Author and Brownstone Institute founder and president Jeffrey Tucker sat down with computational biologist Dr. Jessica Rose for an hour-long conversation about some of the most shocking revelations from the COVID response.

During that discussion, Tucker shared what he says top FDA and NIH officials told him about the real purpose of the lockdowns and other restrictions.

The purpose, according to Tucker, was “to delay the onset of natural immunity… until after the shots were online.”

Tucker admits it “sounds like a wild conspiracy theory.” But he says multiple sources who were actually there, working inside the agencies and companies, have confirmed it “without a shadow of a doubt.”

The lockdowns that wiped out small businesses. The school closures that sent children's reading scores back to 1971. The plexiglass, the masking, the stay-at-home orders. None of it was about keeping us safe. “It was exactly the opposite,” as Tucker put it.

The full two-minute clip is an eye-opener:

TUCKER: “We all have what we consider to be the most shocking feature of the COVID response. But for me, I still can’t get over the fact that I was told by top FDA, NIH officials that a major reason for social distancing, lockdowns, masking, Plexiglas, stay-at-home orders, and everything else was to delay the onset of natural immunity, to delay rising seroprevalence levels, to delay endemicity until after the shots were online.

“So, it wasn’t just that all these tactics, these sort of social engineering tactics, were designed to keep us [safe]. Well, no, it was exactly the opposite. It was to keep us from gaining natural capacity to resist the virus.

“So that they could wait until the injection came along. So the injection could be deployed and experimented upon us and, and thereby get all the credit for having solved the issue.

“That sounds like a wild conspiracy theory, but that’s what they meant by ‘flatten the curve.’ Flatten the curve meant to prolong the pain, delay the solution. And it sounds crazy until you hear it from people who were there on the ground, in the agencies, in the companies, watching all this unfold.

“And multiple sources have confirmed this without a shadow of doubt in their mind that was the real purpose of the school closures, the business shutdowns, the stay-at-home orders, the travel restrictions, and everything: to delay the point at which we would have solved, essentially solved, the problem through natural exposure and immune upgrades.”

Watch the full conversation below:

It seems Stephen A. Smith no longer believes the COVID-19 injections saved him after all.

In 2022, Smith declared that the shot had “saved his life.” But on Wednesday evening, ESPN’s highest-paid personality struck a very different tone.

Smith, who watched Fauci plead the Fifth 111 times before Congress — and saw his diary contradict what he told the public — revealed he did exactly what this man instructed: He got his first two COVID shots, took a booster, and even wore a mask on top of that.

However, Smith revealed he still caught COVID — despite the experts saying he wouldn’t — and “damn it, it almost killed me!”

Now, with his faith in Fauci shattered, Smith is questioning it all.

Subscribe now

SMITH: “Do I think that he [Fauci] should be embarrassed for the self-adulation that he engaged in? You’re damn right I do! Because some of the things that he was telling us to do were inconsistent with science, but he was telling us it was science that led to him making the decisions that he made!”

“Masking, six-foot distancing, the closing of businesses, forcing businesses to push those mandates upon people like me and others — because I took the vaccine, and I took a booster, and I wore a mask.”

“We were told, ‘Hey, you ain’t gonna get Covid if you do that.’ And I GOT COVID! And damn it, it almost killed me!”

“Going into 2022, I’m in the hospital 90 minutes before the ball is about to drop, and the doctor says, ‘We’ve been at this for three plus weeks. You got double pneumonia. You look really bad. If this antibiotic and this steroid do not work, Mr. Smith, I’m sorry, we’re gonna have to call your family. Looks that bad...’”

“And through the grace of God, three hours later, I felt better after they gave me that steroid and that antibiotic. But those were the longest three hours of my life because I thought it was over.”

“And I remember I had done exactly what Dr. Anthony Fauci was imploring us all to do.”

Smith had the look of a man who just figured out he’d been lied to all along.

Leave a comment

Full Video Below:

Share

ESPN’s highest-paid sports commentator in history has decided it’s finally time to own his mistakes and apologize to Kyrie Irving — who took a public flogging and an $11,400,000 pay cut during the 2021–22 NBA season for refusing to bend to New York’s COVID vaccine mandate.

At the time, Smith blasted Irving as “selfish” for a refusal that left him ineligible to play in any home game for the Brooklyn Nets.

However, last night, Smith put his vacation on hold to issue the apology after watching Anthony Fauci’s oversight testimony — where Fauci pleaded the Fifth 111 times in total, a performance that even made Smith’s friend Chris Cuomo admit it looks like Fauci is “hiding something.”

That’s when Smith realized it’s a “time for reflection” and to “look at things differently.”

Subscribe now

“There’s several people that we all owe apologies to... but none more so than the apology that I owe to Kyrie Irving,” Smith opened up.

“This is not about him, the basketball player. This is about him, the man.”

“The reality is Kyrie Irving, no matter what we think, may have been MORE RIGHT than we have given him credit for and unquestionably was more vilified than he deserved.”

“I watched Dr. Fauci on Capitol Hill yesterday, and the person I thought about most was Kyrie Irving,” Smith continued.

“Kyrie Irving stood out in my mind because of the heat that he was taking... He refused the vaccine. New York City's mandate made him ineligible for home games, and he linked his stance to people losing jobs over vaccine mandates."

“In my opinion, particularly hindsight-wise, it didn't make him stubborn or selfish. It made him brave. His willingness to stand up and say, ‘Nah, I'm not doing that.’”

“It's just a time for reflection — to look at things differently.”

Smith concluded his apology with one final statement that summarizes the Kyrie Irving vaccine mandate saga perfectly:

“It turns out that, no matter what the truth is behind all of this, Kyrie Irving did nobody wrong. We did him wrong.”

“I did him wrong. And for that, I’m sincerely sorry.”

Kyrie gave up $11,400,000 in game checks during the 21-22 NBA season and a $100,000,000 extension with the Nets to be unvaccinated.

That cements his holdout as the largest financial sacrifice any athlete has ever made over an issue in history.

Leave a comment

Full Video:

Share

A visibly shaken Anthony Fauci could not even answer what color tie he was wearing as he had to be dragged out to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the government's COVID-19 response, his private diary, and taxpayer-funded research in Wuhan.

Again and again, Fauci pleaded the Fifth — 111 times in all — even when senators asked him about a folder sitting directly in front of him, what day of the week it was, and whether he would simply turn around and look at people who said their lives were destroyed by COVID-era policies.

Lawmakers warned him over and over: the Fifth Amendment no longer applies to him because of Biden’s blanket pardon. He could admit everything and still walk away without prosecution.

Fauci had total immunity, and he still refused to tell the truth.

That didn’t stop him from being battered and bruised along the way.

Here are the biggest moments from the hearing. And the big takeaway moving forward.

Subscribe now

Sen. Rand Paul began the hearing by laying out Fauci’s litany of misdeeds and demanding he apologize to the American people and ask for forgiveness.

“The American people deserve an apology.”

“I hope today Dr. Fauci will come clean, admit it was a mistake to fund dangerous research in China…”

“Ask forgiveness…”

“You did not tell the American people the full story.”

