Welcome to the MAHA Media Hub, and welcome to the MAHA Revolution. I’m Tony Lyons, president of MAHA Action.

I want to start with last Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling for Bayer/Monsanto, because it’s a devastating blow to public health. By shielding the maker of Roundup from liability for failing to warn people, the Court put profits ahead of American families. John Durnell used Roundup for about 20 years and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A jury of ordinary Americans heard the evidence and held Monsanto accountable — and the Supreme Court just threw that verdict out. The message to families is: once Washington stamps a label “approved,” you get no say and no day in court. And here’s what’s hard to stomach: Monsanto could have warned people, and two justices said so plainly. This is the same company whose old “safety” study was retracted last year after it came out they’d helped ghostwrite it. And this isn’t left versus right: The dissent was written by Justice Jackson and joined by Justice Gorsuch, appointed by opposite parties. That’s corporate capture, plain and simple — exactly what this movement exists to end.

So hear me clearly: This isn’t the end of the fight, it’s the start of a bigger one. We’ll go to Congress and demand they restore every American’s right to hold these companies accountable — and the Senate, writing its Farm Bill right now, must not write this shield back in. We’ll push the EPA for an honest, independent review of glyphosate, built on real science, not studies paid for by the people selling the chemical. And we’ll take it to the ballot box, because this is why the midterms matter and why we need MAHA candidates elected. Monsanto has the money, the lawyers, and now a ruling from the Supreme Court. We have something stronger: millions of Americans tired of being told to sit down and accept a food system that’s making their kids sick. We will not be quiet. We will not back down. We will not stop. Thursday’s decision is a setback, not the final word — and together, we’re going to win.

Now, as hard as that ruling was, this same week also brought major victories for the MAHA movement — victories that show our message is breaking through and our priorities are moving forward.

President Trump signed an Executive Order directing HHS, USDA, and EPA to scale regenerative agriculture across America. That means strengthening farm resilience, rebuilding soil health, reducing input costs, improving profitability for farmers, expanding export markets, and supporting rural communities. That’s exactly the kind of long-term thinking we need if we’re serious about reducing our dependence on toxic chemicals while keeping American agriculture strong.

Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz announced tremendous progress on eliminating healthcare fraud, to the tune of 6.5 billion dollars. We also saw continued commitment to the STREETS initiative — expanding peer support, strengthening faith-based partnerships, and helping more Americans find lasting recovery from addiction.

We are bringing back the Presidential Fitness Test and reversing the failed Fauci-era policies that did so much damage to public health and public trust.

And just yesterday, Secretary Kennedy announced the end of the Covid-19 Emergency Use Authorization declarations. HHS made clear that the emergency authorities used during Covid are no longer justified. As Secretary Kennedy put it, Americans deserve a regulatory system that is transparent, accountable, and rooted in the rule of law — and emergency powers must be temporary and targeted. This is a major step toward restoring accountability, transparency, and trust in our health agencies.

And there’s more accountability ahead. After years of oversight efforts led by Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Anthony Fauci has finally been subpoenaed, and is expected to testify on July 29.

MAHA is making incredible progress, but we must not lose focus and get discouraged by setbacks, because the people and institutions pushing centralized control over health, food, agriculture, and public policy are still powerful. They are still organized. And they are still working to shape the future of this country in their perverse image, not one that serves the American people.

One of the clearest examples is Bill Gates.

Bill Gates represents a broader model of power: private wealth influencing public health, vaccine policy, food systems, farmland, synthetic meat, climate interventions, and global institutions, without any transparency or democratic accountability. During Covid, Gates became one of the most visible private figures promoting mass vaccination and restrictive policies. No unelected billionaire should have that much influence over public health decisions that affect millions of families.

Let’s be honest about what’s at stake. While this administration is rebuilding our food system by investing in regenerative agriculture and healthier farming practices, Bill Gates has consistently backed a very different vision—one centered on technological interventions, including genetically modified mosquitoes, solar geoengineering research, large-scale farmland acquisition, lab-grown meat, and synthetic food production. MAHA believes the future of health begins by restoring nature, not replacing it. These are not isolated issues. They are part of a larger fight over who controls our health, our food supply, our farms, our children’s future, and our freedom.

The MAHA movement stands for something very different. We stand for real food. We stand for regenerative agriculture. We stand for family farms. We stand for medical freedom. We stand for transparency, informed consent, and accountability. We stand for parents, children, farmers, workers, and communities. And we are proving that when people get organized, when they speak the truth, and when they refuse to back down, they can win.

So, yes, this was a great week for MAHA. But we cannot get complacent. We must stay vigilant. We must stay focused. And we must keep fighting.

Shop MAHA Merch

Since its inception, the MAHA movement has focused on the chronic disease epidemic caused by highly processed foods deficient in essential nutrients. Updating the nation’s food pyramid and fighting against using food additives were long overdue improvements to Americans’ nutrition, but procuring healthier food for the nation’s grocery stores, school cafeterias and hospitals also requires dramatic shifts in agricultural production methods.

On June 25, President Trump issued a broad executive order, Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience, to support that transition.

Tensions between organic farming methods and conventional, often chemical-dependent farming practices create friction between farming communities and consumer groups. Some activists demand clean, organic foods immediately, while others want affordable food and are not concerned about possible chemical residues. The president’s effort to reduce chemical contamination by supporting regenerative practices hit a nerve among the former group, who want the president to do more to eliminate chemical use.

One concern is with the use of the term “regenerative.” Large producers and corporations often co-opt labels such as “organic,” “GMO-free,” and “sustainable” by applying them to products or practices that are not beneficial. This weakens consumer trust, undercutting profitability for organic producers and rewarding bad actors.

However, many regenerative farming advocates applauded Trump’s executive order. Kelly Ryerson, of American Regeneration, stated, “The administration’s new mandate to prioritize resources and attention to regenerative agriculture is a refreshing and much-needed commitment to provide our struggling farmers with a viable offramp from the chemical treadmill that keeps them mired in debt.”

Ryerson continued, “HHS spotlighting the connection between soil health, farming practices, and human health is exactly the work that will expedite relief from our chronic disease epidemic.”

Most organic producers understand that, short of a purist agricultural system in which all farms are organic, large conventional farms must be incentivized to use fewer polluting methods where possible, which means implementing what can only be called “regenerative” practices. U.S. agriculture has been pressured to adopt industrial methodology and rapid consolidation for decades, resulting in a system that depletes soils, water resources, and nutrients.

Such methods include the production of a massive amount of genetically modified corn and soy every year, used in animal feed and fuel production. These crops are not transitioning to organic overnight, and rely on routine applications of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The June 25 executive order does not aim to convert all U.S. farmland to organic production rapidly, but rather to reduce the amount of chemicals used in existing industrial systems. Following decades of federal subsidies and regulations that pressured farmers to invest in chemical applications, the Trump administration is implementing unprecedented steps to reverse that trend.

The EO also specifically calls for research into the potential adverse health impacts of cumulative chemical residue exposures, the development of less toxic alternative chemical products to replace current agricultural chemicals, and a long-overdue study of the impacts of glyphosate and other chemicals used as pre-harvest desiccants. This information can serve as the foundation for future reductions in chemical applications to Americans’ food and ethanol supplies.

Announcing interagency plans to boost regenerative farming, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained: “The quality of our food begins with the way we grow it, and that’s why America’s farmers are essential partners to this mission. At HHS, … through the Advanced Research Projects for Health, we’re investing in new technologies that can reduce reliance on chemical crop protection tools while improving human health.”

