Dmitry Orlov

The recent twelve-day rocket and drone duel between Israel and Iran with a cameo appearance by some American Tomahawk missiles and a heaping handful of bunker-busting bombs came to a sudden conclusion that is, if anything, inconclusive. “Who won this silly caucus race?” the animals asked. There followed some inconclusive muttering. “At last the Dodo said, ‘Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'” And so Alice handed out some comfits, a box of which she had serendipitously discovered in her apron pocket.

Of course, it wasn’t all fun and games. All sides sustained damage.

• Israel sustained damage appraised at upwards of $10 billion (a casual estimate, which works out to around a thousand dollars per Israeli man, woman and child). Israel also demonstrated its inability to protect its tiny territory from Iranian missile and drone strikes even with help from US and British warships parked off the coast in the Mediterranean, which attempted to intercept whatever they could. As for the benefits accruing to Israel as a result of this attack — there weren’t any.

• Iran has sustained even more damage, especially in lives lost, among them some high-ranking officials of the Iranian government, military and nuclear science. There was also some damage done to three of Iran’s sites that are part of Iran’s nuclear program. But Iran also gained a great deal as a result of this attack. Perhaps most significantly, Iran has demonstrated the ability of its hypersonic missiles (which neither the US nor Israel know how to make) to penetrate US and Israeli missile shields.

• The US got yet another black eye from an Iranian attack on a US military base — its largest base in the region. Just as had happened with the previous Iranian attack on a US military base, the Americans did nothing in response. The previous Iranian strike was on a US military base in Iraq which followed the US assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who was blown up using a drone while he was on a state visit to Iraq. The US also earned itself a major scandal back home because it is entirely unclear even if it did, whether it was anywhere close to developing a nuclear weapon; and if so, whether its putative nuclear weapons program was destroyed, damaged, delayed or in any way inconvenienced by the American bunker-buster and Tomahawk missile strikes, or whether it was instead accelerated, the Iranians having been given an opportunity to ascertain that the only thing worse than nuclear weapons is not having any.

Thus it is clear that all three parties suffered some amount of damage, none of it fatal, but still rather nasty. Kinetic military actions are inevitably like that. But did anyone win? To answer this question, we have to dig deeper — as deep as the Fordo nuclear facility, which is located approximately 90 meters underground beneath a mountain near the city of Qom, which the Americans unsuccessfully attempted to destroy using their bunker-busting bombs. These bombs can only penetrate 60 meters into the ground, and that only if the ground is made of something softer than the basalt of that mountain. Basalt rates around 6 on the MOHS hardness scale — twice as hard as the reinforced concrete of which bunkers are typically made, so the bunker-busters only penetrated 30 meters at best, leaving Fordo intact under 60 more meters of rock. Please don’t tell that to Trump or his head might explode.

All of this might lead an innocent bystander to believe that something or other nuclear is at the crux of this entire imbroglio. Iran indeed has a rather successful nuclear research program and either was or was not developing a nuclear weapon — depending on which set of liars you believe. There are the professional liars at the 18 US intelligence agencies (who lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Syria’s chemical attacks, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, the Skripal father and daughter poisoned by Novichok in the UK and much else). There are also the IAEA officials, who, for three years running, haven’t been able to figure out who (the Ukrainians, as happens to be the case) is shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe, keeping in mind that Zaporozhye, the nuclear plant included, are now Russian territory. These liars said that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, there is Donald Trump and his entourage, who, along with Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu, were adamant that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, and were then equally adamant that US air strikes had destroyed it.

Bibi’s brain pan is perpetually overheating over the idea that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and immediately use it to destroy Israel. Bibi takes at face value the popular Iranian street chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” But there are other factors to consider. First, there is a “fatwa” (a standing injunction) from Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei against developing nuclear weapons and no Iranian scientist or engineer would dare to violate it. Second, Iran certainly has nothing against Jews, having been home to Jews for thousands of years and even grants the Jewish community specific representation in its parliament.