“One thing in public and another in private.”

Fauci used his opening statement not to address the underlying allegations, but to attack Senator Paul instead.

With his papers visibly shaking, Fauci accused Paul of waging a personal campaign to embarrass, intimidate, and ultimately prosecute him.

“Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, ‘behind bars,’ unquote.”

Fauci then announced that he would invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than answer the committee’s questions.

“Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion.”

“Therefore, although it pains me to do so, because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

As the hearing progressed and Fauci refused to answer every question that came his way, Paul directed Fauci to a red folder sitting on the desk in front of him. Inside, Paul said, was a copy of the federal statute governing a witness’s refusal to answer questions before Congress.

Paul then asked Fauci whether he had the folder.

PAUL: “In the red folder on your table is a copy of Section 192 of Title 2 of the U.S. Code… That section makes it a crime for a witness… to refuse to answer any questions… Do you have that in front of you?”

FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, but based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Paul paused to make sure the absurdity was entered into the official record.

PAUL: “Let the record reflect that the witness has refused to answer whether there’s a folder in front of him based on his Fifth Amendment right.”

Paul gave Fauci another opportunity to answer at least one question.

Fauci refused again.

Paul explicitly told Fauci he could not plead the Fifth as a blanket excuse to obstruct the entire investigation, particularly after receiving a pardon.

PAUL: “Dr. Fauci, would you like to at least answer this one question for us today…?”

FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline…”

Paul responded that the chairman had denied Fauci’s assertion of privilege and directed him to answer.

PAUL: “The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon.”

“It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.”

Sen. Ron Johnson then turned to a deeply personal disclosure found in Fauci’s diary.

Fauci’s private notes revealed that he suffered a pulmonary infarction five months after receiving his first injection. He kept his medical condition hidden and kept recommending the shots for everyone else.

Johnson asked Fauci if he ever considered whether his infarction was linked to the jab.

JOHNSON: “Your diaries now show that you actually suffered pulmonary infarction…”

“I was just wondering whether it ever went through your mind that maybe that injection, all those boosters you took, might have caused that?”

Fauci did not provide the public with an answer.

Johnson next brought out a massive stack of papers representing studies showing that ivermectin was “60 to 70%” effective.

He contrasted those studies with Fauci’s public declaration that there was no evidence supporting the treatment.

JOHNSON: “You said there’s no evidence that ivermectin is helpful.”

“On that exact same day… there was a website that was tracking the randomized controlled studies.”

Johnson held up the documents.

“Here they are showing 60, 70 percent efficacy of ivermectin. The same day you say there’s no evidence. There was all kinds of evidence.”

One of Fauci’s attorneys would later try to testify on his behalf, and he was promptly thrown out of the room for doing so.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal objected to the treatment of Fauci’s attorney, accusing the committee of conducting a “show trial.”

BLUMENTHAL: “His attorney has been gagged, thrown out of this hearing room…”

“[Mistakes] should certainly be addressed. But not in a show trial…”

Paul fired back that Fauci could not refuse to testify and then use his lawyer to make the defense he was unwilling to make himself.

PAUL: “In no courtroom in America can you have your witness plead the Fifth Amendment, then your attorney gets to testify. That’s what that letter is.”

“The attorney’s complaining and testifying, saying, ‘He didn’t do it. The prosecution’s unfair.’”

“You don’t get to do that. That’s one thing you give up when you take the Fifth Amendment.”

Paul said Fauci’s attorney was free to make those arguments publicly—but had not been invited to testify before the committee.

“You say, ‘I’m not going to testify, I’m not going to give you any information.’ You don’t then get to put your lawyer forward to justify it.”

“He can do it in the press, but you can’t come and testify.”

“[Fauci’s lawyer] was not invited to testify, and he was out of order, and it was appropriate to have him ejected.”

Sen. Josh Hawley decided to demonstrate just how far Fauci was taking his refusal to answer questions.

It exposed Fauci’s refusal as so ridiculous that you could even hear the chuckles in the audience:

HAWLEY: “What day of the week is it today?”

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

HAWLEY: “What color tie are you wearing?”

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

HAWLEY: “What color is the carpet in front of you?”

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

Hawley then brought the receipts and exposed Dr. Fauci for using 8 different federal employees on federal time to chase over $1,000,000 in cash prizes for himself.

HAWLEY: “You got rich while people were dying.”

“You were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars.”

“And what were these individuals doing in the depth of the pandemic in November of 2020 when millions of Americans were suffering from COVID?”

“What were they doing? I tell you what they’re doing. Folkers was on your behalf soliciting and gathering information for a cash award.”

Hawley displayed an email in which Greg Folkers allegedly sought stronger language for Fauci’s nomination for the Dan David Prize.

“Let’s look at it. We’ve got his email right here. Right over my shoulder.”

“Folkers says, ‘I’m working on this nomination for the Dan David award for Fauci. We need to beef up the COVID part. Do you have language in the that you could share that delineates how we responded in new ways to COVID.’”

Hawley asked Fauci whether he remembered the award.

HAWLEY: “What was the Dan David award? Do you remember, doc?”

FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Hawley supplied the answer himself.

HAWLEY: “It was a $900,000 cash award. $900,000 cash award.”

“And he got it because he used federal employees to get it.”

Hawley alleged that the Dan David Prize was only one of numerous awards pursued with government personnel and resources.

“Besides the Dan David award, you’ve got the Partnership for Public Service. You’ve got the Adelson prize, you’ve got the Smithsonian award, you’ve got the National Academy of Medicines award, you’ve got the CDC Foundation.”

“In fact, you turn your staff into a full-time application machine.”

According to Hawley, at least eight federal employees were involved:

• Greg Folkers

• Lawrence Tabak

• Holli Jaffe

• Patricia Conrad

• Courtney Billet

• Louis Miller

• Katherine Miller

• Hugh Auchincloss

HAWLEY: “You used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn’t that true?”

FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

“Your staff and employees on federal time using federal resources, being paid with federal dollars, are soliciting cash for you.”

“And then they’re turning around and saying to the agency, ‘We don’t want just an answer. We want to get to yes.’”

“Because Fauci wants the money.”

Sen. Bernie Moreno then tested whether Fauci would even explain the constitutional amendment he had invoked throughout the hearing.

MORENO: “What does the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution say?”

Fauci’s lawyer tapped him on the shoulder and whispered in his ear.

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

MORENO: “Do you know who wrote the Fifth Amendment?”

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

Moreno summarized the moment in disbelief.

MORENO: “So you’re invoking a right that you don’t know who wrote it or what it says. Is that correct?”

FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

MORENO: “Wow.”

Moreno then asked Fauci to do something that required no testimony at all.

He invited Fauci to turn around and look at the people sitting behind him: people Moreno said had been shamed, silenced, or fired for refusing the vaccine or questioning the government’s COVID narrative.

MORENO: “Dr. Fauci, can you just turn around and look at the people behind you?”

Fauci remained seated and motionless.

MORENO: “You’re not willing to do that? That’s not a question. It’s not a question to your lawyers. Not a question. It’s a request.”