Conventional farmers are learning that new technologies allow them to reduce (but not eliminate) expensive chemical applications while increasing yields using regenerative practices such as reduced tilling, cover cropping, rotational grazing, and intercropping. This is a dynamic shift in crop management that is less harmful to soils and uses fewer chemical inputs.

No, President Trump’s E.O does not convert the U.S. agricultural system to organic production, as many Americans wish the nation would do. Yet a major transition of that degree would send economic shocks throughout farming communities and into grocery store shelves. American farming shifted to chemical dependency over many decades; it will not revert to clean soils and zero chemicals overnight.

Some Americans abhor President Trump so greatly, or fantasize so forcefully that the U.S. farming system will transform overnight, that they fail to acknowledge that no president has ever done anything remotely like issue an executive order marshaling federal funds and agency resources to galvanize action to reduce chemical use and incentivize the nation’s crop farmers to use fewer chemicals in production. This is the most sensible and cost-effective way to begin reversing the folly of routinely dousing American farmland with chemicals whose effects are insufficiently studied and understood.

Improving soil health and reducing chemical exposures fits the MAHA policy agenda. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins praised America’s farmers, saying, “All the work on dietary guidelines, and better health in foods, and better health in America’s diets, all of the make America healthy again effort is about putting our farmers and ranchers and real food back at the center of what we’re doing here in Washington.”

Yes, the nation has a long way to go to learn how to better steward its soils. But new technologies permit aerial observation to reduce chemical applications and study soil health. Other advances can break down existing chemical pollution, develop less harmful alternatives, and educate farmers in how to apply these emerging technologies. The federal government is paying American farmers to learn and to change practices. These policies simultaneously boost rural farming economies, protect vital water supplies, and reduce soil erosion and chemical pollution.

As an organic farmer (and diner), I want to see America’s farming systems transition to holistic, healthy soil and land stewardship. But to do so, Americans must not view their crop farmers as villains to be vanquished, but as allies and neighbors to be recruited.

In my 2023 book, Small Farm Republic, I advocate for diverting some of the massive crop insurance and other federal subsidies to support regenerative practices. President Trump’s latest executive order takes meaningful steps in that direction – providing much-needed economic relief to farmers while incentivizing agricultural practices that help move the nation toward a cleaner environment and food supply.

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

All proceeds go to supporting the cause.

Shop MAHA Merch

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

All proceeds go to supporting the cause.

MAHA Merch Store

A core part of the antitrust division’s mission at DOJ, said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole Sarrine, is “to identify situations where illegal, anticompetitive conduct — such as conspiracies among companies to stop competing — has contributed to rising prices.”

According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, ground beef prices were $6.74 a pound in May, a 16% increase over last year and 40% more than five years ago, in 2021. In a forecast earlier this year, the USDA estimated that beef prices will rise by as much as 18% in 2026.

What’s causing that spike?

The Justice Department is using its new, America First approach to scrutinize foreign-owned beef companies operating in the United States. In May, the USDA and the DOJ said they are investigating foreign-owned beef companies for manipulative practices and potential antitrust violations, which they believe have contributed to driving up the price of ground beef for Americans.

Four meatpacking companies – Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS USA and National Beef Packing – control 85% of the U.S. beef market. Two of these – JBS and National Beef Packing – are subsidiaries of companies that are based in Brazil.

At the press conference in May with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and senior trade adviser Peter Navarro, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins referred to JBS and National Beef Packing as “a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.”

JBS is the largest beef producer in the U.S. and the nation’s second-largest producer of poultry and pork. Half of the company’s annual revenue comes from the U.S., where it employs more than 72,000 people.

The company’s U.S. headquarters are in Greeley, Colorado.

In 2022, JBS agreed to a $52.5 million settlement with grocery stores and wholesalers which alleged that JBS had worked with Tyson Foods and other companies to suppress the number of cattle slaughtered in order to increase beef prices.

At the May press conference, Rollins said that foreign ownership of meatpacking companies has been affiliated not just with corruption and cartels, but also slave labor.

Just days before, prosecutors in Brazil had filed a lawsuit against JBS, alleging that the company bought cattle from farms where workers were held in slavery-like conditions.

The civil action seeks around $24 million in American dollars – a number that prosecutors say reflects the value of transactions between JBS and suppliers.

According to the lawsuit, 53 workers were rescued between 2014 and 2025 from properties owned by seven ranchers that were the meatpacking company’s suppliers.

Prosecutors said that the ranchers were listed in Brazil’s public registry of companies that were found to have subjected workers to conditions that are similar to slavery.

Peter Navarro said foreign ownership of beef production, along with a historically tight cattle supply and the dominance of the meatpacking industry by the four large companies, has driven up the cost of beef for all Americans. These foreign companies are accused of collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation.

Consolidation across the meatpacking sector has narrowed marketing options for ranchers, Rollins explained.

“It weakens their negotiating power, and it risks reliance on a single buyer,” Rollins said. “Today, the concentration of larger plants opens the door to tighter coordination by the ‘Big Four’ with producers. As ranchers face fewer options for selling their animals, the ‘Big Four’ grow stronger and stronger.”

Disruptions in highly concentrated markets can have widespread impacts, Rollins added.

“When just four firms control a market, suppliers and food prices are rocked heavily when disruptions occur,” Rollins said. “The last few years have proven that the protein sector, especially, and therefore our food security, is especially at risk when global pandemics, animal disease outbreaks and facility issues like fires, labor disputes, foodborne illnesses and cybersecurity attacks occur.”

“More U.S.-owned packers in more American regions of the country provides more opportunities for our ranchers and stronger food security for our country,” she added.

Rollins linked the probe to a broader food-security concern, explaining that the U.S. has lost more than 17% of its cattle ranchers over the last decade, a total that includes more than 100,000 ranches.

“Growing the herd size is an immediate problem in need of solutions, and we’ve already begun implementing across the government and into the states how we’re going to solve for that,” Rollins said.

“Droughts, wildfire, overregulation from previous administrations and volatile markets,” have contributed to the current cattle herd size, Rollins pointed out.

Navarro was also critical of the political spending of the foreign beef companies in the U.S., saying JBS “hands out millions of dollars to our American political system like it’s candy.”

“And the rate of return they get on that would make a Wall Street hedge fund blush, and we have got to put a stop to that,” he added.

The investigation into the foreign-owned beef companies was prompted by President Donald Trump’s Nov. 7, 2025 executive order directing the DOJ to launch a probe into the nation’s largest meat packing companies. It referred in particular to “foreign-dominated conglomerates” that have been engaged in “artificially inflating prices at the expense of farmers, ranchers, and working families.”

The order was announced weeks after the DOJ concluded a multi-year investigation into major meatpackers that started during Trump’s first term.

Since November, the DOJ has reviewed more than 3 million documents and interviewed hundreds of people, including ranchers, cattlemen, producers and processors. R-CALF USA, a cattle producer advocacy group, praised the efforts by the DOJ, USDA, and White House.

Shad Sullivan, a cattle rancher who is also the organization’s property rights chair, said that the U.S. has lost more than 665,000 beef cattle operations since 1980, a figure that represents almost half of all producers. He attributed the decline to mergers and acquisitions, and the escalating influence of foreign meat conglomerates.

