aging.

To many consumers, peptides are the fastest shortcut to becoming leaner, stronger, and more resilient — or at the very least, a higher-performing version of themselves. Users also believe peptides can help with hair growth, improve eyesight, increase cognition, accelerate fitness recovery . . . and the list goes on. Some people even believe peptides can make them superhuman.

While peptides have been around for decades, the market exploded with the arrival of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. These drugs reshaped public awareness of peptide therapies almost overnight, while shortages and four-digit prices quickly followed.

How Peptides Went Underground

Those who wanted access to these ‘wonder drugs’ did not wait. Both compounding pharmacies and the so-called gray market moved quickly to meet the growing demand. That shift accelerated in 2023 when the FDA placed 19 peptides into Category 2, sharply limiting compounding while many of those products remained available online.

What followed was a peptide marketplace that now ranges from physician-guided compounding to direct-to-consumer gray-market sales and, at the far end, black-market products.

Compounding pharmacies can step in during FDA-recognized shortages and use formulation tweaks and other workarounds to keep meeting demand.

In a gray market, products are sold directly to consumers with companies using lab evaluations, certificates of analysis (COAs) and polished websites to seem more credible, despite operating outside normal medical channels. Black-market products are the cheapest, often sourced from China, Russia, or India, with uncertain purity, ingredients, and efficacy.

Cost drives much of this movement: Online gray market peptides can sell for $50 to $500 per vial, while physician-guided clinics can charge thousands per month for oversight and injections. Some peptides are FDA-approved prescription drugs, like GLP-1s, but many compounds promoted online are untested and sold as “research-only.” In practice, it means people have become their own guinea pigs.

The Fight Over Access

Prior to Wednesday’s announcement, Kennedy criticized a medical system that limits preventive choice, even as demand for these therapies, including peptides, is already here. When legitimate access narrows, people look elsewhere. Many go online, where access is easy, oversight is thin, and the risks are hard to judge.

A policy environment that restricts physician-guided access without addressing real demand does not solve the problem. It pushes more people into a gray market with fewer safeguards, less transparency, and more room for abuse.

Under Secretary Kennedy, that may soon change.

Social Media and the Peptide Rush

Search “peptides” on social media and there are hundreds of influencers telling viewers what to use, how to dose it, and where to buy it. Most of these figures do not have a medical background, and they do not steer people toward physician-guided care and compounding pharmacies. They send them to gray-market sellers, or outright black-market products. The market is shaped not by medicine and regulation, but by algorithms, affiliate links, and followers.

Source: Grandview Research https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/peptide-therapeutics-market

Peptides have become part of a much larger battle over access to preventive, out-of-pocket health care. This is no longer a niche market. By 2025, the global peptide therapeutics market was estimated at more than $140 billion, with projections reaching $294.58 billion by 2033.

That kind of growth tells its own story: demand for peptides and other wellness therapies is not going away. Americans want more options for healing, recovery, prevention, and longevity – and they deserve safe, transparent, medically supervised choices.

On The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in late February, Kennedy said he was a “big fan” of peptides and that the administration was moving to reverse part of the FDA’s 2023 peptide crackdown, which pushed 19 popular peptides into a category that blocked routine compounding by many pharmacies. Kennedy said roughly 14 of those peptides could soon be moved back into a category that would allow legal compounding under physician supervision.

Wednesday’s announcement makes it clear that the Secretary means business.

“My hope is that they’re going to get moved to a place where people have access from ethical suppliers,” Kennedy told Rogan, adding that HHS is “still looking at the science.” He framed the move as an effort to improve the quality of products people are already using.

The Right to Pay for Prevention

At its core, taking or not taking peptides is about health sovereignty and autonomy over one’s own health. Health-conscious Americans should not be forced into unsafe or unregulated channels simply because the medical system refuses to make room for legitimate preventive care.

As Secretary Kennedy recognizes, the answer is not to deny demand or drive it underground, but to make safer, transparent, medically supervised access easier than the gray market.

What happens after the PCAC’s summer meetings will determine whether peptides remain trapped between overregulation and the black market, or find their rightful place in a transparent, prevention-focused health system.

It may sound like science fiction, but the technology is already here. Carbon Robotics has developed massive robot farm machines that roll through fields of crops, using AI and high-resolution cameras to pinpoint weeds and destroy them with high-powered lasers, leaving surrounding plants and soil undisturbed.