What the Iranians are against are not Jews per se but Zionism (which UN Resolution 3379 declared to be a form of racism), be it Israeli or American. But it’s all the same to Bibi because he is a Zionist and can’t imagine a non-Zionist Israel living in peace alongside a non-jihadi Palestine. Truth be told, I can’t imagine that either, given that Israel is chock-full of Zionists and that the Palestinians have a bone to pick with them.

Be that as it may, the idea of Iran using a nuclear bomb (if it had one) to blow up Israel is ridiculous because Israel is tiny and there is no way to nuke any one piece of it without also nuking lots of Palestinians (who are fellow Muslims), not to mention the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, which is one of the holiest places in Islam.

No matter what the crowds in Tehran like to chant at rallies, “death to Israel” cannot come from an Iranian nuclear bomb. How about “death to America,” then? According to IAEA reports (yes, that IAEA, whose head thinks it possible that Russia is relentlessly attacking its own nuclear power plant), Iran has some 500kg of uranium enriched to 60% U235 (the isotope useful for making things that go “Bang!”).

Assuming 50kg of such enriched uranium per nuclear charge (enough to create a critical mass), Iran has enough of it to make an absolute maximum of 10 relatively crude nuclear bombs big enough to destroy a mid-sized city. Iran has enough uninhabited desert to test such a device in open air, as the US once used to do at a test range in Nevada or Russia near Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, or Novaya Zemlya in the Arctic. Iran could also opt to test it underground, as North Korea chose to do when developing its nuclear arsenal.

Next comes the method of delivery. Russia is the only country big enough to test its ICBMs on its own territory; everyone else has to locate a test target somewhere in the ocean and sail to that location to see whether the missile hits it. Iran does have a converted oil tanker that could be used for that purpose. Theoretically, therefore, Iran could manage to put together 10 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs and build 10 ICBMs to carry them to the United States, but to what purpose? Quite recently, Iranian officials were in negotiations with the US to have sanctions lifted; would nuking the US, or even just threatening to nuke it, help lift sanctions?

This brings up a larger question: what are nuclear bombs good for anyway? The general idea is that if you have nuclear weapons, other nuclear powers will not attack you. Is that really so?

• North Korea’s Kim Jong Un did manage to position himself so that he can now return Donald Trump’s love letters unopened. He has nothing to fear from the US now that he can nuke California, but this was as much a result of clever diplomacy as nuclear strategy and the deciding factor may not have been North Korean nukes but massive North Korean artillery batteries aimed squarely at the South Korean capital Seoul, which is just across the border, along with the nearby US military base.

• Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity (many think it does have some nuclear weapons). Did this prevent Iran from attacking it with rockets? No, it did not, and so the deterrent value of Israeli nukes against Iran is zero.

• The US reports having 3,078 nuclear warheads, although many of these are quite old and if used may just make a nasty radioactive hole in the ground instead of going “Bang!” Be that as it may, did this prevent Iran from attacking US military bases in the Middle East? No, it did not, and so the deterrent value of US nukes against Iran is also zero.

• Elsewhere in the world, India and Pakistan both have nukes and nevertheless they recently had a limited military confrontation over a terrorist strike in Kashmir. The fact that both sides had nukes prevented them from escalating the conflict, and that is an excellent result.

• Russia has 4,380 nuclear warheads. Did this prevent the US from fighting a proxy war against it, with the Ukraine as the proxy (as openly admitted by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio), launching drones and missiles deep into Russian territory? No, it did not, and so the deterrent value of Russian nukes against US-instigated proxy wars is also zero.

We are therefore forced to conclude that nuclear weapons are rather hugely overhyped and aren’t particularly useful in deterring aggression except in certain specific cases.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/e3fdbd36-3674-41e6-885f-1da5c4987788

Sean Adl Tabatabai

WEF-backed scientists at Brazil’s Butantan Institute have developed a terrifying new bird flu strain with a “100% kill rate,” engineering chimeric H5N1 viruses through reverse genetics, according to a peer-reviewed study. These lab-created pathogens, unprecedented in nature, raise chilling concerns about the risks of such experiments under the guise of pandemic preparedness.

The study reveals that the creation of these deadly viruses was justified as a means to develop vaccines, effectively crafting both the threat and its supposed solution. Critics argue this dual role fuels suspicions of orchestrated crises, as the generation of such lethal pathogens in a lab heightens global fears of accidental release or deliberate misuse, demanding urgent scrutiny.