“Farmers, ranchers, and American consumers have suffered for too long at the hands of consolidated power,” Sullivan said.

Earlier this year, HHS and the USDA announced the launch of a national public awareness campaign that reminds farmers and ranchers of the “Product of USA” voluntary labeling standard that went into effect on Jan. 1.

For years, such a label did not mean what consumers thought it meant. Beef could be raised in another country, shipped to the U.S. as a carcass, cut or ground in America, and legally labeled a product of the U.S. because value was added through processing.

Consumers thought they were supporting U.S. ranchers when in actuality they were bolstering U.S.-based processing plants, many of which are owned by foreign interests.

Ground beef found in grocery stores can contain meat from multiple continents mixed together in a single package.

The “Product of USA” label is now reserved for meat, poultry, and eggs from animals that were born, raised, harvested, and processed in the U.S.

It is a voluntary program. Companies are not required to use the label. But if they do, they must meet the full standard. Beef from foreign countries cannot be sold in stores with a “Product of USA” label on it.

The issue of foreign ownership of American food companies has been an increasing concern in recent years, and last made headlines in 2014 when a Chinese company acquired Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the U.S. and also the world.

But now, for the first time, an administration is determined to take action.

President Trump’s executive order referred to the companies as “foreign-owned meatpacking cartels” —and Rollins has called the Brazilian-owned companies, JBS and National Beef, “a threat to America itself.”

With Rollins leading the charge, the government is taking that threat seriously.

If you’d like to support the MAHA Report and the MAHA movement

shop our merch store. All proceeds go to supporting the cause.

MAHA Merch Store

On June 29, a new federal advisory committee will hold a first public meeting in Washington. Its work could reshape how the administration combats one of the swiftest-growing health threats in the United States: Parkinson’s Disease (PD).

Worldwide, PD is the fastest-growing neurological disease and in America roughly 1.3 million people live with it, while doctors diagnose some 90,000 new cases each yeear. Moreover, the condition is difficult to diagnose; true numbers may be higher.

In July 2024, the Biden administration created The Advisory Council on Parkinson’s Research, Care, and Services and a National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Biden signed into law. It is the first federal law dedicated to preventing, diagnosing, treating, and curing the disease.

The act is named for Dr. Emmanuel Bilirakis, a physician who lived with Parkinson’s for years, and former Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who championed the bill after her own diagnosis with a related disorder.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appointed new experts to the council in April, including Dr. Stephanie Haridopolos, who also currently serves as director of National Health Communications for the Office of the Surgeon General and acting Surgeon General.

The new council’s approach to Parkinson’s will be different from that of its Biden-era predecessor.

On June 10, Haridopolos joined The MAHA ‘Media Hub,” MAHA Action’s weekly podcast hosted by Tony Lyons. Noting that only about 13% of today’s Parkinson’s cases are genetic, Haridopolos said her focus will be on prevention and environmental exposure, to better understand what’s driving the PD spike.

“That means overwhelmingly 87% are due to multifactorial, mostly environmental toxins,” Haridopolos said during the podcast.

Beginning on June 29, she’ll join other members of the advisory committee including representatives from the FDA, CDC and EPA, and private citizens such as patients, doctors, researchers, and representatives of advocacy organizations.

Haridopolos points to questions the country has been slow to ask. Why is Parkinson’s appearing in more people at younger ages? And why do American veterans seem to face a higher incidence than the general public? The answers may lie in the toxic chemical exposures of 21st Century American life and military service. As has been well documented, pesticides, industrial solvents and other chemicals damage the brain over time.

The Chemicals Under Scrutiny

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) lists pesticide exposure as a major risk factor for Parkinson’s, and a growing body of research has tied specific chemicals to the destruction of dopamine-producing neurons in the brain. These chemicals are created to kill weeds, insects, and pests by attacking their nervous systems. Even at chronic low doses, there is cumulative damage to the human brain as well.

Paraquat sits at the center of the concern for researchers studying Parkinson’s. This fast-acting weed killer is sprayed on grains, almonds, strawberries, grapes, apples, and many common crops, with 11 to 17 million pounds used across American farmland each year. More than 70 other countries, including China and the entire European Union, have banned it.

Of any substance studied, Paraquat has one of the strongest links to Parkinson’s. This potent chemical triggers the oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage that destroy dopamine-producing neurons, the cells lost in PD. One study found that heavy exposure raises Parkinson’s risk by 150 percent. Case in point: In rural farming regions in Nebraska, Parkinson’s rates run two to four times higher than in the city of Omaha.

There are other problematic chemicals including Trichloroethylene, or TCE, an industrial solvent once used to degrease metal in factories, clean machinery on military bases, and dry-clean clothes. For decades it was dumped with little oversight, seeping into the soil and down into the drinking water of homes, schools, and whole towns. It is now linked to a sharply higher risk of Parkinson’s, often decades after exposure.

Rotenone, another pesticide, directly kills dopamine neurons in laboratory studies. And glyphosate, the most widely used weed killer in the world, is now detectable in most Americans’ bodies and has been tied to the same oxidative stress that drives neurodegeneration.

In May, Vermont became the first state in the nation to ban paraquat, when Governor Phil Scott signed the bipartisan legislation into law. The ban takes effect November 1.

At least a dozen other states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington, have introduced similar measures. In April, the House approved an agriculture bill with an amendment allowing people to sue pesticide manufacturers whose products cause harm.

A Different Way of Looking at Cause

Haridopolos describes her approach through a field called exposomics, the study of how a person’s total environmental exposures, including diet, lifestyle, chemical pollutants and social factors, interact with their genetics across a lifetime. The list of suspected triggers is long, from pesticides and dry-cleaning chemicals to living near Superfund sites, head trauma, and air pollution.

She also introduced a word to define the debate ahead: agnotology, the deliberate production of ignorant information, often for commercial gain. Industries have practiced it for decades, she said, to obscure the harms of their products.

“There is nature and there is nurture,” Haridopolos said, “but the benefit of the doubt should go to the people and not to the chemical.” Such an approach would require chemicals to be proven safe before they enter the environment, rather than forcing scientists, regulators, and policymakers to prove harm only after a product is on the market and inside millions of bodies.

The Shift Toward Prevention

MAHA has long argued that chemicals should be proven safe before they reach the market, not after the damage is already done. Our nation’s chronic disease crisis cannot be fixed with doctors and pharmaceuticals. It must be confronted upstream, in the food, water, soil, and air that shape the nation’s health long before symptoms appear.

A federal council that treats Parkinson’s as a preventable disease, rather than an unlucky roll of the genetic dice, marks a meaningful shift. The council’s real test is whether it names the chemicals at the root of the Parkinson’s epidemic, and whether it takes strong action to remove them from our food, water, and soil.

Millions of Americans are waiting to find out.

Related Stories:

Breaking: Vermont Becomes First State to Ban Paraquat

The Radical Message Behind the Book The Parkinson’s Plan: “We Have a Chance to Get Rid of This Disease”

Why Every American Must Resist the Chemical Liability Shield

She delivered this news in a video.

Gabbard acknowledged that some of these biolabs were, from all available evidence, conducting dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) experiments on viruses to enhance their pathogenic potential. In other words, tinkering with how to make the viruses more dangerous to humans.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, re-posted Gabbard’s statement on X, writing: “Thank you, @DNIGabbard, for exposing U.S. funded biolabs around the world. The American people deserve the truth.”