For too long, farmers have been told there was only one practical way to control weeds on large commercial operations, and that is to spray toxic chemicals. Herbicides have become deeply embedded into the economics of modern farming because they make large-scale crop production cheaper, faster, and easier to manage. They have reduced labor demands and made it possible to cover vast acreage with fewer workers and more predictable results.

As HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained in a recent Joe Rogan Experience podcast, early herbicide weed control used to mean workers walking through rows with backpack sprayers, targeting weeds individually. But “Roundup Ready” crops changed everything. One airplane could saturate an entire landscape with glyphosate, and kill everything except the GMO crops, completing in minutes what took crews of workers days. While this method was efficient and profitable, it also locked American farming into dependence on chemical weed killers.

That dependence has come at an enormous price. Chemicals do not stay confined to weeds and crop rows. They move through the environment, the food system, and the human body, capable of causing neurologic damage, cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, and broader chronic disease. Americans encounter herbicides on farms, in parks, at golf courses, playgrounds, roadsides, and other public spaces.

“We’ve got to get off this stuff,” Kennedy said to Rogan. “We’ve got to give these farmers an off-ramp so that they can get off it.here are all kinds of new exciting technologies that give us a light at the end of the tunnel to transition.” But Kennedy also pointed out that moving too abruptly could mean “crashing the food system.”

Such framing gets to the heart of the problem. Farmers have been trapped in a system built around toxic herbicides not because they embrace it, but because for decades it was the only economically viable model for large-scale crop production.

But that chemical model is not sustainable. As weeds adapt and resistance spreads, farmers are pushed into more spraying, higher volumes, and more complicated and toxic combinations just to hold the line. What was once sold as efficient and modern has become a treadmill of rising costs, resistance, exposure, and harm to human health.

Now, for the first time in decades, farmers have a viable alternative. Paul Mikesell, founder and CEO of Carbon Robotics, says the company’s laser weeders can work with “millimeter-level accuracy,” allowing them to “annihilate just the weeds even if they are very close to the crop plants,” while leaving the crop, surrounding soil, and nearby root systems intact.

He also referenced a University of Wisconsin field study showing a 30% increase in productivity, and that the growing season for some crops can be shortened by three weeks, allowing farmers to recoup their machine investment in just nine months.

The economics are what make this especially compelling. Kennedy highlighted one South Texas onion producer farming 8,000 acres, paying $1,500 an acre for pesticides and manual labor, compared with $300 an acre using the laser system. Savings like that make the strongest case for change.

Still, farmers cannot be expected to just abandon herbicides. They need something that works in the field, protects yields, reduces labor pressure, and makes economic sense. Laser weeders offer exactly that: a realistic off-ramp away from chemical dependence.

They may not replace every herbicide overnight, but no farmer should have to choose between toxic chemical dependence and economic survival.

That is what makes the laser weeder more than a neat farming innovation. It is a MAHA solution to protect human health, strengthen farming resilience, and begin moving American agriculture away from the chemical trap toward a cleaner food system.

A workable alternative is already proving itself in the field, with the technology now in use by more than 100 growers worldwide. It is also helping cut costs, reduce labor pressure, and eliminate the need for herbicides and mechanical cultivation.

Secretary Kennedy has said that in order to wean America off glyphosate-based herbicides we must play the long game. Knowing that laser weeders are on the horizon –as, possibly, part of an off-ramp strategy – makes the wait easier for all of us committed to a future without toxic herbicides.

You may have missed this, but the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the organization that in March brought the lawsuit that led to Judge Brian Murphy’s absurd decision in the Massachusetts Federal District Court in Boston.

Murphy’s decision undid much of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s work vis-a-vis the nation’s childhood vaccine schedule, which the secretary saw as a massive toxic load that needed paring down. With one strike of the gavel, Murphy temporarily halted Kennedy’s historic and much needed recommendations and suspended the secretary’s reformulated Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises on vaccines.

Fearing the ACIP’s recommendations become reality, the AAP went into attack mode.

As organizations such as Children’s Health Defense (CHD) prepare to challenge Murphy’s decision, it’s time to reflect on the AAP and what inspired the organization to bring suit against the HHS in the first place.

According to its website, the AAP’s mission seems innocent enough: “We work for every child’s future. The AAP’s global mission is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all children around the world.”

The trouble is: The AAP actually doesn’t work for every child’s future. In fact, handsomely supported by Big Pharma, it works against every child’s future.