Modernity.news reports: Brazil’s efforts mirror NIH-funded gain-of-function work in the U.S. and Japan that reconstructs pandemic-capable bird flu viruses and drives mammalian adaptation and drug resistance.

It also mirrors recent work in South Korea, where scientists combined three separate bird flu viruses into a single lab-built chimera using reverse genetics, engineering heat resistance, altered host targeting, and enhanced human cell entry.

The new Brazil study, titled “Production and Immune Response Against Pandemic Influenza Candidate Vaccines as Preparedness Against the Circulating H5N1 Influenza Viruses,” was published June 8 in the journal Vaccines.

It outlines how scientists combined genetic material from multiple bird flu strains with a lab-adapted influenza backbone to create three novel virus constructs intended for vaccine development.

“All of them were produced in a PR8 influenza strain backbone by reverse genetics,” the authors explained.

This technique—reverse genetics—is widely recognized as a powerful gain-of-function–style method that allows researchers to build new viruses from plasmids, reassembling them in host cells to generate live, replication-competent viruses with custom properties.

What They Did: Novel H5Nx Viruses Built from Scratch

The study’s authors engineered three recombinant “candidate vaccine viruses” (CVVs):

A/Astrakhan/3212/2020 (H5N8), Clade 2.3.4.4b
A/duck/Vietnam/NCVD-1584/2012 (H5N1), Clade 2.3.2.1c
A/Anhui/1/2005 (H5N1), Clade 2.3.4
Each virus was artificially constructed by inserting surface protein genes (HA and NA) from known H5 strains into a 1934 lab-adapted virus backbone (A/Puerto Rico/8/1934, or PR8), creating entirely new viral entities.

These combinations do not exist in nature and were generated solely through laboratory manipulation.

The chimeric viruses were then mass-produced in over 1 million embryonated eggs under industrial conditions and tested in live rats for immunogenicity.

Why It Matters: Gain-of-Function by Another Name

Although the term “gain-of-function” is not used in the paper in reference to the authors’ own work, the study involves constructing novel viruses with pandemic potential using the same tools and techniques that have fueled global controversy over high-risk pathogen research.

According to U.S. biosecurity definitions, a lab-created virus qualifies as an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) if it is likely highly transmissible and highly virulent in humans, and is genetically manipulated or selected to confer such properties.

This study’s authors acknowledge the dangers explicitly, writing:

“Events observed in gain-of-function experiments… may occur through natural evolution processes… Four mutations… increased transmissibility to ferrets.”

They also note that circulating H5N1 strains are showing natural mutations identical to those previously introduced in controversial 2012 ferret GOF experiments, raising concerns that both nature and the lab may be converging on high-risk outcomes.

Hemorrhaging Embryos & Clade-Specific Immunity

The study also reports that chicken embryos inoculated with these lab-created viruses developed hemorrhagic lesions, an abnormal result not seen with seasonal influenza viruses.

“The recovered embryos displayed hemorrhagic lesions… These features were not observed with seasonal influenza strains. The reasons… are unknown.” (p. 8)

Meanwhile, vaccine effectiveness was poor unless paired with a squalene-based adjuvant (IB160) and administered in two doses.

Even then, immune responses were clade-specific, meaning the vaccine only worked against the exact virus it was built from, offering no protection against other circulating H5 variants.

Lab-Made Viruses with Pandemic Potential

In the name of preparedness, the Butantan Institute has built entirely new influenza viruses in the lab, then scaled up their production and tested them against real-world bird flu threats using gain-of-function–style reverse genetics.

While described as a vaccine development study, the methodology and implications suggest these experiments are functionally identical to high-risk pathogen research, with no indication of outside oversight and no safety assurances for the populations potentially affected by intentional or accidental release.

The viruses tested in this study did not exist until scientists built them—raising serious questions about what exactly is being prepared for, and at what cost.