Fauci consulted with his attorneys and never turned around.

MORENO: “All you have to do is look up from your lawyers and look at the people who were absolutely shamed for saying what we know now to be the truth.”

“You can’t even look at them?”

Paul ended the hearing by giving Fauci one final opportunity to answer a direct question and avoid what the chairman described as an unlawful blanket refusal to testify.

PAUL: “I’m going to give you one more opportunity to comply with the law… Did you destroy any federal record or tell anyone else to?”

FAUCI: “I respectfully decline to answer…”

Paul then announced that the committee would vote the following week on certifying Fauci in contempt of Congress.

PAUL: “Because you refuse to answer, citing a privilege under the Fifth Amendment that is unsupported because of your pardon, and after being denied the right to do so, this committee has scheduled a vote next week on a resolution certifying your contempt.”

If approved, the contempt referral would be sent to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Contempt of Congress can carry up to one year in jail, while perjury can carry up to five.

Once you know that, it suddenly makes sense how Fauci acted this whole hearing. He would rather spend a year in jail than admit what he's done or perjure himself.

Faced with that choice, Fauci chose to plead the Fifth — 111 times in total.

Leave a comment

Watch the full hearing:

Subscribe now

Have you ever heard the Declaration of Independence read out loud?

You should. It’s the greatest break-up letter ever written.

At just 33 years old, Thomas Jefferson, with cold moral clarity, told the British government to pound sand:

“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to ABOLISH it.”

The power of that line isn’t just what it says. It’s how it’s said.

Jefferson wasn’t writing from a place of outrage. He was transmitting conviction—moral clarity delivered from a steady frame of mind.

It’s said Jefferson revised the Declaration of Independence with the help of Franklin and Adams dozens of times before it was finalized.

And that deliberate, cutting language, paired with emotional steadiness, is precisely why the words still land 250 years later.

Today, we’re blessed to be the inheritors of the great nation those steady hands wrote into existence.

Happy Birthday, America. 🇺🇸

Leave a comment

Charlie Kirk never got to see America’s 250th birthday. So, in his honor, watch him shut down the typical liberal “stolen land” argument.

A college student confronts Kirk and says Americans are living on “stolen land” taken from the Mexicans.

Kirk asks who the Mexicans stole it from, then expertly turns his own words against him.

By the end, everyone is cheering for America. Watch how this one plays out.

STUDENT: “I want to acknowledge the fact that we are right now on stolen land and that we are on indigenous land and that we are on original Mexican land right now.”

KIRK: “I love this stolen land argument.”

STUDENT: “…I really make it a point to notice that I’m on stolen land at all times, especially when we think about things like Manifest Destiny.”

KIRK: “Who did the Mexicans steal the land from?”

STUDENT: “Actually, the Mexicans were there originally in Texas…”

KIRK: “Wrong. They stole it from lots of Indian tribes… Texas was not indigenously Mexican… there was the Cherokee. There were many different Native American tribes there. So Mexico was participating in Manifest Destiny at the behest of the Spanish crown.”

[Student acknowledges Kirk is right]

KIRK: “At some point, you have to believe in self-determination. If you can win the land, it’s yours. That is what built the West.”

STUDENT: “I can agree with that.”

KIRK: “So instead of a land acknowledgement… you should have a gratitude acknowledgement. ‘Praise God, I live in America! I’m glad!’ A gratitude acknowledgement would be nice.”

[Crowd erupts]

Charlie would have loved to experience America’s 250th birthday more than anyone.

He defended America on campuses exactly like this one until the day he died. The least we can do is carry his message forward.

Rest in Peace, Legend.

Subscribe now

On Memorial Day 1982, the threat of nuclear holocaust was not some distant movie plot.

Millions of Americans went to bed at night wondering whether the world they knew would still exist the next morning as tensions with The Soviet Union grew.

But Ronald Reagan told Americans: Do not surrender to fear, but live with the same courage that previous generations had.

Looking back, Ronald Reagan’s Memorial Day speech was not merely a tribute to the dead.

It was a warning to the living:

Subscribe now

Freedom is never “bought cheaply.”

Reagan’s foundational point was that Memorial Day is not a day of passive remembrance.

Honoring the dead doesn’t mean giving them a national holiday and acknowledgment once a year; it means actively preserving what they died defending.

Liberty is never inherited permanently. Every generation gets the blessings and the burden together — whether it wants the responsibility or not.

Today, it is a popular saying that hard time creates strong men, strong men create good times, and good times create weak men.

Reagan understood that before the Internet even existed.

Societies grow soft when comfort hides the cost of what surrounds them. Once a civilization forgets what sacrifice purchased, it stops protecting it.

“Freedom is not bought cheaply, it has a cost. It imposes a burden,” Reagan stressed.

Bureaucratic noise can blind a nation to existential danger.

This section hits even harder than it did back then.

Reagan warned that societies get swallowed by political noise (“the blizzard of budget numbers”) while larger dangers gather around them.

He was describing a civilization so skilled at arguing with one another yet so oblivious to the real threats right in front of them.

Civilizations rarely fall because nobody saw the danger coming. They fall because distraction, division, comfort, and exhaustion hollow out the will to respond before it is too late.

“It is not just strength or courage that we need, but understanding and a measure of wisdom as well.”

Moral confusion is a national vulnerability.

Reagan argued that when a nation loses faith in its own moral framework, it loses its freedom altogether.

He pointed to the Soviet Union as a clear example.

“We must never hesitate to acknowledge the irrefutable difference between our view of man as master of the state and their view of man as servant of the state.”

Today, Americans can’t even agree on whether a man wearing a wig is actually a woman or whether children can consent to life-changing operations.

That decay in moral framework has created weakness.

Reagan argued that a society that stops believing its values are worth defending will eventually stop defending them.

The dead were ordinary young men who chose the ultimate sacrifice anyway.

This was the most emotional passage of the entire speech.

Reagan walked through those rows of “white crosses and Stars of David” and reminded Americans that the men buried there were not abstract figures.

They were young men who laughed, feared death, cracked jokes, and still chose service.

“The best darn kids in the world.”

He made the distinction that they did not “volunteer to die.” They volunteered to defend something they believed mattered more than they did.

That single line turns Memorial Day from a ceremony about loss into a reflection on moral courage.

“They volunteered to defend values for which men have always been willing to die if need be.”

The national anthem is a challenge to the living.

Reagan closed by pointing out something most Americans had never noticed: the national anthem does not end with a declaration. It ends with a question.

“O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave… O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

That was not poetry to him. It was a challenge aimed at every generation that inherits freedom after the sacrifices of previous generations have faded into memory.

The dead answered the question with their lives.

The living still have to answer it with theirs.

Because when fear and hard times arrive, every generation is eventually forced to answer the same question:

“Does that flag still wave?”

Watch Reagan’s full 1982 Memorial Day speech below:

If you see a veteran today, thank them for their courage. And never forget how fragile freedom really is. You don’t have to be a soldier to defend it.

Sometimes defending freedom simply means learning when to say no.