Here’s what happened. Even though Kennedy and Co. did not remove a single childhood vaccine from the official schedule, the HHS recommendation that parents share in vaccine decision-making threatened the AAP to its core. Playing lapdog to Big Pharma means defending the hands that feed them. When it comes to survival, you can’t be too careful.

So AAP went on the offensive, even though every vaccine was still available and pediatricians and parents were encouraged to discuss whether some of the vaccines were a good idea for their children.

So much for dialogue.

For the AAP, the inconvenience of talking to parents and allowing them to share in the decision-making was, apparently, a crushing burden.

At least Judge Murphy thought so. Surprise, surprise: he sided with Big Pharma…I mean the AAP.

It remains to be seen how long this madness lasts. If Murphy’s decision is not overturned, every industry trade organization in the country will file a federal suit so that they, too, stop the federal government from implementing inconvenient changes to their industries.

The AAP does not represent the interests of children – it represents the interest of their Big Pharma mega donors, as Secretary Kennedy has pointed out.

And the leading vaccine manufacturers, all of which are described as the AAP’s corporate supporters, are the entities that will feel the pinch in their bottom line when parents say ‘no thank you’ to some of their vaccines.

The AAP was the costume that Big Pharma wore in the Massachusetts Federal District Court. So dressed, the AAP calmly served as their front men.

Moreover, an examination of the AAP’s history and behavior reveals an organization that is the poster child for corporate capture.'

From the AAP’s Pediatrics

Despite overwhelming evidence that Covid vaccines cause myocarditis in young people, the AAP continues to recommend Covid vaccines for children, as this policy statement published in the organization’s journal, Pediatrics, demonstrates. One of the authors of the statement disclosed financial ties to Pfizer, while another disclosed such ties to Pfizer and Moderna, the two manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Was the AAP’s policy statement actually written by Pfizer and Moderna?

It is now understood that Covid poses a low risk to young people but the AAP’s policy is that you should roll the dice on your kid developing a serious cardiac condition because two physicians, paid for by Big Pharma, said you should.

Would you trust the advice of this organization?

The AAP is all about vaccines, as their Healthy Children website reveals. The first things you see are recommended vaccine schedules.

You have to look pretty hard to find anything on the AAP website about the chronic disease epidemics – obesity, diabetes, autism, among others. Puff – gone.

Vaccines are so important to the AAP that the organization launched a nationwide effort in July of 2025 to repeal all nonmedical exemptions to vaccine mandates and announced that they will join several states and recommend their own vaccine schedule instead of following federal guidance.

The AAP did not launch a nationwide effort to combat chronic childhood disease.

That is because vaccine promotion – not children – is the organization’s primary focus. That is where the Big Pharma dollars come from and what fuels large pediatric practices, as explained here.

Undark Magazine published a story in 2025 on conflicts of interests at the AAP, reporting that the organization holds an annual corporate Summit at their headquarters “for donors of $50,000 or more — a status enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi…”

In Chicago Magazine, AAP’s chief executive officer, Mark Del Monte, describes himself as an Anti-Anti-Vaxxer. One would think that AAP’s CEO would be a well-respected, veteran pediatrician but Del Monte is not a pediatrician.

He’s a lawyer - a highly paid one. According to a June 2023 filing, Del Monte’s last reported salary was $783,954.

Pretty soft.

And Anne Edwards, AAP’s chief population health officer, hauled in a cool $462,179.

Also pretty soft given the rise of chronic disease among America’s children. Good thing Edward’s pay is not related to performance.

Several other administrators pocketed over $300,000. Are you getting the picture?

The AAP is not looking after the health of America’s children. Period. Full stop. They are nothing more than Big Pharma’s lap dog.

[Originally published in TheDerrick.com under the headline, “Free Expression Warriors Fight for an All American Right.” Republished with permission of the author, whose book, Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum, was published earlier this year by Skyhorse.]

As America 250 unfolds this year, it’s a sure bet that the term “patriot” will be used more frequently to describe the brave fighters of the American Revolution and those who have followed in modern times.

In the past few years, that description has taken on multiple meanings, often viewed through ideological lenses. Historically, a term of national unity, “patriot,” is now frequently used as a wedge to separate “true” Americans from those with differing political views.

While patriotism once meant deference to national leadership (e.g., during the early War on Terror), it has evolved to mean “opposition to the government” for some conservative movements. Conversely, some traditional conservatives argue for a return to a definition of patriotism based on the Constitution and democratic institutions.