[…]

Via https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-scientists-develop-bird-flu-strain-with-100-kill-rate/

June 30,2025

Baxter Dmitry

Governor Greg Abbott has signed a new law banning the sale of lab-grown meat statewide—citing major health concerns and a firm commitment to protecting Texas ranchers and the state’s proud, traditional meat industry.

In 2023, Biden’s Department of Agriculture gave the green light to the nation’s first lab-grown chicken—meat manufactured from chicken cells in a laboratory bioreactor, no farms or natural processes involved.

Supporters, including billionaire investor Bill Gates, claim lab-grown meat is the future: a solution to climate change, disease, and environmental destruction. But behind the shiny sales pitch lies a deeper agenda—one that replaces real food with synthetic substitutes and puts control of the food supply into the hands of tech billionaires and unelected bureaucrats.

Critics aren’t buying it. In states like Texas, where ranching is more than an industry—it’s a way of life—lawmakers are pushing back, citing threats to public health, food sovereignty, and rural economies.

Because when meat is no longer raised, but “engineered”, the question isn’t just what’s on your plate—it’s who gets to decide.

“This ban is a massive win for Texas ranchers, producers, and consumers,” said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. “Texans have a God-given right to know what’s on their plate, and for millions of Texans, it better come from a pasture, not a lab. It’s plain cowboy logic that we must safeguard our real, authentic meat industry from synthetic alternatives.”

Texas is not the first US to legislate against Bill Gates’ lab-grown meat products. Florida and Alabama have passed similar laws, with many states set to follow suit with legislation in the pipeline to protect citizens.

Violations of the new Texas law, which goes into effect in September, could result in a felony charge and/or a fine of up to $25,000.

[…]

Via https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/texas-bans-bill-gates-lab-grown-meat-texans-have-god-given-right-to-know-whats-on-their-plate/

June 30, 2025

Sean Adl-Tabatabai

Florida has become the first state to ban chemtrails, enacting a pioneering law effective July 1, 2025, that prohibits weather modification activities and imposes jail time on perpetrators. Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the legislation positions Florida as a stronghold against geoengineering practices like chemtrails, which critics argue endanger health and the environment.

DeSantis, touting Florida as the “Free State,” emphasized that the state will not tolerate reckless climate manipulation experiments. The law targets shadowy geoengineering efforts, responding to widespread concerns about their impact, and sets a precedent for other states by enforcing strict penalties, including imprisonment, for those who violate the ban.

Infowars.com reports: This historic legislation, Senate Bill 56, makes it a third-degree felony to engage in geoengineering or weather modification, with penalties including up to five years in prison and fines up to $100,000.

Florida’s bold step follows years of public outcry and mounting evidence suggesting that geoengineering—deliberate interventions like stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI)—poses severe risks. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection will establish a hotline and online form for citizens to report suspected geoengineering activities, signaling a proactive approach to enforcement.

Other States Follow Suit

Florida is not alone in this fight. Tennessee passed a similar law in 2024, banning the release of chemicals into the atmosphere, and other states are taking notice. Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Arizona have introduced bills to curb geoengineering, with Louisiana’s House passing a “chemtrails” ban in June 2025.

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano has also proposed legislation targeting these practices, reflecting a growing nationwide skepticism about unchecked atmospheric tampering. This wave of legislative action suggests a broader awakening to the dangers of geoengineering, fueled by grassroots movements and independent researchers.

Dane Wigington’s Alarming Research

At the forefront of exposing geoengineering’s dark side is Dane Wigington, lead researcher at GeoengineeringWatch.org.

Wigington’s decades-long investigations reveal how practices like ice nucleation, stratospheric aerosol injections, and radio-frequency transmitters wreak havoc on the environment.

Ice nucleation, used in cloud seeding, involves dispersing chemicals like silver iodide to induce precipitation, often disrupting natural weather patterns and contaminating soil and water. Stratospheric aerosol injections, which spray reflective particles like aluminum or sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, are touted as a climate fix but may deplete ozone, alter rainfall, and increase global temperatures in unintended ways.

Wigington’s research also highlights the use of radio-frequency transmitters to create “heat domes”—high-pressure systems that trap heat and manipulate the jet stream. These artificial weather barriers can steer storms or exacerbate droughts, destabilizing ecosystems.