No to governments tracking and monitoring your daily life under the promise of “safety.” No to digital IDs. No to central bank digital currencies. No to cars that can monitor, control, or even shut down the very people who bought them.

Because freedom is rarely taken all at once. More often, it disappears one small compromise at a time.

As Benjamin Franklin famously warned:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Thanks for reading. I hope this thread and Reagan’s words resonated with you.

The reason I created @VigilantFox in the first place was to push back against government overreach during COVID: vaccine mandates, censorship, lockdowns, and the idea that Americans should give up freedom in exchange for “safety.”

I couldn’t stay silent. My conscience simply wouldn’t let me.

To fight back, I cut and shared thousands of clips featuring doctors, scientists, and independent voices brave enough to question the official narrative.

Together, we’ve reached billions of views and helped millions of people hear the side of the story the government and media tried to bury.

But this fight doesn’t end with COVID.

Follow me for easy-to-digest clips and reports that challenge government overreach and defend freedom.

Subscribe now

For four years, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.

“Now I know,” he says.

The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.

And now we have the receipts:

The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.

This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.

Subscribe now

According to VAERS, the US’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, more adverse events and deaths have been reported following COVID vaccines than from all other vaccines combined over the system’s 30+ year history.

More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).

It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).

And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.

But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it.

It turns out they knew the safety signal was there. But they didn’t see it as a warning sign. They saw it as a “pest.”

So much of a “pest” that they decided it was better to ignore the devastating safety signals and let people die than to deal with the data head-on because it could stoke “vaccine hesitancy.”

Keep reading to see the timeline that proves it.

On March 1, 2021, less than three months after the rollout of the COVID-19 injections, Dr. Ana Szarfman, an employee at CDER and safety data mining developer, warned that the FDA’s existing system could hide vaccine safety signals due to a flaw called “masking.”

She proposed a newer method developed by statistician Dr. William DuMouchel that corrected for this issue and, when applied, detected “49 examples of extreme masking” that the standard system did not.

These “49 examples of extreme masking” include not “minor” but serious adverse events:

• Bell’s palsy

• Cardiac failure

• Acute left ventricular failure

• Agonal rhythm (severe end-of-life arrhythmia)

• Pulmonary infarction

• Cerebral artery occlusion

• Aortic stenosis

• Sudden cardiac death

• Hypertensive emergency

• Basal ganglia stroke

When Dr. Szarfman proposed a new method, she was told to “hold off on creating and sending data mining reports and analyses.”

Later, they “made it clear” that she “needs to focus on her assigned work” and “should not be discussing or providing internal analyses externally.”

As Dr. Szarfman puts it, her work became a “pest” for raising concerns about safety signal masking.

Remember this face. This is Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s former top vaccine official.

In September 2021, Dr. Marks decided that Dr. Szarfman’s COVID vaccine data-mining days were over.

He informed Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the then director of CDER, that Dr. Szarfman “has been asked to cease and desist conducting her data analysis.”

Dr. Marks complained that Dr. Szarfman’s work had become “a major distraction” and that her efforts could “create erroneous conflicts that feed into anti-vaccination rhetoric.”

Dr. Szarfman went on to retire from the FDA in 2025 after more than 35 years of service.

She raised concerns about safety signal masking. The FDA essentially told her to shut up.

Because in their eyes, “49 examples of extreme masking” could create “erroneous conflicts” and fuel “vaccine hesitancy.”

So, health officials decided to let people die from devastating side effects and bury the data because it was too inconvenient to take head-on.

People should be going to jail for this.

Everything I just outlined comes directly from this hearing and the official Subcommittee investigation. If you want to see it for yourself, watch the full hearing or read the full report below.

A little bit about me: I spent over a decade working as a licensed healthcare professional. But when the Biden administration rolled out its vaccine mandates, I couldn’t stay silent. My conscience simply wouldn’t let me.

That’s when I started this page.

Since then, I’ve shared thousands of clips featuring doctors and scientists who were brave enough to question the official COVID narrative. Along the way, we’ve reached billions of views and helped millions of people see the side of the story the government didn’t want out.

But I’m just getting started and intend to do this for a long time. Follow me for easy-to-digest clips and reports that challenge the mainstream narrative.

Follow on 𝕏: @VigilantFox

Substack: VigilantFox.com

A new Tucker Carlson clip is blowing up online, and the conservative commentator is getting hammered relentlessly.

Several viral posts, racking up millions of views, are claiming Tucker said: “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.”

That quote has been amplified by major names like Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Chris Cuomo, Laura Loomer, The Babylon Bee, and others.

One conservative broadcaster, Steve Deace, even said he was ready to dedicate a full hour to dissecting this clip.

There’s just one problem: Tucker never said, “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.” Not even close.

Unlike many of the people weighing in, I actually watched the full 5-minute video.

And the only mention of “Sharia law” in the Tucker clip is this: “Saudi Arabia… It’s a country governed by Sharia law. And they’re like, ‘That’s great.’”

The phrase “more advanced” never appears anywhere in the video either.

And yet, no one caught the deceptive, fake quote being broadcast to millions of users. It took me, a cartoon fox, to point it out.

Here’s what Grok, X’s AI chatbot with access to the full transcript, says about the video.

Tucker didn't say “Sharia Law has made Islamic societies more advanced than the West.” That quote is fabricated and doesn't appear anywhere in the 5-minute clip.

What he actually said (at ~2:33): While describing dinner in Riyadh, “I’m really pro-Jesus, I’m a Christian… They’re like, ‘That’s great. Good for you.’ No, they’re Muslims. It’s a country governed by Sharia law.”

He praised the self-confidence and lack of self-hatred he sees in places like Saudi Arabia/Qatar vs. declining Western cities—but never tied Sharia to making them “more advanced.”

I find it deeply unsettling that so many high-profile journalists, broadcasters, and personalities rushed in to trash Tucker Carlson without even bothering to watch the video.

I’m not a professionally-trained journalist. I worked in healthcare and became a citizen journalist after being disturbed by what I witnessed during COVID.

And it’s sad that I have to point out to the professionals that you need to verify your sources before weighing in on a quote that sounds too crazy to be true. This is journalism 101.

MAGA rightly went nuts over the “fine people” hoax when Trump’s words were misrepresented by the media.

Yet here we are with a more egregious misrepresentation, and those I thought cared about truth are now defending a completely fabricated quote, mocking the idea of “defending Tucker.”

That should set off alarm bells.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Tucker Carlson. But you shouldn’t judge anyone based on something they never said. If this were a fake Trump quote, we would all be rightly outraged.

And I’m not bothering to highlight this just because it’s Tucker. If it were a fake quote about AOC, I’d be calling that out, too. This is about honoring reality.

Before we pledge loyalty to a person, a party, or to someone being on “my side,” we need to remember that our first loyalty belongs to the truth.

That’s what matters.

And if we can’t even agree that truth is more important than our personal biases anymore, we’re in serious trouble.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Acting HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience for the first time since taking his new role, and he did not shy away from detailing the fraud he says he uncovered after finally stepping into a position of power.

With Medicaid and Medicare alone, Kennedy said, “We lose just on Medicaid and Medicare, $100 billion a year,” and it’s all “really shocking, blatant fraud.”