Of major American news organizations, only the New York Post, Fox News, One America News and NewsMax covered this bombshell story. Most legacy media organizations, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, PBS and the three broadcast networks all ignored it.

In her announcement, Gabbard pulled no punches and laid responsibility for the biolab funding on the doorstep of the former (and now pre-emptively pardoned) director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Thanks to Gabbard, we now know there are U.S.-funded biolabs in foreign countries where security is, at best, questionable. About 40 of the labs, for instance, are in Ukraine – some of them in war zones. The Russians may have already captured a lab or two.

One errant missile, one drone with a damaged propeller, one misfired bazooka, could unleash a deadly virus that Fauci paid some non-vetted foreign vaccinologist and/ or virologist handsomely to gin up into a supervirus that could kill millions.

This would simply add more bodies to Fauci’s already impressive body count and his broader resume of atrocities.

Gabbard noted that the fact of Fauci-funded foreign biolabs emerged years ago and was denied by the Biden administration which attacked, vilified, and censored those who raised the issue, as Kennedy did in his 2023 book, The Wuhan Cover-Up.

Senator Rand Paul also questioned why America is funding of foreign biolabs, in his book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up.

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, author of the 2025 book Redfield’s Warning, told listeners during the June 10 MAHA Media Hub that the public needs to be more informed about government-funded biolabs conducting dangerous biological research. Redfield recounted the recent arrest of two scientists, reportedly funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who smuggled deactivated mpox virus in their luggage on a flight into Michigan.

“We need to take bio-security really seriously,” said Redfield.

Case in point: the two scientists Redfield mentioned – Vincent Munster, a citizen of the Netherlands, and Claude Kwe of Cameroon – flew to the States on a packed commercial plane from the Congo. Somehow they managed to board the plane carrying dangerous pathogens. These two researchers, from the NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana, were focused on studying emerging viral pathogens and how they “cross the species barrier.” What were they doing with such material on a commercial flight? “This is very disturbing to me,” Redford said.

All such insanity is part of the world Anthony Fauci, and other members of the vaccinology cult, have left us with. Secret biological research supposedly undertaken to create future vaccines that will be, in theory, safe and effective against the viruses that Fauci and his fellow ghouls manipulated into mega-killers.

Vaccinology and virology, under the Fauci ethos, have become the wild wild west of biological research.

People should be outraged. There should be public demand for heads on stakes, for exposing the nation and the planet to such great risk.

And where’s the outrage in the press? That most of the legacy media decided this story wasn’t worth covering is almost as shocking as the biolabs news itself.

But there are reasons why The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNOW haven’t covered Gabbard’s biolabs disclosure. Because they support this insanity. Because their Big Pharma backers benefit from Fauci’s legacy. And because all of this government-funded research – corporate welfare really – provides the pharmaceutical industry with free research that allows them to reduce their vaccine development costs.

And as Kennedy informed us in The Wuhan Cover-Up, virology and vaccinology research doubles as bioweapons research.

To most of the sane world, surreptitiously creating bioweapons in labs speckled across the globe is a huge deal. But the legacy media has ‘bigger’ fish to fry: trying to take down Secretary Kennedy, one well placed hit piece after another. Why should the so-called Fourth Estate worry itself with exposing the truth?

Covid may have taught legacy media nothing but it has taught us to see how useless the once storied guardians of ‘truth’ have become – how far they have fallen from such aspirational mottos as “All the News That’s Fit to Print” (NYT) and “Democracy Dies in Darkness” (WashPo).

Part of the explanation is that fear can drive behavior. People conformed even when they privately conceded that many of the pandemic protocols did not make sense.

Another part of the explanation is that many in our society have, over the course of several decades, traded freedom for security, or perhaps the illusion of security.

One of those who questioned the rigid, institutional, legacy media narrative was Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He did so in three books released during the Covid Era – The Real Anthony Fauci, Vax Un-Vax, and The Wuhan Cover-Up – and, as a result, was placed on the “Disinformation Dozen” list, which later would become a badge for those among us who had the courage to ask the tough questions.

Although Kennedy was censored and vilified, hours of congressional testimony now show that he was right about the pandemic’s lab-leak origins and right about the corruption and corporate capture that ‘America’s Doctor’ Anthony Fauci allowed to metastasize in the nation’s public health agencies. And his compilation of science in Vax Un-Vax strengthens his argument that important science has been withheld from the public.

For those of us still trying to understand the Covid pandemic and the catastrophic public health response to it in the United States, these three books are essential reading. And now, increasingly, news reports confirm what Kennedy, a leading voice of dissent, was saying all along.

In The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and The War on American Democracy and Public Health, published by Skyhorse in November of 2021, Kennedy challenged the unchallenged legacy media claim that Fauci was modern medicine’s messiah.

With journalistic precision, Kennedy reveals that Fauci was a false messiah, and tells the story of how he became the most powerful non-elected government official since J. Edgar Hoover.

As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci doled out billions in taxpayer dollars that allowed him to dictate the subject, content, and outcome of scientific health research around the globe.

In the book, which became a national bestseller despite efforts to suppress it, Kennedy lays out how Fauci used his financial muscle to exercise extraordinary influence over public health, universities, journals, and vast swaths of the medical community.

I warn you, The Real Anthony Fauci is not a light read. There are parts of the book that will stay with you for years to come.

Kennedy offers the cold, hard facts and asks the reader to make their own determination about why a man, who was portrayed in the legacy media as a saint, did the dark things he did.

Fauci launched his career during the early AIDS crisis. He partnered with Big Pharma to sabotage safe and effective treatments for the virus and then orchestrated fraudulent studies, pressuring FDA regulators to approve a deadly chemotherapy treatment called AZT that he knew to be ineffective against AIDS.

Fauci repeatedly violated federal laws to allow his pharma partners to use impoverished and dark-skinned children in deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.

In the year 2000, he partnered with Bill Gates to control an increasingly profitable $60 billion global vaccine enterprise. The Big Pharma-Fauci-Gates alliance hijacked global vaccine policies; it was corporate capture on steroids, with mechanisms in place to ruthlessly censor dissent.

In Vax-Unvax - Let the Science Speak, published by Skyhorse in late August of 2023, Kennedy and co-author Brian Hooker draw the attention of the reader to over 100 studies in peer-reviewed literature that looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

Kennedy and Hooker analyze the results of the studies and reveal, in no uncertain terms, that vaccines, while they may have benefits, also have risks that need to be considered and weren’t.

Vax-Unvax exposes how the public health messaging that all vaccines “are safe and effective” begins to crumble. Kennedy asks: “What do studies say about the health outcomes of people who are vaccinated compared to people who didn’t get vaccinated?”

One would think that the CDC would know the answer. But surprise, surprise: The CDC did not ask that question.

Readers will find valuable information on the infant/child vaccination schedule, mercury in vaccines, live virus vaccines, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, the connection between vaccination and Gulf War Syndrome, influenza (flu) vaccines, Hepatitis B vaccination, Covid-19 vaccines, and the use of vaccines during pregnancy.

This book is essential reading for those who want to make informed choices for themselves and their families.

Finally, in The Wuhan Cover-Up And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race, published by Skyhorse (in conjunction with Children’s Health Defense) in December 2023, Kennedy exposes the cover-up of the origins of the Covid-19. He describes how “gain-of-function” (GOF) experiments often develop highly virulent, easily transmissible pathogens. The stated purpose was and still is the development of preemptive vaccines for animal viruses before they jump to humans. But Kennedy shows us that there is an insidious “dual use” aspect of this research.