“What we’re seeing in our skies are not condensation trails,” Wigington has stated, pointing to lab tests showing elevated levels of aluminum and other metals in soil and water, correlating with heavy aerial spraying.

His findings, echoed by figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., underscore the urgent need for transparency and accountability.

Official Admissions Fuel Concerns

The veil of secrecy surrounding geoengineering has begun to lift, with high-profile admissions lending credence to long-standing suspicions.

In a 2016 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director John Brennan openly discussed stratospheric aerosol injection as a potential tool to counter climate change, describing it as “a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat.”

This rare acknowledgment from a top official confirmed what many had dismissed as conspiracy theory: governments have explored and, in some cases, deployed these technologies.

A Call to Action

Florida’s ban is a victory for those who have long warned about the perils of geoengineering, from environmental degradation to potential health risks like respiratory issues linked to aerosolized particles.

As Wigington notes, “the damage is cumulative, and we’re running out of time to stop it.”

With other states following Florida’s lead, the momentum is building to halt these experiments before irreversible harm is done.

As Florida demonstrates courage, other patriots nationwide are demanding similar protections to ensure American skies remain free from manipulation and the planet’s natural systems are preserved.

[…]

Via https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/florida-becomes-first-state-to-ban-chemtrails-and-jail-perpetrators/

June 30, 2025

Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, From Franklin to Kennedy Volume II 1830s-1890s

By Anton Chaitkin (2025)

Book Review

(Part 1)

In Volume II, Chaitkin carefully traces the crucial role of American advocates for the Franklin/Hamilton “American System” (see Hidden History: How Ben Franklin and Friends Created Britain’s Industrial Revolution) in making the US the world’s foremost industrial power.

For me the most interesting parts of Volume II concern Lincoln’s career as an ardent supporter of the American System of political economy and the legacy of Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia Philosophical Society in 1) trying to industrialize the South during Reconstruction; 2) fostering Thomas Edison’s role in bringing cheap electrical energy to America’s poor; and 3) using American System economic concepts and inventions to spur industrialization (and thwart British imperial ambitions) in Germany, Russia and Japan.

Lincoln joined the pro-industrialist movement started by Benjamin Franklin (see Hidden History: How Ben Franklin and Friends Created Britain’s Industrial Revolution) in the 1830s. The former was an ardent supporter of pro-industrialist Henry Clay, who represented Kentucky in both the House and Senate and ran (unsuccessfully) as president against incumbent Andrew Jackson in 1832.

Significant milestones in Lincoln’s career include

• 1834 – elected to Illinois legislature for eight years, where he champions legislation (the construction of the Illinois and Michigan canal and a rail link-up to Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad). After Presidents Jackson’s and Van Buren’s anti-tariff policies triggered the Panic of 1837, Illinois  was forced to sell the railroad to private interests. Completed in the 1850s, the canal would ultimately make Chicago the center of the world’s greatest industrial complex.
• 1840 – successfully campaigns for Whig (pro-industrialist) President William Henry Harrison, who dies mysteriously after a month in office.
• 1846 – elected to House of Representatives as a Whig candidate. I
• 1847-49 – Lincoln’s first motion after taking his seat is to declare President James Polk’s (1845-1849) war against Mexico unconstitutional, on the basis Polk deliberately lied to the public about the reasons for the war.*
• 1854 – participates in formation of Republican Party, dedicated to preventing the spread of slavery to the West.
• 1858 – narrowly defeated by incumbent Senator Stephen Douglas as a Republican candidate for Senate.
• 1860 – elected 16th president of US.
• 1861-65** – A strong supporter of the “American system” of protective tariffs, Czar Alexander II frees 23 million Russian serfs one day prior to Lincoln’s inauguration. As seven Southern states had already seceded, Republicans gain control of the Senate and speedily passes Lincoln’s protective tariff legislation. The later enabled Philadelphia’s industrialists to build the country’s first steel and oil** industries as well as the Pennsylvania-New York railroad loop. The latter would prove vital to transporting and supplying Union troops.