As HHS Secretary, Kennedy described an industrialized scheme operating out of Florida, where P.O. boxes were set up for companies claiming to sell durable medical equipment like knee braces and wheelchairs.

But there’s one small problem: “They don’t have any knee braces or wheelchairs.”

However, they do have patient identification numbers.

Those ID numbers are used to bill the government for equipment that never ships. Kennedy said many of these schemes are operating out of countries like Cuba or Russia.

He then pointed to another staggering example: Los Angeles has more hospice providers than the entire rest of the country COMBINED.

How is that possible? That’s because “it’s all fraudulent,” Kennedy said.

Subscribe now

Moments later, Kennedy detailed a shocking autism fraud scandal that took place in Minnesota.

He said organized crime companies would tell families to designate that “ALL your children have autism now.”

Families were promised a few thousand dollars when they enrolled in autism services. But the crime companies would then “collect all the money.”

The scheme, he said, grew to a massive scale.

In Minneapolis, Kennedy said he expected the autism program to cost about $3 million a year.

Instead, over a three-year period, it exploded to $400 million annually.

It was almost “all fraudulent,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy added that this fraud accelerated under the Biden administration, where he says officials ended the program integrity office and told staff, “We don’t want to do program integrity anymore. We now just want to focus everything on enrollments.”

Kennedy argues you could say there was “bad motive there.”

Watch the Full Interview Below:

The All-American Halftime Show was a massive success, with tens of millions of viewers tuning in over the official Super Bowl halftime show featuring Bad Bunny.

And one song in particular is gaining buzz after capturing the hearts of Christians everywhere.

It’s called “Til Ya Can’t,” and you could hear the crowd roaring as Kid Rock sang these lyrics live:

“There’s a book that’s sitting in your house somewhere that could use some dusting off. There’s a man who died for all our sins hanging from the cross. You can give your life to Jesus, and he’ll give you a second chance…”

Leave a comment

The song quickly went viral, with many social media users saying it was beautiful or that it “brought tears” to their eyes.

After the widespread love from fans, Kid Rock delivered this message on X:

If you enjoyed our version of “Til Ya Can’t” on The TPUSA All American Halftime - Our studio recording of it will be available to purchase or stream at midnight tonight (Feb 9)!

A big thank you to @codyjohnson and the songwriters Ben Stennis and Matt Rogers for giving me there blessing to record and release it, It really is one of the best written songs I have heard in a long time and NOTHING is more powerful than a great song in my book!

— Kid Rock

Until then, you can hear the full song in the final five minutes of this live performance:

Subscribe now

Something unexpected has happened on cable TV, and it’s a sign that disaster is coming for tech billionaire Bill Gates.

In the latest tranche of the Epstein Files, emails drafted by Jeffrey Epstein suggest that Gates contracted an STD from sleeping with “Russian girls” and had planned to secretly medicate his then-wife, Melinda.

Bill has denied the allegations, but Melinda interestingly did not. Instead, she expressed “unbelievable sadness” reflecting on their marriage and Gates’ association with Epstein.

Subscribe now

When asked about this during an interview with 9 News Australia, Bill Gates said he doesn’t know what Epstein was thinking with the email, suggesting Epstein may have been trying to “attack” him in some way.

The reporter challenged Gates on why this accusation against him wasn’t true when other Epstein file revelations were accurate.

Gates sidestepped the question and asserted his own version of events.

“It’s factually true that I was only at dinners. I never went to the island. I never met any women,” he replied.

That response was unexpectedly met with fierce skepticism by the ladies of The View, especially Joy Behar.

“I know nothing. I did nothing,” she mocked, adding, I like when they say, ‘I was not on the island,’ as if that’s the only place any of this stuff could happen.”

Whoopi Goldberg’s face screamed extreme skepticism to Gates’ remarks, whereas Sunny Hostin described Melinda Gates’ comments about Bill’s association with Epstein being a major detriment to their marriage as a “big statement.”

“[The files] were released by the Justice Department, and I think he should answer to it,” she said.

WATCH:

Bill Gates stated in his 9 News interview that as more information comes out, it will become “clear” that he “had nothing to do with that kind of behavior.”

But the court of public opinion has already turned on him. And you know Gates is in serious PR trouble when he loses The View.

Share

Dear readers, I apologize for not delivering a Top 10 today, but something else came up that I believe was more important.

Today, we lost a great warrior in politics, someone whose mission in life was to be “useful” to his fellow human beings. I’m talking about none other than Dilbert creator Scott Adams.

Subscribe now

Scott was more than just a cartoonist. He was the “Internet Dad” for right-of-center minds. He taught people how to be “useful” in their own lives, ditch loser thinking, and become more persuasive.

I spoke with Scott a few times briefly via online messaging, and I was genuinely honored that he liked my work and took the time to reply to my messages.

But what I admired most about Scott was how deeply he valued his fans.

He believed in simulation theory, yet as he neared the final days of his life, the warmth and love from those fans touched him profoundly. Their persistence moved him so much that it convinced him to convert to Christianity.

Leave a comment

Today, Scott’s X account posted his “final message” to the world. It personally brought tears to my eyes, and it captures everything I loved about the man.

I encourage you to read it in full. The world was a better place with Scott Adams around.

If you are reading this, things did not go well for me.

I have a few things to say before I go.

My body failed before my brain. I am of sound mind as I write this, January 1st, 2026. If you wonder about any of my choices for my estate, or anything else, please know I am free of any coercion or inappropriate influence of any sort. I promise.

Next, many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I’m not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for doing so looks attractive. So, here I go:

I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I look forward to spending an eternity with him. The part about me not being a believer should be quickly resolved if I wake up in heaven. I won’t need any more convincing than that. And I hope I am still qualified for entry.

With your permission, I’d like to explain something about my life.

---

For the first part of my life, I was focused on making myself a worthy husband and parent, as a way to find meaning. That worked. But marriages don’t always last forever, and mine eventually ended, in a highly amicable way. I’m grateful for those years and for the people I came to call my family.

Once the marriage unwound, I needed a new focus. A new meaning. And so I donated myself to “the world,” literally speaking the words out loud in my otherwise silent home. From that point on, I looked for ways I could add the most to people’s lives, one way or another.

That marked the start of my evolution from Dilbert cartoonist to an author of – what I hoped would be – useful books. By then, I believed I had amassed enough life lessons that I could start passing them on. I continued making Dilbert comics, of course.

As luck would have it, I’m a good writer. My first book in the “useful” genre was How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. That book turned out to be a huge success, often imitated, and influencing a wide variety of people. I still hear every day how much that book changed lives. My plan to be useful was working.

---

I followed up with my book Win Bigly, that trained an army of citizens how to be more persuasive, which they correctly saw as a minor super power. I know that book changed lives because I hear it often.

You’ll probably never know the impact the book had on the world, but I know, and it pleases me while giving me a sense of meaning that is impossible to describe.

My next book, Loserthink, tried to teach people how to think better, especially if they were displaying their thinking on social media. That one didn’t put much of a dent in the universe, but I tried.