GOF vaccine development research often doubles for bioweapons development.

As Kennedy relates in the book, after the 2001 terror attacks, Fauci transformed NIAID into a de facto national defense agency. He pursued GOF research with such zeal that many scientists grew concerned about the possibility that some of the lab-altered viruses might escape and trigger a worldwide pandemic.

Eventually, one did, from The Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In 2014, President Barack Obama issued a moratorium on GOF research. However, as he always did, Fauci found a way to do what he wanted to do and outsourced some of the most controversial experiments to the Wuhan Institute in China, a lab under the control of the Chinese military and the Chinese Communist Party.

Fauci undermined and betrayed President Obama’s moratorium.

Once again, Kennedy’s meticulously researched and rigorously sourced analysis tells the story of vaccinologists’ push for GOF research. It explains the economic motives driving that research, the engineered “chimeric viruses” created, and the Fauci-led effort to silence speculation of Covid-19’s laboratory origins. Moreover, Kennedy asserts that Bill Gates and Sir Jeremy Farrar participated in a global cover-up.

All three Skyhorse books mark Kennedy’s place in the historical record of the Covid era. The public health establishment got it wrong; Kennedy got it right.

Today, the majority of Americans believe that the pandemic started as a result of GOF experiments that Fauci funded and then could not control. The majority of Americans no longer have a rosy image of Fauci. If he was really beyond reproach, why would former president Biden have given him a pardon?

Half the country now believes vaccines should be better tested and Kennedy is now HHS ‘Secretary’ Kennedy, furthering the work that went into his three prescient, covid-era books.

The legacy media hit pieces against Kennedy keep coming even as the secretary and his team rack up one ‘win’ after another – fighting for a more just and transparent government and country, one in which the public can make informed choices.

The answer to the first question is ‘yes’; to the second, a definitive ‘no.’ Polls are used to identify voter issues and to formulate policy positions. Most political polling never ends up being seen by the public. But politicians, elected officials, policy makers and influencers regularly use polls to plan political strategy.

That is exactly what MAHA co-founder Tony Lyons explained to science journalist Maryanne DeMasi on Sunday.

“We did the polling as part of our midterm strategy and we used the data when we felt it would have the greatest impact,” Lyons said, referring to MAHA Action’s strategy memo released in February 2026.

DeMasi, an Australian blogger, noted that the poll was not kept “secret,” but formed part of MAHA Action’s broader political strategy months later.

In February, legacy media outlets such as The New York Times (“Eyeing the Midterms, Kennedy Pivots Toward Food and Away From Vaccines”) claimed that polling showed that vaccine reform was a losing issue for Republicans (and MAHA) in the midterms.

By now, our readers understand that the Times actively defends the entrenched public health expert class that delivered Americans the most bloated, un-necessary childhood vaccine schedule on the planet. It’s therefore no surprise that the Times played up their pro-vaccine establishment narrative instead of presenting a balanced view of what the public may actually be thinking about vaccines in the post-Covid world.

What is the analysis of MAHA Action polling and research? This MAHA Midterm Strategy Memo lays out what we think.

It looks like MAHA Action’s broader political strategy has borne fruit and that President Trump agrees with the analysis.

On Friday, the president issued a new Executive Order entitled, Realigning United States Core Childhood Vaccine Recommendations with Best Practices from Peer, Developed Countries.

In this EO, President Trump notes that a scientific assessment found that “the United States currently recommends more childhood vaccines than any peer nation, including more than twice as many vaccine doses as some European nations.”

The EO further identifies a set of “consensus vaccines that are consistently recommended in all peer countries” and that “instead of implementing vaccination mandates, most peer nations maintain high childhood vaccination rates through public trust and education.”

President Trump envisions a childhood vaccination schedule where mandates are removed, and Big Pharma has to demonstrate evidence of the safety and effectiveness of their products to Americans.

Nowhere in the EO does the president say that he will deny people access to vaccines. Pharma-philes can continue to blast their bodies with vaccines until the cows come home.

However, those of us who question vaccine safety will be allowed to see the actual science that shows these biologics are truly safe and effective.

As Dr. Robert Malone noted in his recent substack article, The Executive Order That May Change the Vaccine Debate Forever, that President Trump’s EO is more than just about vaccines.

Malone explains that the EO places the Advisory Commission on Immunization Practices (ACIP) back into the role of advisers not decision makers. Instead, executive branch officials, appointed by an elected president, will now make decisions on vaccines and be accountable for them.

Under previous administrations, ACIP became an industry captured rubber stamp committee run by unelected, unaccountable vaccinology ‘experts.’

The Times and the rest of the pro-Big Pharma legacy outlets are not going to like the wet towel with which President Trump just smacked their arses.

As of this writing, the Times has remained silent on the EO, but I expect an attack is in the works. I guess it takes time to pull old guard public health experts off of America’s golf courses and members of American Academy of Pediatrics away from their weekend martinis.

For now, it’s clear from the president’s Executive Order that vaccine reform and the rest of the MAHA agenda are vital elements of a winning formula for the midterms.

Health & Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said he strongly supports the EPA’s new tack. “I’ve read a couple of articles in the corporate media that suggest that EPA is trying to roll back PFAS regulations. It’s not true. I’ve met repeatedly with Lee and his staff and they’re completely committed to end the exposures in a way that’s legal and practical.”

Kennedy continued, “As Lee pointed out, the Biden administration passed a [regulation] very hastily in which they ignored a Clean Water Act mandate for a public comment period . . . I can tell you, that was a fatal flaw.”

The HHS Secretary added that the Biden regulation wouldn’t withstand a court challenge and would be thrown out. “We’re doing it in a way that maintains the … maximum contaminant Safe Drinking Act levels, and gives maximum protection as quickly as possible for the American public.”

Despite widespread criticism from the legacy media and many in the MAHA base, I agree with Secretary Kennedy: the recent EPA policy shift signals an acceleration of PFAS cleanup, not a dangerous step backward.

Here’s why: “PFAS” is a catch-all term for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large group of chemicals characterized by carbon-fluorine bonding, creating resilient substances that resist heat, oil, and water. (Their capacity to persist in the environment, including by accumulating in the human body, has earned them the nickname “forever chemicals”) Ironically, these fluorochemicals were developed by scientists for the Manhattan Project. Later applications led to Teflon frying pans and numerous other uses, including in food packaging, dental floss, and fire retardants. PFAS are now ubiquitous and present in most humans’ bodies.

Corporations, including 3M, scandalously covered up the known dangers of PFAS to human health, causing decades of delay in remediation. As with all potentially toxic or harmful substances, it is generally much harder to clean them up once released into the ecosystem than to prevent their generation at inception. Meanwhile, many important U.S. industries have become dependent on the molecular properties of PFAS for various manufacturing applications.

It is now well-known that PFAS inflict a myriad of health harms on humans, including undermining immune system function. Some 15,000 PFAS have been identified: the recent EPA rules for drinking water govern merely six.

There are regulatory and logistical parallels between the recent PFAS decision and the desire by supporters of the MAHA agenda to eliminate glyphosate and other herbicides. It isn’t as easy as snapping fingers or voting for Kennedy. Nor is it as simple as reversing the industrial capture of regulatory agencies. The EPA has laws to follow, and can’t unilaterally ignore them.