Maybe a bit more precision would help us restore meaning to patriotism, reducing ambiguity and increasing appreciation for the principles of our nation’s founding. Let’s start with the cherished values of free speech and free press in the First Amendment.

Last year, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr suggested ABC cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after a controversial joke that he made after the murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

A group of patriots — worthy of the new title of “Free Expression Warriors” — stepped forward to object to crossing the constitutional line that prohibits government action in response to expressed viewpoints. The Kimmel case fit squarely within the guardrails that the revolutionary patriots began to develop after they were freed of British control.

Surprisingly to some, these voices came from across the political spectrum, suggesting a new way of thinking about patriotism in a truer, more nonpartisan context.

Here are some prominent and diverse perspectives that emerged quickly and clearly:

• “I think it is unbelievably dangerous for the government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

• “I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false.” — Ben Shapiro, host, “The Ben Shapiro Show”

• “The duty to defend the First Amendment does not rest with government, but with all of us. Free speech is the foundation of our democracy, and we must push back against any attempt to erode it.” — FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez

• “I definitely don’t think that the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue.” — Joe Rogan, host, “The Joe Rogan Experience”

• “We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech. Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country.”— Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, in an open letter organized by the American Civil Liberties Union

“Can we still speak and report openly?” This critical question isn’t rhetorical; it demands an honest answer. And increasingly, that answer isn’t as clear as it used to be.

From newsrooms to classrooms, from corporate boardrooms to kitchen table conversations, Americans are grappling with unprecedented challenges to free expression. The twin pillars of democracy — free speech and free press — face pressure from all directions: government officials seeking to control narratives, tech platforms making content decisions, activists demanding accountability, and citizens caught in the crossfire.

Seemingly strange political bedfellows also can be good civic bedfellows. Those who pride themselves as among the Free Expression Warriors should continue their patriotic work to recruit the many to support their vital cause, and ours.

STUART N. BROTMAN is the digital media laureate at The Media Institute and the author of Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum.

On Tuesday, March 24, 2026, in a major rebuke to the Biden administration’s ruthless censorship of content posted on social media that contradicted the government’s official narrative about Covid-19, a Louisiana court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri.

This decision represents an unprecedented victory for free speech — in Louisiana, in Missouri, and across the nation.

Photo of Liz Murrill, Attorney General of Louisiana

The lawsuit was originally filed by the Attorneys General of Missouri (Eric Schmitt) and Louisiana (Liz Murrill) against the Biden administration and several federal health agencies that conspired with social media companies to censor posts.

The new decree specifically bars the U.S. Surgeon General, the CDC, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from pressuring platforms to censor, suppress, or otherwise curate content.

Federal officials from these agencies are now also prohibited from threatening social media companies with legal, regulatory, or economic sanctions in order to remove, suppress, or algorithmic reduce protected speech.

The decree further states that the government cannot use labels such as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “mal-information” as a justification to bypass First Amendment protections.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a non-profit civil rights organization which represented plaintiffs Jill Hines and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, celebrated the consent decree as “unprecedented.”

In January of 2025, the Trump administration formally condemned the government censorship detailed in the Murthy case via an executive order — “Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.”

Prior to this, the Biden administration did not attempt to deny the censorship but instead claimed that it was acting in the “best interests of the public.”

While the enforceability of the consent decree is limited to plaintiffs in the Murthy case, the spirit of the decree makes an unambiguous case against government censorship. The decree also stops short of forcing private companies from offering free speech protections to users as a matter of their civil rights.

The Murthy decision vindicates everyone who questioned pandemic policy in the U.S. but, in particular, the twelve men and women who the government had labeled the “Disinformation Dozen” for allegedly spreading false health information during the pandemic.

Who were the Disinformation Dozen? Their names are Dr. Joseph Mercola, Kevin Jenkins, Ty and Charlene Bollinger, Dr. Sheri Tenpenny, Rizza Islam, the late Dr. Rashid Buttar, Erin Elizabeth, Sayer Ji, Dr. Kelly Brogan, Christiane Northrup, Ben Tapper, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [Several of these brave souls will appear live on the March 25 episode of the MAHA Action Media Hub.]