Lincoln and his economic advisor Henry Carey (son of Matthew Carey – see History of the Long US Battle to Industrialize) also pushed through legislation to:

• • address Southern soil depletion (the main driver behind the push to expand slavery westward) by creating a U Department of Agriculture and enacting the Morill Land Grant College Act (donating federal land for colleges)
  • pass the Pacific Railway Act to build a transcontinental railroad
  • industrialize the South
  • issue $450 million dollars of government currency known as Greenbacks after Wall Street collaborates with British banks to stymie funding of the Union war effort

*The Southern slave owners instrumental in Polk’s election had a desperate need to expand slavery westward as bad farming practices had badly depleted Southern soil. Mexico declared war on the US after they illegally annexed the Mexican territory of Texas. Many officers serving in the war against Mexico subsequently joined private armies organized by Southern plantation owners to conquer Latin American and Caribbean countries in an effort to expand slavery there. Ten years later these private mercenaries would assume leadership of the Confederate army. Because the Union had no military leaders to train recruits, it lost most battles in the early years of the Civil War. Another disadvantage was that Britain was primarily responsible for funding and arming the Confederate Army (while the British Navy served as the Confederate Navy – sinking US merchant marine ships).

**Chaitkin includes a fascinating appendix documenting how Teddy Roosevelt’s Anglophile uncle financed the Lincoln assassination via British intelligence in Montreal.

***The Pennsylvania Railroad organized and developed the US petroleum industry in the 1850s, with many Civil War veterans joining in oil prospecting at the end of the war. In part by deliberately shrinking the money supply to trigger a global depression (1873-79), J P Morgan and John D Rockefeller, with the support of of British financiers, essentially bankrupted the Philadelphia railroads, enabling Morgan to gain total control of most railroads and Rockefeller of oil mining and distribution.

June 30, 2015

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee will vote next week on the mercury-based flu vaccine, according to an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting agenda draft posted today on the ACIP website

The committee will also vote on RSV vaccines for pregnant mothers, babies and young children.

This will be the first meeting since U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tapped eight new ACIP members — just days after removing all 17 former members in what he called a “clean sweep … needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.”

Before they vote, ACIP members will hear presentations on respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV vaccines, including Merck’s new RSV shot for newborns. Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the new shot, even though clinical trials showed an 11.71% rate of serious adverse events, including death.

Discussions, but no votes, are slated for other vaccines, including COVID-19, Chikungunya, Anthrax and MMRV (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella).

ACIP decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) typically rubber stamps and publishes on its immunization schedules.

The committee will meet June 25-26 in Atlanta, Georgia.

ACIP to discuss thimerosal after years of silence

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used in multi-dose vials of the flu vaccine, according to the CDC. Most single-dose vials and pre-filled syringes of the flu shot don’t contain the preservative, as they’re intended for single use.

Over 25 years ago, vaccine industry leaders and public health officials concealed evidence from the CDC’s own database that linked thimerosal to neurodevelopmental disorders in children, including autism, according to transcripts from a meeting in Norcross, Georgia.

The U.S. government has long said thimerosal poses no harm to children. However, in 2001, out of what the agency said was an abundance of caution, the CDC said the ingredient would no longer be used in childhood vaccines.

A recent investigation by journalist Sharyl Attkisson proved both statements untrue.

Thimerosal’s potential to harm kids has been on Kennedy’s radar for over a decade. In 2014, he edited a book on the topic: “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak: The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury — a Known Neurotoxin — from Vaccines.”

The CDC webpage for flu shot safety considerations during pregnancy makes no mention of thimerosal, nor does it encourage pregnant women to be sure they get a flu shot from a single-dose vial or prefilled syringe to avoid mercury exposure.

Next week, ACIP members will hear a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines and a presentation on proposed recommendations for flu vaccines that contain thimerosal. The names of the presenters were not listed on the agenda at press time.

The committee will also vote on flu vaccines that don’t contain thimerosal.

Dr. Meryl Nass, who has attended many past ACIP meetings, said, “There is no need for thimerosal, a known neurotoxin, as it is not used in single-dose vials. Its use should be ended.”