This is especially true since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which pared back administrative discretion to implement broad regulations unauthorized by Congress. EPA Administrator Zeldin’s awareness of this new constraint was on display during a feisty congressional sparring with Connecticut’s Democrat Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Loper Bright requires federal agencies, including the EPA, to comply closely with federal law.

But the conflicts over eliminating glyphosate and PFAS are different in a number of key respects. The EPA has previously determined that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the battle lines there are driven by the pursuit of scientific evidence demonstrating its carcinogenicity or other health harms. However, the EPA completely agrees that PFAS are harmful and must be closely regulated.

In a May 18 press release announcing the PFAS policy shift relating to drinking water, Administrator Zeldin stated that the EPA is “taking on PFAS the right way,” including “action to stop PFAS pollution at the source before it ever reaches a tap.” But Zeldin, like Kennedy, has identified failures in statutory compliance in past EPA regulations that expose the agency to legal challenges he seeks to foreclose.

Detractors focused on the ideal outcome – the elimination of all PFAS from drinking water – but ignored the pragmatic hurdles that EPA must address. These include compliance with federal law, identifying the evolving technologies that can effectively extricate PFAS from drinking water, and providing funding support for communities to implement remediation efforts. This is where idealism collides with pragmatism.

For example, one accomplished toxicologist identified by The New York Times as a MAHA activist, alleged that Zeldin is “laser-focused on eliminating regulations” and asked, “Why not defend this rule in court and see what the judge thinks?” Her good intentions collide with legal and economic realities: if Zeldin waits and a court strikes down the current scheme, effective remediation could be set back years. Instead, Zeldin has announced two proposed rules to remedy legal deficiencies and prioritize effective implementation: he is not eliminating PFAS drinking water regulations; he is “laser-focused” on repairing their clear failings.

I’ve seen the rabid diatribes denouncing the EPA’s decision, and most mischaracterize the consequences of the new rules, claiming the EPA is blocking water clean-up. But as I wrote in a commentary two years ago, the Biden era rules foisted most of the clean-up costs for PFAS onto the communities most harmed. It also seemed oblivious to the lack of effective available technologies to extricate these chemicals from water supplies.

The Biden administration implemented rules to regulate six PFAS in drinking water. In its recent proposed revisions of EPA regulations, the EPA announced two rules to improve the effort. The first governs PFOA and PFOS, extending the compliance deadline by up to two years for entities struggling to implement cleanup technologies, while holding other waterworks to the current timeline. This sensible approach acknowledged the funding and technological hurdles ignored by the previous rule, and addresses both.

The second proposed rule applies to the other four PFAS targeted by the Biden EPA, but pauses implementation to cure for a failed Biden-EPA process that violated the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The agency has already been sued for failing to comply with the SDWA, including a failure to solicit public comments. The proposed new rule will relaunch the evaluation of these PFAS while complying with the Act. As the EPA notes in its press release, this will allow recent research on these PFAS to be scrutinized and could lead to “more stringent requirements” for them. The process will provide industry with greater predictability, the public with a legally required comment period, and shield the EPA from obvious, process-based legal challenges.

This is a quick fix, much preferable to defending an indefensible rule in court and having it thrown out months or years from now.

Activists love to attack the EPA, but let’s examine what the EPA is doing well regarding PFAS in drinking water. For one thing, the agency is focusing on source policing to prevent release. For another, it has identified a logjam of federal funding for PFAS clean-up at the state administrative level.

The agency also launched its “PFAS OUT [reach]” program, designed to provide technical advice to struggling rural communities and ensure they have access to funding. As EPA notes, “The EPA is committed to ensuring this grant funding reaches small and disadvantaged systems that face unique challenges.” The EPA has also streamlined its periodic review of available proven remediation technologies through the PFAS Destruction & Removal Guidance, which will now issue guidance annually rather than every three years.

Perhaps most importantly, the Trump administration’s EPA is substantially boosting the real-world impact of federal financial support for affected water systems to implement required interventions. Billions of additional PFAS remediation dollars are now being provided through the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities (ECSDC) Grant Program, $1.6 billion in Drinking Water State Revolving Funds specifically allocated to PFAS, and $7 billion in low-interest financing through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA).

Prior Biden administration efforts also provided funding, but failed to follow through to ensure that federal dollars got to water systems that have been left holding the bag for PFAS cleanup. This essentially created unfunded mandates – imposing cleanup requirements on marginalized communities instead of the corporations that emitted the pollution. This was hardly equitable. As EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has previously announced, “We believe at the EPA under President Trump that we should be adopting a polluter pays model for cleaning up PFAS.”

Rushing regulations, pushing taxpayer dollars out the door without oversight, and ignoring what’s happening on the ground is a progressive policy initiative. Improving outreach, research, and funding also reduces overall compliance costs, which some sources estimate could exceed $100 billion for PFAS in drinking water. Imposing these costs on the communities most harmed by PFAS pollution was unconscionable.

Contrary to the doom-and-gloom cacophony of complaints that the EPA is somehow abandoning its oversight of PFAS in drinking water, the opposite is demonstrably the case. The EPA is advancing remediation funding, technical support, and advice to municipalities, and has expanded its own research arm, which studies both PFAS detection and elimination technologies. This is an all-out assault on currently identified PFAS and a blueprint for addressing the thousands of others yet to be evaluated.

As Jessica Kramer, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, explained to the MAHA Report, “We are going to follow the law in our rulemakings, follow the science in our rulemakings, get this new money out the door, but we are also gonna make sure that the money that is already out the doors is gonna get to the communities that need it because no amount of additional money matters if you can’t get the money out of the door.”

This is why the EPA’s press release framed the joint announcement of the plan with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a “PFAS destruction event.”

There is no quick fix for forever chemicals.

Secretary Kennedy and the EPA have not sold out to Big Chem. On the contrary, the MAHA movement is having a profound impact on the EPA and other regulatory agencies. No, they can’t deliver all the desired goods overnight. But they are listening, and working hard to earn public trust and navigate a complex labyrinth of technocratic rules.

Indeed, this very dispute serves to educate even more Americans about the dangers of PFAS. Much like food dyes, critics must explain: Why wasn’t this done decades ago? But here’s the thing – it’s being done now.

For their part, MAHA supporters would do well to look past the legacy media attack machine and consider the regulatory obstacles the EPA faces. They would also do well to think of the long game and remain trusting and committed to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the movement he continues to inspire.

This is not isolated abuse. It exposes the dark side of America’s animal research pipeline, annually involving tens of thousands of dogs. The ongoing research also involves a taxpayer-supported network of federal grants, breeding facilities, university labs and research organizations that continues to breed animals for experiments, confine them in cages, subject them to painful procedures, and kill them when the work is done.

The beagles are central because their gentle, trusting temperament makes the cruelty impossible to ignore. Federally funded experiments have involved dogs bred to be blind, nerve-damage procedures, paralysis research, radioactive exposure, forced drug testing, insect infestation studies, and euthanasia rather than adoption.

Lauree Simmons, executive director of Big Dog Ranch Rescue (BDRR) and recent guest on MAHA Action’s weekly Media Hub (which, on May 20, focused on animal cruelty), has seen what happens to beagles bred for research. Her organization brought national attention to the industry through the Ridglan Farms rescue, where 1,500 beagles were released from a Wisconsin research facility through an agreement involving BDRR and the Center for a Humane Economy. Simmons told the Associated Press the rescue was “a very big win,” and said she was “ecstatic” to see the dogs being adopted. The AP reported that Ridglan Farms had roughly 2,000 beagles, and that BDRR was working to place about 1,000 dogs into homes.