Photo of Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri

Following the Murthy decision, an elated former Missouri Attorney General, Eric Schmitt, wrote on X that Missouri had “won big” and that the “unrelenting” litigation had paid off, granting Missouri citizens a historic 10-year, court-enforceable Consent Decree.

Schmitt added, “This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine. It locks in the First Amendment principle we fought for: modern technology doesn’t erase your rights, and government labels don’t strip speech of protection. The deep state just got checked. For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered.”

Outside of the courts, a broader revolution has been brewing as Americans come to realize that they have been used as guinea pigs by their government. Harmful chemicals in food, pills, Covid-injections containing who knows what.

None of these things, perpetrated on citizens by dark corporate hacks, is a good thing. As faceless Iago’s pulled the strings, they sucked the health and vitality out of the American people — along with the right to informed consent, bodily integrity, and to simply say ‘no.’

Enter government censorship, which has been crushing to so many Medical Freedom activists.

Nothing is as violent as silencing someone’s words. Censorship is a cowardly act of violence against people and society because silencing a person’s words is like lobotomizing that person while robbing society of the benefit of their ideas.

Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons. Despite their achievements, the Romans, the Hittites, the Aztecs, and the Incas all faded to dust.

But no civilization has ever gone extinct because it failed to silence its people. In fact, censorship hastens a civilization’s collapse because it shows that its leaders fear its people.

If anything has allowed America to grow and evolve for nearly two hundred and fifty years, it’s been our investment in the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson famously said, “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

During the pandemic, unfortunately ‘reason’ went on holiday, giving full reign to a motley cast of neurotic followers of the cult of Anthony Fauci and former president Joe Biden. Remember the Yeats-ian “passionate intensity” in their eyes when your neighbors yelled at you for not wearing a mask? What made them so sure the virus could be transmitted from person-to-person, in the open air?

In March 2021, an organization named the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which describes itself as a “UK/US non-profit that disrupts the spread of digital hate and misinformation,” teamed up with Anti-Vaxx Watch – “an alliance of concerned individuals who are seeking to educate the American public about the dangers of the anti-vax industry.”

The Disinformation Dozen was the love child of the CCDH and other groups. The men and women identified as the worst spreaders of disinformation were turned into modern-day lepers.

They should have been treated like saints.

Like the CCDH and others, the majority of our esteemed “fourth estate” quietly joined the censorship chorus. They routinely celebrated the CCDH and its leader, Imran Ahmed, on NPR, CBS, CNN. Just as quietly, they became part of the censorship industrial complex.

Former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy

The Biden administration fell in line, too. Led by former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the administration adopted what Psaki’s “covid misinformation” and called on social media companies to deplatform all members of the Disinformation Dozen.

Former White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki

President Biden, in a rare moment of rational thinking, called out Facebook and other social media entities for not censoring those who questioned vaccines by saying, “They are “killing people.”

Who was behind the CCDH?

It was and is funded in part by the UK Government and a group of private foundations, some connected to George Soros. During the rollout of the Covid vaccines, the UK and the U.S. governments worked together with CCDH to deplatform and censor anyone who questioned vaccine safety or the vast array of public health policies that were imposed on the American public.

All of the individuals tagged the “Disinformation Dozen” had the courage to question Covid vaccine mandates, mask requirements, social distancing, and other government Covid pandemic responses – and to post their concerns on social media platforms. For years, they were shut down. Now they can reclaim their voices.

And now we know these heavily censored people, who questioned Covid policies and vaccines, were right. There was no science behind masking, as Fauci grudgingly conceded. He also admitted that social distancing guidelines “just sort of appeared.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately threw out Biden’s employee vaccine mandates.

We now also know that Covid vaccines caused serious adverse events in young Americans – the population at the lowest risk from serious Covid.

The Disinformation Dozen warned about these issues but they were censored and deplatformed anyway.

HHS Secretary Kennedy pointed out that a new term was invented for legitimate concerns that he raised – “mal-information.” He noted that he was targeted by the Biden administration within the first forty-eight hours of the former president’s first and only term.

Enter MAHA.

MAHA emerged as a movement against establishment media, government censorship, and the draconian public policies of the medical-pharmacological-complex that galvanized during the pandemic.

As they resisted pervasive censorship, MAHA followers came to understand that most censorship fails. Instead of teaching the public about acceptable morals, it inspires people to search for ways to circumvent the rules, to want more free speech.

And that’s exactly what Secretary Kennedy and MAHA have achieved, outside the oppressive yoke of government censorship.