Finally, my book Reframe Your Brain taught readers how to program their own thoughts to make their personal and professional lives better. I was surprised and delighted at how much positive impact that book is having.

I also started podcasting a live show called Coffee With Scott Adams, dedicated to helping people think about the world, and their lives, in a more productive way. I didn’t plan it this way, but it ended up helping lots of lonely people find a community that made them feel less lonely. Again, that had great meaning for me.

---

I had an amazing life. I gave it everything I had. If you got any benefits from my work, I’m asking you to pay it forward as best you can. That is the legacy I want.

Be useful.

And please know I loved you all to the end.

Scott Adams

Share

Something feels deeply off about the Trump team’s response to the Vanity Fair hit piece featuring Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and people are starting to take notice.

Earlier today, Vanity Fair published a lengthy piece drawn almost entirely from on-the-record conversations with Susie Wiles herself.

The article included blunt characterizations of key figures inside Trump’s inner circle: Wiles described JD Vance as having been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” and labeled Russell Vought as “a right-wing absolute zealot.”

She also made less-than-stellar remarks about the president himself, telling Vanity Fair, “Trump has an alcoholic’s personality.”

When the piece became public, Wiles quickly took to social media to dismiss the article as a “disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.”

But Susie spoke with Vanity Fair “regularly” over the “past year.” Was she so naive that she really did not see this hit piece coming? And why would she hand a left-wing outlet ample ammunition to smear the Trump team by supplying them with such derogatory statements?

But the truly strange part wasn’t Wiles’ response. It was what came next.

Trump’s inner circle and cabinet members rushed in to defend her, and their posts were so exaggerated that it went well beyond helping out an ally; it resembled borderline worship.

Look at this response from HHS Secretary RFK Jr.

Susie Wiles is arguably the most perfect chief of staff in modern American history. She is the first female to occupy that position, but more importantly she is a leader who combines deftness, kindness, and compassion with a maternal toughness and discipline that elevates the entire White House apparatus.

Her impeccable judgment, moral center, intuitive understanding of the President’s intentions, and her ability to translate his vision into concrete policy have earned her universal trust and respect of the cabinet, which, consequently, functions more as an unusually efficient family than as assemblage of competing rivals.

Her mastery of politics, her encyclopedic command of every issue and policy, and her ability to instantly grasp the heart of every problem rival anyone with whom I’ve ever worked. Susie—like President Trump—understands how to wield power with purpose.

Vaccine critic and Substack author Toby Rogers wrote back to Kennedy: “Can y’all please knock it off already with these hostage tweets?”

Singer-songwriter and medical freedom activist Five Times August replied: “SUSIE WILES IS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING IN EVERY WAY AND THE BEST PERSON TO LEAD US IN ALL THINGS.”

Attached was a GIF with a woman pointing a gun at a man’s head.

When you dig a little further, you notice multiple members of Trump’s team moved almost in unison, issuing similar messages about Susie Wiles in rapid succession.

Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash)

“Fake news comes after you when you’re effective… and there’s nobody in @realDonaldTrump’s team more effective than @SusieWiles.”

Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent)

“2025 has been a year of historic achievement by @POTUS for the American people, and @SusieWiles’ unwavering leadership has led the way.

Susie is an exceptional Chief of Staff, and her tireless dedication, loyalty, and commitment to the President are beyond reproach. Powerful leadership often works quietly—never seeking credit and always relentlessly driving results. Our Chief exemplifies that.”

Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin)

“Susie Wiles is an EXCEPTIONAL White House Chief of Staff. Her partnership with President Trump, and a team loaded with chemistry, dedication and talent, has yielded historic results for the American people in such a short period of time. I have immense respect for Susie, her impactful leadership, and her enormous accomplishments—with so many even bigger victories still to come.”

Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec)

“Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has helped President Trump achieve the most successful first 11 months in office of any President in American history.

President Trump has no greater or more loyal advisor than Susie.

The entire Administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

Leave a comment

Attorney Tom Renz has been investigating Susie Wiles for some time, and his findings have led him to conclude that she is bad news. After JD Vance brushed off Susie Wiles calling him a “conspiracy theorist,” Renz wrote:

I understand @JDVance has to deflect a bit here, but it must be grinding to have Susie Wiles throw him under the bus like this. I see the whole administration speaking out in unison about how great the “most powerful woman in the world” is. How much of that is self-preservation? Anyone near the administration knows how Wiles does business, and it isn’t gentle.

I broke much of the info on Wiles being a managing partner at a lobbying firm that represented Pfizer, Alibaba, Gilead, and many other nefarious places. I said at the time I wished I was wrong and still do, but the facts are the facts, and Wiles wouldn’t even chat about them. You don’t hide things unless you have things to hide, and her loyalty to the Bush world is 180 degrees out of line with MAGA.

You can’t serve two masters, and it looks like many in the administration are starting to see which master controls—and it doesn’t look like it’s MAGA. My real question is, how powerful must she be to have the entire administration and all the “conservative influencers” speak out in unison about how great she is?

Tom raises a great point. It’s strange how Wiles draws so much praise in unison. Whenever Wiles’s reputation gets shaky with Trump’s base, she always seems to be swiftly lifted back up.

Something very unusual is going on, and it suggests Wiles holds an unusual amount of power and leverage within the Trump administration. One can only speculate why that is. But one thing is certain: something’s off.

Subscribe now

A long-awaited vaccine reversal has just sent shockwaves through the US medical establishment after 34 long years.

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, just voted 8–3 to end the universal Hepatitis B birth-dose recommendation and move instead to shared decision-making for infants born to hepatitis-B–negative mothers.

For the first time since 1991, parents (not a blanket federal recommendation) will decide whether their newborn receives this shot in the first hours or days of life.

Voting YES to end the universal mandate: Retsef Levi and seven other members.

Voting NO: Dr. H. Cody Meissner, Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln, and Dr. Raymond Pollak. Two of the three issued grave warnings, insisting the decision to end the universal hepatitis B recommendation will “cause harm” and that the panel will have to “accept this responsibility when this harm is caused.”

The decision to end the universal hepatitis B vaccination recommendation is a huge deal because the three-shot series is required for public school attendance in nearly every state, and most states base their mandates directly on ACIP recommendations. Today’s decision instantly places the decades-old school requirement on unstable ground.

The debate leading up to the vote centered around a single primary question: why is every newborn vaccinated against a virus primarily transmitted through sexual contact, needle sharing, or from an infected mother during birth?

Every pregnant woman in the United States is screened for hepatitis B. Only 0.5% of births involve a mother who tests positive. Newborns do not engage in behaviors that spread the virus. And yet, for 34 years, every child in America has been expected to receive a Hepatitis B shot on the first day of life.

During yesterday’s meeting, CDC contractor Dr. Cynthia Nevison presented evidence that the universal birth-dose never meaningfully altered population-level Hepatitis B trends. Acute Hepatitis B cases were already plummeting years before the vaccine recommendation took effect in 1991.