But rescue is not reform. While BDRR has saved over 90,000 dogs since 2008, Simmons emphasizes that rescue alone cannot end a system that continues breeding dogs and other animals for research. These animals deserve to be treated far better than being part of disposable research inventory.

The scientific case against animal testing is becoming even harder to dismiss. In April 2026, the FDA acknowledged the weakness of the decades-old animal-testing model, stating that animals are “not a great model” for how drugs perform in humans. The agency even admitted that 90-95% of the drugs tested on animals fail FDA approval, because of safety or efficacy problems in humans, and that they are reducing animal testing.

Jordana Cohen of Big Dog Ranch Rescue has pointed to the same failure across major disease categories, including Alzheimer’s and cancer, where animal models fail to translate into human treatments. Patients wait longer for therapies, researchers lose years, and taxpayers continue funding a system that has produced little to no success for too much suffering.

Dr. Robert Malone, a physician-scientist known for his work on medical freedom and informed consent, and author of PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order, has described the beagle experiments as part of a widespread failure of institutional accountability.

Speaking at the same May 20 MAHA Action Media Hub as Simmons and Cohen, Malone pointed to an NIAID-funded case from Fauci’s tenure, exposed by advocacy group White Coat Waste Project, involving 44 beagle puppies. The puppies had their vocal cords slit in a cordectomy procedure before being force-fed experimental drugs, killed, and dissected, using nearly $1.7 million in taxpayer funds.

Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina has made this issue a matter of legislation and taxpayer accountability. In July 2025, she reintroduced the Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act, which prohibits NIH from conducting or funding research that causes significant pain or distress to dogs and cats.

“This isn’t just animal cruelty, it’s bureaucratic cruelty, paid for by the American taxpayer,” Mace said. She has also pushed Violet’s Law, which would require federal labs to allow healthy research animals to be adopted or retired instead of killed when research ends.

The money trail matters, too. White Coat Waste Project estimates that the federal government spends over $20 billion a year on animal experiments across agencies including NIH, FDA, DoD, VA, USDA, CDC, and EPA, a figure highlighted during a February 2025 House Oversight hearing on taxpayer-funded animal cruelty. USDA/APHIS data released in July 2025 show that U.S. research facilities reported 42,880 dogs used or held for research in 2024, including more than 12,500 used in experiments involving pain or distress and 410 whose pain was not minimized.

Painful animal experimentation is a business model for universities, contractors, breeding facilities, and research institutions that depend on federal grants. Once budgets, careers, and prestige attach to a research model, even a failing model can survive for decades.

Under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Health and Human Services, federal agencies are finally beginning to move. Kennedy has come out strongly against animal testing, and recently said he wants dog testing to become a thing of the past.

Change can’t happen overnight, but The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 removed the old requirement that drug developers use animal testing and opened the door to alternatives such as cell-based assays, computer models, and organ chips. FDA has also announced plans to reduce, refine, or replace animal-testing requirements for certain drugs using New Approach Methodologies, including AI-based toxicity models, human cell systems, organoids, and computational tools.

NIH has announced ORIVA, the Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application, to help develop and scale non-animal testing methods, while naming Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer, a longtime leader in the field, to a senior role overseeing program coordination, planning, and strategic initiatives.

This is the reform MAHA was built to demand: better science, less cruelty, less waste, and real accountability. Beagles, like humans, deserve fresh air, sunlight, safety, and the love of a family, not a lifetime in a research lab.

Instead, Marks falsely promoted the vaccines as safe and effective in a series of Just a Minute! YouTube videos.

Marks left CBER after Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took over HHS last February. Following his exit, he went on a legacy media tour blasting Kennedy over his handling of measles cases in Texas.

Here at The MAHA Report, in prior articles we called out Marks for his dangerous decisions around Covid vaccines. Today, no surprise, he works for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. People who were injured by Covid vaccines, principally members of React 19, met with Marks repeatedly to report their injuries. Marks disregarded their testimony as detailed inThe Highwire.

Marks was directly informed about the devastating injuries people who took the recklessly approved jabs were suffering. Still, he rammed through the mRNA approval despite objections and concerns of two of CBER’s senior scientists who were assigned to evaluate Covid vaccines for licensure – Dr Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause. The two were under pressure from Marks to quickly approve Covid vaccines so that they could be licensed for approval – and then mandated by states as quickly as possible.

In testimony before congressman James Comer (R-KY 1^st District), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Marks acknowledged that there were ‘safety signals’ indicating that the Covid vaccines caused myocarditis in young men. Marks later admitted that “safety signals were known and that they were placed on the label.”

Senator Johnson said senior FDA officials warned Marks that an algorithm designed to detect safety signals in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was actually masking injuries – and that a new algorithm was revealing many more vaccine adverse events.

“It’s such a scandal because as of March 1st or certainly March 26th, the American public, the global public, deserved to know that there were risks,” Johnson argued during his appearance Wednesday on MAHA Action’s Media Hub. “These things weren’t completely safe. Or effective…. The adverse events were far more than rare and mild. They were often life taking, certainly physically, you know, long term, totally disabling types of adverse events. So anybody who took the jab, particularly if they took it reluctantly and . . . they relied on the lies of people like Peter Marks.”

Johnson also stated that there were “very serious adverse events, like sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, different types of strokes.” He also reported that repeated “data runs” showed “more serious adverse events being signaled…And yet, Peter Marks and the FDA decided to stick with the old algorithm that they knew would hide safety signals and [he has] continued to lie to the American public ever since.”

Johnson called out former President Biden and former CDC Director Rachel Walensky for lying to the country and said the nation should be outraged. “Remember,” he said, “this was a pandemic of the unvaxxed. If you didn’t get that shot, if you didn’t have your child get that shot, your child could kill grandma.

Was there a coverup? Johnson called the government’s failure to inform the public about the real risks the Covid vaccine posed “a major scandal.” However, he noted that the scandal did not stop with the cover-up.

He’s appalled by the silence of the mainstream media. “ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MS Now, is not covering this at all. Only fox news in fox business news is willing to interview me about this major scandal,” Johnson said.

But it gets worse. When his own scientists advised him of myocarditis in vaccine trial data, Marks fired them. When evidence of the danger to the public emerged, Marks suppressed it. When Marks was directly informed of the injuries caused by Covid vaccines by vaccine injured people, he ignored them.

Senator Johnson asked listeners on the Media Hub to publicize the Marks’ cover-up and the larger Covid vaccine scandal.

“I’m hoping people on this call will do everything they can to start publicizing [the fact] that the American people deserve to understand the truth about this major, major scandal,” Johnson said.

Johnson is right. The MAHA community needs to insist that Marks be held accountable. Spewing false information is a serious crime under 18 U.S. Code § 1038 – during a pandemic or ever.

It is high time the Department of Justice indicts Peter Marks – for knowing what he knew and failing to act.

Related reading:

Even among those who agree with Secretary Kennedy, there’s a lot of confusion about meat – specifically, grass-fed versus grain-fed options.

In its new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (also known as My Plate, or the “food pyramid”), the USDA advises to “prioritize nutrient-dense foods and home-prepared meals.” Instead of high-carb diets, the new guidelines suggest increased intake of healthy fats and proteins, stating, “Prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein foods as part of a healthy dietary pattern.”