Critics weigh in on ACIP agenda

Reactions to the ACIP meeting agenda were mixed. Some said it signaled that the CDC is veering off course, while others called for even more change.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) chief scientific officer, said that although he was encouraged by Kennedy’s selections for the new ACIP members, he was disappointed in the slate of meeting presenters and moderators.

“It is the same old cast of CDC characters (from the National Center for Infectious and Respiratory Diseases) who present a very biased viewpoint,” Hooker said. “CDC’s culture is vaccinology as a religion, straight up. ACIP committee members desperately need an alternative view that is based on the very stark reality of vaccine ineffectiveness and the extremely high prevalence of vaccine adverse events.”

Dr. Jeremy Faust, editor of Medpage, said in a Substack post critiquing the ACIP meeting agenda that the planned vote on thimerosal “revives and elevates a longstanding anti-vaccine conspiracy theory.”

“Removing the compound will do nothing to improve vaccine safety,” Faust wrote, “but it certainly will undermine confidence in other existing vaccines.”

Faust also criticized the CDC for failing to put a COVID-19 vaccine vote on the meeting agenda, writing that the move will leave “fall policies unclear.”

HHS officials last month changed the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children, recommending “shared clinical decision-making” — meaning parents should discuss the risk-benefit profile with their child’s doctor and jointly make the decision. The guidance for pregnant women changed from recommended to “no guidance.”

‘This could mark a turning point’

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. is president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, an advocacy group that pushes for accuracy and integrity in science and for biomedical researchers to put people’s health before profits. He said the ACIP meeting agenda suggested that the CDC was making progress in “structure, balance, and transparency.”

“If public comment is taken seriously and if safety data are rigorously and honestly evaluated — then this could mark a turning point,” Lyons-Weiler said.

Lyons-Weiler said it’s also important that the CDC be “fully open” about its Evidence to Recommendations framework.

When ACIP makes a vaccine recommendation, it’s accompanied by what’s called an Evidence to Recommendations framework that describes the information the committee used in making its decision.

In the past, the CDC took shortcuts in showing this evidence, Lyons-Weiler said. He said he hopes the next ACIP meeting shows that the CDC is moving forward “with the full light of science, skepticism, and civic trust.”

ACIP guidelines don’t address full scope of possible vaccine injuries

Historically, states use ACIP recommendations to help shape vaccine policy and doctors use them in making decisions.

Some states consider the ACIP’s “General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization,” which lists examples of contraindications and precautions for each vaccine, as the only acceptable authority when deciding whether to grant a child’s medical exemption request to a school-required vaccine.

However, ACIP’s list of contraindications isn’t exhaustive, according to attorney Sujata Gibson, who said:

“Right now, states like New York and California are overruling treating physicians and rejecting medical exemptions when they don’t see the condition listed in the ACIP best practices guideline as a contraindication or a precaution.

“But the guideline doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of all the reasons a child may be at risk of serious harm…. The way that New York, California and other states are treating these guidelines is reckless and dangerous, and children are being severely harmed as a result.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter how many doctors confirm that a particular child will likely be harmed by a certain vaccine, states like New York and California give medical exemptions only for conditions specified in ACIP’s guidelines.

The Defender reached out to the CDC to ask if the new ACIP committee will clarify that its guidance is not a substitute for clinical decision-making and should not be used as a standard for clinicians or schools in deciding whether to grant medical exemptions. The CDC did not respond by the deadline.

Update:  This article was updated to note that COVID-19 vaccines remain on the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule, but the recommendation has changed to “shared clinical decision-making.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/after-years-silence-new-cdc-vaccine-panel-vote-on-mercury-flu-shots/?utm_id=20250622

Dr Eddy Betterman

• 
  Dr. Mayer Eisenstein critiques widely accepted medical practices such as hospital births, routine vaccinations and antibiotic overuse, arguing they may cause harm. His book advocates for evidence-based, natural alternatives.
• He claims medicalized childbirth (e.g., inductions, C-sections) introduces unnecessary risks, citing data that home births can be equally safe for low-risk pregnancies. Standard procedures like episiotomies are criticized as overused.
• While not anti-vaccine, Eisenstein demands rigorous long-term safety studies and individualized schedules. He warns against antibiotic overprescription, linking it to resistance and gut health damage.
• Eisenstein’s book highlights the underpublicized risks of hormonal treatments (e.g., oral contraceptives, HRT) and stimulants like Ritalin, promoting non-drug alternatives (e.g., diet, lifestyle changes).
• His philosophy prioritizes “First, do no harm” and scientific rigor, accusing the medical industry of profit-driven practices. The book urges patient empowerment through skepticism, research and rejecting dogma.