As she showed, the sharp decline in cases during the 1980s and early 1990s was overwhelmingly due to other factors: improved blood screening, widespread adoption of safe-sex practices during the AIDS crisis, needle-exchange programs, and targeted (not universal) vaccination of infants actually at risk.

Her conclusion was blunt: “universal birth dose contribution to acute [Hepatitis B] case decline is likely very small.”

For decades, parents have questioned why a vaccine for a bloodborne, sexually transmitted virus is pushed on healthy newborns within hours of birth. Today’s vote shows those concerns are no longer being dismissed.

This vote does not end the Hepatitis B vaccine. It restores parental choice. And after three decades of unquestioned policy, that alone is historic.

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading. If you appreciate this kind of reporting, please become a paid subscriber today. Your support is the clearest signal that this work matters to you and directly shapes what I cover next.

If you’ve been on the fence, now is a great moment to upgrade, as I’m offering 50% off first-year subscriptions for a limited time. This work is only possible because of paid subscribers like you. Thank you for your support.

Get 50% off for 1 year

As of today, Hepatitis B vaccination is required for public school attendance in nearly every state in the United States. If ACIP votes to end the universal birth-dose recommendation and limit it only to infants born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B, that long-standing school mandate could be displaced to uncertain ground, since most states base their school requirements on ACIP recommendations.

Hepatitis B is a viral infection primarily transmitted through blood and bodily fluids, most commonly through sexual contact, needle sharing, or exposure during birth. Mothers are routinely tested during pregnancy to determine whether they are hepatitis B positive and at risk of transmitting the virus to their baby. And with only about 0.5% of births involving a mother who tests positive, it continues to raise questions about why the vaccine is recommended for every child on the first day of life.

Also, because newborns don’t engage in sexual activity or needle sharing, the universal vaccination recommendation has puzzled many parents for decades, who wonder why a sexually transmitted or bloodborne illness requires immunization at birth.

Many questions about the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine have been raised by figures such as Robert Kennedy Jr., Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Casey Means, and countless concerned parents.

But one CDC contractor, Dr. Cynthia Nevison, walked into the ACIP meeting and raised another critical question: has universal Hepatitis B vaccination, after 34 long years, even lowered Hepatitis B cases on a population level? Dr. Nevison’s answer to that question might surprise you.

And if not the vaccine, why did Hepatitis B cases plummet after 1991? Dr. Nevison addressed that question, too.

Subscribe now

The first slide Dr. Nevison presented showed acute Hepatitis B cases over time. At first glance, it looks like universal vaccination in 1991 is the reason for the downtrend, but if you look closer, you’ll notice that acute Hepatitis B cases were already falling sharply compared to when they peaked in 1985.

Moreover, if you look at the 20–24 (light blue) and 15–19 (orange) age groups, you’ll notice that the rates of acute hepatitis B were falling long before the vaccination could ever be given credit, because the vaccine would not have an impact on 20–24-year-olds until around 2011–2012, or until 2006–2007 for 15–19-year-olds, Dr. Nevison noted.

As such, Dr. Nevison concluded, “universal birth dose contribution to acute [Hepatitis B] case decline is likely very small.”

Instead of vaccination, Dr. Nevison gave credit to other factors for the sharp decline in acute Hepatitis B:

• “There was better blood screening for the hepatitis B surface antigen, which led to sharp declines in hepatitis B transmitted through transfusion and also through dialysis.”

• “And then this was the 1980s, with concern about AIDS. So there was widespread adoption of safe sex practices.”

• “And then there were needle-exchange programs, which helped curtail transmission through IV drug use.”

• “And also the 1980s saw the beginning of screening and case management for surface antigen–positive mothers and targeted (not universal) vaccination of their infants.”

“So all these factors helped bring down cases both before the universal birth dose was implemented and after,” she said.

Dr. Nevison showed one last slide on this exact subject, and it was both alarming from a health standpoint and quietly devastating for the universal vaccine program. New chronic cases of hepatitis B have risen sharply in people aged 60 or over since 2020.

Dr. Nevison said, “It’s not clear what’s causing this.” However, “what is clear is the universal birth dose is doing nothing to help these older adults who are experiencing disease now and need help.”

What’s promising is that after 34 long years with little to no debate on this topic, there is now growing pressure to question the legitimacy of hepatitis B shots for newborns on the first day of life.

As we noted, only 0.5% of infants are actually at risk of contracting hepatitis B from the mother, and 88% of mothers are screened. Increasing screening compliance rather than universal vaccination makes far more sense because once you rule out mother-to-baby transmission, the likelihood of a child contracting hepatitis B through sexual contact or needle exposure is virtually zero.

And when you consider that there has never been a true placebo-controlled trial comparing long-term outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children for this shot (or any childhood vaccine, for that matter), it becomes difficult to justify why this vaccination is given universally.

With the leaked FDA memo where Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote that at least 10 children died from the COVID shots, perhaps voting members will come to their senses and recognize that overconfidence in vaccines can have deadly consequences, and that this universal hepatitis B vaccine recommendation makes no sense. We can only hope. We’ll see what happens.

Leave a comment

I need your feedback!

Would you like to see more posts like this, where I break down in-depth presentations into a quick and easy read? Was it boring, or do you appreciate the effort? I’d love to hear where you stand.

The Daily Beast just quietly confirmed a “conspiracy theory” about why RFK Jr.’s ex-CDC director was fired.

“Susan Monarez, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s handpicked CDC appointee, was privately assuring health officials that she would reverse her own boss’s directives, according to agency staffers,” the outlet wrote.

This theory was previously mocked as “baseless” and “unfounded,” but now leftist outlets confirm it to be true.

Monarez was actively working against RFK Jr. and made promises to “make changes” to appease CDC staff who were not aligned with RFK Jr.

Subscribe now

“Please wait… When I come, I will make changes,” Monarez reportedly promised CDC’s former chief medical officer, Debra Houry, urging her not to resign.

“Monarez has said that Kennedy then issued her an ultimatum: obey or resign. Just 29 days after her Senate confirmation, she was ousted. Houry quickly followed her out the door,” The Daily Beast reported.

Read the full story here.

Monarez also believed COVID vaccines were medically indicated in children — a belief that is aging worse than rotten milk after a leaked FDA memo confirmed at least 10 children died from the shots.

Once again, conspiracy theory becomes reality. This one took just over three months to become confirmed true.

Leave a comment

Loving father and TV powerhouse Howie Mandel had an unexpected moment on air when his daughter and co-host, Jackie, grew testy with conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly in the studio.

Mandel is known for his upbeat, gentle personality, but when he saw his daughter getting a little too confrontational toward O’Reilly, he stepped in and told her she was being too “woke.”

It all started when O’Reilly laid out what he believes is the most effective and humane way to handle the illegal immigration crisis right now.

Subscribe now

O’REILLY: “Everyone here undocumented right now, and I suggested this to President Trump… has to register with the federal government within 30 days. Everybody has to give the federal government their status, where they live, and whether they’re employed or not.

“Federal government gets that information, and then they run it through the computer system to see if there’s a warrant against those people… If they don’t, then the federal government sends them back a piece of paper or whatever… that allows them not to be picked up. So it’d be like a cop asking for your, ‘Let me see your ID’… That’s the way to do it.”