And after decades of warning Americans that eggs are unhealthy and to be avoided, the new recommendations endorse “a variety of protein foods from animal sources, including eggs, poultry, seafood, and red meat.” This dramatic shift in the food pyramid reflects the powerful underlying cultural changes being achieved by the MAHA movement.

But what about beef? Yes, the new guidelines tell us to eat more meat, a terrific source of protein, but doesn’t it matter how the cows from which that meat comes were raised? Many people claim that grass-fed meats are superior to grain-fed options because they are healthier, more environmentally sustainable, and provide farm animals with happier lives. All three of these claims are true – with some qualifiers.

Let me explain: The backdrop for this controversy is several converging narratives that target our ancient bovine allies for removal from the human food chain: climate change, animal welfare, and human health. As a grass-fed beef farmer who has studied this issue for decades (and as an attorney well versed in logical persuasion), allow me to demonstrate the false premises behind all three of these justifications used to slander cows.

The Climate Change Narrative

Remember when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proclaimed a war on cow farts as part of the Green New Deal? So-called climate scientists had been claiming this for decades. This laughable lie about our cow allies has also been taken up by Greta Thunberg, Bill Gates, the WEF, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

Yet, rotationally grazed cows sequester far more carbon dioxide and methane in the soil than “rewilded” forests do, and exponentially more than hybrid cars. Beyond the fart focus, one needn’t be a farmer to understand that all those plants that are supposed to replace cows require fertilizers. Manure is a natural fertilizer that rebuilds soils, feeds soil microbes, and breaks down industrial toxins in the process. (Hybrid cars, not so much.) Synthetic fertilizers pollute far more than cows, destroy soils, increase water loss, and sequester zero carbon dioxide. (Urea is made from natural gas, aka methane.)

But it’s worse than that. The globalists and multinational corporations claim that industrial agriculture, employing GMO technologies, is the “only way to save the world” from climate change. Yet GMO crops are dependent on glyphosate (a weed killer against which GMO crops have genetic immunity), synthetic fertilizers, and numerous pesticides. All of these deplete soils of nutrients, accelerate erosion, and increase water loss. How is this better than cows? Answer: It isn’t. Not in a million years!

Note also that AOC did not declaim non-food practices that visibly do hurt the environment, such as mowing hundreds of millions of acres of lawns using fossil fuels, flying around in jets, tooling mowed greens in golf carts, or being carted up a mountain to ski back down (on man-made snow, sucked using fossil fuels from depleted trout brooks). Even if climate change is caused by human action, these supposed cures all exhibit tell-tale signs of fraud: fear used to solicit massive funding for industrial “solutions” that pollute far more than they are peddled to replace.

Once upon a time, Americans focused on carcinogens and endocrine disrupters when evaluating pollution, not innocuous carbon dioxide. For instance, cows do not generate the chemical pollution produced by the lithium mining and excess rubber tire consumption required for that hybrid cars. The MAHA movement has renewed public focus on toxins, microplastics, and food quality. Cow flatulence is not the problem.

The Animal Welfare Narrative

All people should be concerned about animal welfare, but not all farm animals are subjected to factory housing, hormones, or routine administration of antibiotics. Many animal rights activists assert that humans should not eat or profit from any animals. This is an argument not for better lives for farm animals, but for no life at all.

I have raised beef cows for 25 years, and they are never without food, water, and shelter. If humans stop eating beef, my cows will be out of a job and out of a life. Right now, my females (cows) live a long life, and the bulls are sold for meat or breeding to pay for the mothers’ feed. Cows eat a LOT, so it is not feasible to keep them as pets.

The oldest recorded lifespan for a cow is just shy of 49 years, by an Irish cow named Big Bertha. There are over 86 million cows in the United States – they cannot all live in zoos, but if the animal rights crowd has their way, that is the only place humans will see cows in the future. (Meanwhile, their landscape views will widely disappear as fields regrow and there are no more cows to watch ruminating pleasurably on hillsides.)

The Human Health Narrative

There will always be debates about the relative merits of vegetarian or vegan versus meat-eating diets, in part because one diet doesn’t fit all humans. Some people are lactose- or meat-intolerant: pregnant, elderly, or lactating women especially benefit from the nutrient density of wholesome meats.

The evidence that red meat is bad for humans is largely linked to preservatives (processed meats are less healthy) and carcinogens emitted during cooking. There is no question that red meat also contains numerous healthy nutrients – it is not true that eating meat is bad for human health.

Neither is it necessarily true that a vegan diet is superior. In addition to the well documented potential for plant-only diners to suffer from various nutrient deficiencies, many plant-based offerings are highly processed and unhealthy.

Consider that plant-based meat substitutes are almost all manufactured using GMO monoculture crops (particularly soy, corn, and oats) tainted with glyphosate and other chemicals, to which are added the usual myriad of food “additives” to enhance flavor, stimulate appetite, etc. Just because something is made from plants does not automatically make it healthier. Grass-fed hamburger is far healthier than many of the chemical-laden replacements the corporate world has concocted to replace it.

Grass-fed Beef Studies

Grain-fed livestock grow faster than animals raised on grass-only, but they are largely dependent on the corn and soy GMO monoculture crops that are in turn chemical-dependent. In addition, grass-fed feeding proponents argue that the meat from grass-fed animals is healthier than grain-fed.

Studies consistently show that properly managed grass-fed beef production yields healthier products for consumers. A March 2026 study concluded: “Animals finished on biodiverse pastures exhibited fatty acid profiles characterized by higher omega-3 to total polyunsaturated FA content, resulting in a higher omega balance (r = 0.30, P = 0.02).”

This and other studies found variations in nutrient content, likely linked to soil health and the specific practices employed. Not everything labeled grass-fed is truly raised on grass. However, the overall picture shows that grass-fed beef and other grass-fed meats are higher in nutrients and healthy fats than their grain-fed counterparts.

An anecdotal example of the benefits of grass-fed beef has been provided by MAHA supporter Dr. Eric Berg, who employs regenerative soil conditioning practices on his Virginia farm. Dr. Berg had his meat tested by leading nutrition scientists. The testing concluded that his beef was especially high in phytochemicals, naturally occurring plant-derived compounds that may offer strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits. Some of the Berg samples achieved extremely high phytochemical scores. The testing report noted: “This total phytochemical score was 4.3-fold greater in the Berg samples than the amount we typically observe in grass-fed beef samples and 8-fold higher than the grain-fed average.”

Soil health and plant diversity appear to be the chief determinants of animal nutrient content. Grass-fed meats, if ethically and regeneratively raised, consistently provide healthier options for meat eaters.

Consumer Demand and Farm Economics

Consumers want healthier foods, and they have learned that grass-fed meats contain more nutrients and are unlikely to contain antibiotic or hormone residues. Many consumers are not interested in meat or milk substitutes. Many vegans are realizing that plant-based substitutes can often be very unhealthy and highly processed. Young people are leading the way in this dietary preference.

The U.S. imports organic meats that it could grow on its own shores. America is not currently able to meet the domestic or foreign demand for grass-fed meats: this is a huge economic opportunity for U.S. farmers who genuinely implement regenerative practices, rotational grazing, and grass-fed practices.

Yes, Grass-fed is Best!

So, whether it is to protect the environment, improve human health, enhance animal welfare, or grow the economy, grass-fed animal husbandry is the best path forward.

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