In an era where medical advancements are often hailed as unquestionable progress, one physician is challenging the status quo with a provocative new book. Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, a seasoned doctor, lawyer and public health expert, argues in “Safer Medicine Towards Clinical Scientific Evidence-Based Medicine” that many widely accepted medical practices – from hospital births to routine vaccinations – may do more harm than good.

His critique, grounded in decades of clinical experience, urges both medical professionals and the public to demand stronger evidence before embracing conventional treatments. With over 35 years of experience, including delivering thousands of babies at home without vaccines, Eisenstein presents a scathing assessment of 20th-century medicine’s greatest failures. His book identifies 10 key areas where he believes modern healthcare has gone astray, advocating instead for natural, evidence-based alternatives.

Eisenstein contends that hospital births, often accompanied by interventions like induced labor and cesarean sections, disrupt the natural birthing process. Citing data suggesting that home births can be equally safe for low-risk pregnancies, he argues that medicalized childbirth may introduce unnecessary risks.

Episiotomies, fetal monitoring and other standard procedures come under fire for being overused. Eisenstein asserts that many such interventions stem from outdated protocols rather than robust scientific evidence.

The book criticizes the medical establishment for failing to promote breastfeeding adequately, despite its proven immunological and nutritional benefits over formula. Eisenstein argues that corporate influence and insufficient education have led to a decline in breastfeeding rates.

While not outright rejecting vaccines, Eisenstein urges caution, emphasizing the need for rigorous long-term safety studies. He questions whether current vaccination schedules account for individual health risks, particularly in children.

Eisenstein warns that the overprescription of antibiotics fuels resistance and disrupts gut health. He instead advocates for stricter guidelines and greater reliance on natural immune support.

Oral contraceptives, he argues, carry underpublicized dangers, including heightened risks of blood clots and cancer. Eisenstein encourages women to explore non-hormonal alternatives. He points out that the widespread use of stimulants like Ritalin in children is fraught with risks, including addiction and stunted growth. Behavioral and dietary interventions are often overlooked.

Eisenstein links HRT to increased breast cancer and heart disease risks, suggesting that lifestyle changes should precede pharmaceutical solutions for menopause symptoms. Challenging decades of dietary dogma, he asserts that low-fat, high-carb eating contributes to insulin resistance and obesity, advocating instead for balanced, whole-food nutrition.

Processed low-fat foods, often packed with sugar, have misled consumers. In contrast, Eisenstein insists healthy fats are essential for metabolic health.

Eisenstein’s philosophy hinges on two principles: “Primum Non Nocere“ (“First, do no harm”) and “Show me the scientific evidence.” He accuses the medical industry of prioritizing profit and tradition over patient safety, urging a return to rigorous, independent research.

While his views are controversial – particularly on vaccines and home births – they resonate with a growing movement skeptical of institutionalized healthcare. Critics argue that some of his claims lack consensus support, but supporters praise his willingness to challenge entrenched norms.

“Safer Medicine: Towards Clinical Scientific Evidence-Based Medicine” is more than a critique; it’s a manifesto for patient empowerment. Whether readers agree or disagree with Eisenstein’s conclusions, his book forces a reckoning with uncomfortable questions about modern medicine’s foundations. In an age of increasing medical skepticism, his work underscores a universal demand: Healthcare must prioritize transparency, evidence and above all, the oath to do no harm.

For those seeking to navigate the complexities of medical decision-making, Eisenstein’s challenge is clear: Question boldly, research thoroughly and never assume that conventional always means correct.

Watch this video about Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s book “Safer Medicine Towards Clinical Scientific Evidence-Based Medicine.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/06/28/dr-mayer-eisenstein-critiques-conventional-healthcare-practices/