HOWIE: “That is a good idea.”

JACKIE: “Really? Stop any brown person and say, ‘Show me you’re allowed to be here?’”

HOWIE: “No, no, no. He’s saying—”

JACKIE: “They wouldn’t go up to you and say, ‘Show me that you’re allowed to be here.’”

HOWIE: “No, if they think that somebody’s—”

JACKIE: “Why would they think that?”

HOWIE: “But you’re going two steps ahead.”

O’REILLY: “It’s probable cause.”

JACKIE: “Because of the color of their skin.”

HOWIE: “No, no, you’re being a little more woke. Because that’s not why.”

JACKIE: “Okay. Why would they stop them and ask them if they’re allowed to be here then?”

At this point, O’Reilly was ready to defend himself as she continued to press him, but Howie stayed involved, choosing to handle his daughter himself.

HOWIE: “Probable cause… If they were not a criminal and they knew that there was a pathway and they were going to get a paper that guaranteed that they weren’t going to get swept up by ICE, is that not a good idea?”

WATCH:

The full conversation between O’Reilly, Mandel, and his daughter is available here:

Share

The Schumer Shutdown is finally over. On Wednesday night, the House passed a bill to effectively reopen the government by a vote of 222–209.

Before this vote happened, Democrats openly admitted they were using Americans as hostages, making air travel more dangerous, and putting vulnerable citizens at risk of food insecurity for “leverage.” And after 43 days of pain and suffering, it was all for nothing because they didn’t get what they wanted.

Subscribe now

In the aftermath, AOC attacked the Democrats who voted to reopen the government as “traitors.” Sen. John Fetterman took issue with that on NewsNation, spelling out what “leverage” really means. And he even confronted the “democratic socialists” looking to take over his party.

Cuomo asked Fetterman: “What do you make of the argument that this was your only leverage, and without this, you’re at the mercy of the Republicans, and they don’t want to cut costs?”

Fetterman’s response exposed the real cost of using a government shutdown as “leverage.”

“No. I refuse to use American citizens, [make] food insecure, not pay our military — they are NOT my leverage,” he responded firmly.

“Those are fellow citizens. Those are the ones that I defend; those ones that I fight for. Some of them are the most vulnerable ones. I refuse to put them in the middle. Again, it’s a fundamental betrayal of what I think is our core party’s values.”

Moments later, Cuomo threw another question at Fetterman — to which he used the opportunity to fire off a blunt message to AOC, Bernie Sanders, and every “Democratic socialist” in his party.

CUOMO: “Do you believe this [government shutdown] may be, at least in part, about your party changing… that this may be a moment where [the democratic socialists] want to take over the party?”

To that, Fetterman delivered this blunt reality check: “I promise you America’s future and my party’s future is not socialism or kinds of outlandish, far-left kinds of ideas.”

He even said outright that the far-left wing is the reason Democrats are in this political hole.

“It’s been a year [since] we lost the election. And part of those ideas pushed our party over the cliff. And that’s why we’re in this situation right now. That’s why we’re firmly in the minority, and that’s why we’ve lost control of the White House.”

Fetterman kept going, drawing a clear line between what wins and what loses.

“If you think [socialism] is a solution, that’s fine, but it’s going to be a competition of ideas, and we know that’s not going to prevail,” Fetterman said.

“What’s going to prevail is common sense. What’s going to prevail is choosing this country over the extreme in our party. What’s going to prevail is common sense,” he stressed.

“And I do believe… we should respond [to Trump] with order and logic and patriotism and not shutting down our government right now,” Fetterman argued.

“And that’s where I’m at. And I don’t know why that’s controversial. That’s not a big tent party if you’re not allowed to have the opinion that it’s wrong to shut our government down and put these people in the middle of it — and now refer to [Democrats wanting to open up the government] as ‘You’re a traitor’ or these other kinds of labels.”

Fetterman continues to prove he’s a rare kind of Democrat, opposing government shutdowns, refusing to call Republicans “Nazis,” and now pushing back against the rising popularity of socialism.

He sees the writing on the wall, and he’s slamming the brakes before more cities learn the hard way what New York City is about to suffer with Mamdani in charge.

Share

CNN’s “expert” political panel gloated in victory as conservative commentator Scott Jennings issued a blunt warning to the Democratic Party on Tuesday night.

The results are in, and it’s official. New Jersey and Virginia elected Democratic governors. Zohran Mamdani will be the next mayor of New York City, and arguably worst of all, Jay Jones — the Democrat wishing for death on his political opponents and his children — won Virginia’s attorney general race.

The wins of Mamdani and Jones, in particular, Jennings called a “terrible” image for the Democratic Party — one he warned would come back to haunt them. “You own this now,” he said bluntly.

Jennings’ warning began with Mamdani’s win, when he issued this message to Chuck Schumer: “AOC is going to be the next senator from New York.”

But the real warning came when he shifted his focus to Jay Jones.

Subscribe now

“I see the energy in Virginia Democrats looking the other way on a violent candidate for attorney general who says he wants to murder Republicans and their children. If you think you’re getting rid of Graham Platner in Maine now, think again. This is a terrible night for the national Democratic image given what is happening inside their party.”

Jennings continued: “Mamdani is an avowed socialist. It’s not what people say that he is. It’s what he says that he is. He’s now the leader of their party. That’s their energy and Chuck Schumer’s —”

Anderson Cooper cut in, mocking the idea: “[Mamdani’s] the leader of the Democratic Party?”

“Who is the leader? Can someone tell me?” Jennings shot back.

“He’s a life raft for Republicans who have to go on TV and get their asses kicked,” David Axelrod responded with a big smile.

Even as the panel laughed him off, Jennings doubled down on his warning about Mamdani and Jones: “You own this now. You all own this now.”

Share

Republicans are taking heavy losses tonight, with Democrats dominating key races across multiple states.

Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial race. Democrat Mikie Sherrill secured New Jersey. And NewsNation just called New York’s mayoral race in favor of Zohran Mamdani.

Subscribe now

It looks like a bad omen for a midterm nightmare. But not so fast, says conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly, whose words on NewsNation went viral.

O’Reilly explained, “[Tonight’s results] have nothing to do with the midterms” — to which Cuomo replied, “You better hope.”

But Cuomo’s expression turned from confident to confused when O’Reilly said: “Between now and this next year… it’s going to be a completely different country than it is now.”

“Now, I can’t predict which way that’s going to go.” O’Reilly continued.

Looking stumped, Cuomo interjected: “Then how do you know it’s going to be a completely different country?”

“Because there are so many things that have to be decided. There are too many undecideds,” O’Reilly explained.

“And you can start with the Supreme Court ruling on the tariffs… That will give Trump then a free field to see if, in the next eight months, the tariffs can kick in to bring prices down and to help people. That’s what the midterms are all about. It’s about economics here. It’s not about China. It’s not even about Putin. It’s about that.”

In other words, “It’s the economy, stupid.” And Trump now has exactly one year to make Americans feel like it’s working for them.

Leave a comment