Natural News

Questioning the “Why”: CDC committee weighs halting routine Hepatitis B vaccine for babies In a significant move, a key committee advising the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is poised to vote on whether to delay the routine administration of the hepatitis B vaccine from a child's first day of life to two months of age. This pending decision, scheduled for discussion on December 4-5 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), follows mounting public and scientific scrutiny over the vaccine's safety profile and necessity for the general infant population. The debate centers on long-standing criticisms of the foundational science behind the vaccine's licensure and its alignment with the actual risk profile of newborns. A schedule born from policy shift The hepatitis B vaccine’s place on the childhood immunization schedule is a story of evolving policy. Initially recommended in 1982 only for high-risk groups—such as healthcare workers, infants of infected mothers and intravenous drug users—the recommendation shifted to universal infant vaccination by 1991. This change occurred shortly after the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provided pharmaceutical companies with liability protection for vaccines on the CDC schedule. Critics point to this timeline as evidence of regulatory capture, arguing that a vaccine developed for specific adult risk groups was mandated for all children to ensure a profitable market, not because of a demonstrated public health emergency in nurseries. Foundational science under fire At the heart of the safety debate is the quality of the clinical trial data that led to the licensure of the two primary hepatitis B vaccines for infants: Merck’s Recombivax HB and GSK’s Engerix-B. A growing chorus of researchers and advocacy groups highlights critical flaws in these studies: • The trials did not use an inert saline placebo control group. • Sample sizes were too small to detect uncommon adverse events. • Safety monitoring periods were exceedingly brief—just five days for Recombivax and four days for Engerix-B. This limited timeframe is particularly controversial given that potential serious adverse effects, including neurological and autoimmune disorders, may take much longer to manifest. With no long-term, placebo-controlled safety data, critics assert the vaccines were effectively released into the public with an incomplete understanding of their risks. Mounting safety signals and questioned benefits Post-marketing surveillance and independent analyses have fueled safety concerns. Data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), though passive and acknowledged to represent a fraction of actual events, shows tens of thousands of reports of injury following hepatitis B vaccination across all ages, including hundreds of reported deaths in young children. Independent analyses applying under-reporting factors suggest the true toll could be substantially higher. Furthermore, peer-reviewed studies have raised potential links between the vaccine and serious conditions like central nervous system inflammatory demyelination. The vaccine’s aluminum adjuvant—a neurotoxin administered in the same dose to a 7-pound infant as a 210-pound adult—remains a focal point of concern regarding neurodevelopmental impacts. Concurrently, the medical necessity of the vaccine for most newborns is challenged. Hepatitis B is a bloodborne pathogen primarily transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. With routine prenatal screening able to identify the fewer than 1% of U.S. mothers who are infected, critics argue that universal newborn vaccination constitutes a medical overreach. They contend the benefits of the birth dose are negligible for the over 99% of infants not at immediate risk, while the potential for harm, however small, cannot be ruled out due to inadequate safety science. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Trump administration expands immigration restrictions, pausing applications from 19 nations The Trump administration has indefinitely paused all immigration applications—including green cards, naturalization and asylum requests—from citizens of 19 non-European countries, citing national security risks and recent violent incidents linked to foreign nationals. The policy, announced Tuesday, Dec. 2, expands existing travel restrictions imposed in June and marks a significant escalation in the administration's efforts to reshape legal immigration. The move follows a Thanksgiving-week shooting in Washington, D.C., where an Afghan asylum seeker allegedly killed a National Guard member and critically wounded another. The policy also mandates a review of immigrants admitted under the Biden administration, signaling a broader crackdown on legal pathways to residency. In a memorandum, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated that all pending applications from the affected countries will undergo a "thorough re-review process," including potential interviews, to assess security threats. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch, USCIS manages the naturalization process, issues green cards and handles other immigration-related services in the United States. Which countries are affected? The new restrictions apply to nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—countries already subjected to full entry bans under Trump's June executive order. Partial restrictions now extend to Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, targeting specific visa categories. The administration justified the measures by pointing to high visa overstay rates, weak identity verification systems and terrorism concerns. A homeland security memo cited recent crimes allegedly committed by immigrants, including the D.C. attack and a 2024 election-day shooting plot by another Afghan national. Legal and humanitarian backlash Immigration advocates swiftly condemned the policy as an overreach that unfairly targets Muslim-majority and African nations. Sharvari Dalal-Dheini of the American Immigration Lawyers Association told Reuters that her group had received reports of canceled naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies for individuals from the listed countries. Critics argue that the administration is conflating legal immigration with security threats. "This isn't about safety—it's about shutting the door on people who followed the rules," said one immigration attorney, who requested anonymity due to pending cases. The White House, however, maintains that the pause is necessary to prevent future attacks. "USCIS plays an instrumental role in ensuring that terrorists don't find safe haven here," the agency's memo stated. Broader immigration crackdown The policy aligns with Trump's broader enforcement agenda, which has included mass ICE raids, efforts to end birthright citizenship and a push to deport non-citizens receiving federal benefits. Recent operations, such as "Catahoula Crunch" in New Orleans, have drawn criticism for netting non-violent individuals, including a high school student and a Native American actor. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that visa issuances to Afghans have been suspended, while Trump vowed to "permanently pause migration from all third-world countries" unless they meet U.S. security standards. The latest restrictions underscore the administration's determination to tie immigration policy directly to national security—a stance that has sparked legal and diplomatic clashes since 2017. While supporters argue the measures close dangerous loopholes, opponents see them as a pretext for exclusion. Watch the video below, where a Texas representative says immigration should be merit-based. https://www.brighteon.com/06d3f0e4-ce55-4c83-9b1f-33cc35444ec0 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 This state-led movement represents a fundamental shift from reacting to contamination after it occurs to preventing pollution at its source. Minnesota estimates that cleaning up existing PFAS in wastewater alone could cost between $11 billion and $25 billion over two decades, a powerful economic argument for prevention. The pharmaceutical industry's challenge is thus seen as a test case for whether well-resourced corporations can stall this growing wave of state-level accountability. The transparency imperative Environmental and health advocates uniformly reject the industry’s burden argument. They view Minnesota’s law as a straightforward, risk-based policy for a severe problem. Reporting requirements, they argue, are the foundational step for understanding the full scope of PFAS exposure and for empowering both consumers and regulators. “It seems like knowing about whether PFAS are in the pharmaceuticals is something that many consumers would want to know, and the companies should want to know,” noted one environmental attorney. The legal doctrine of federal preemption may not offer the industry a clear victory. Legal scholars note that while the FDA regulates drug safety and marketing, it does not typically regulate environmental reporting requirements for chemicals within those drugs. A separate federal rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act will require PFAS reporting to the EPA, but its scope and exceptions remain in flux. In August 2025, a Minnesota judge temporarily paused the state's specific reporting rules, asking for revisions, but did not invalidate the underlying law, leaving the door open for a renewed regulatory framework. The road to accountability The confrontation in Minnesota is more than a regulatory dispute; it is a referendum on corporate transparency and environmental health. As federal agencies continue their slow gathering of data on thousands of PFAS compounds, states are taking tangible steps to reduce exposure today. The pharmaceutical industry's attempt to shield itself from disclosure requirements underscores the high financial and reputational stakes involved. The result will determine whether people can make fully informed choices about their health or remain in the dark about the hidden chemical footprint of prescriptions. The path forward hinges on whether the principle of the public’s right to know will prevail over corporate claims of operational inconvenience in the face of a persistent chemical crisis. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

The prescription problem: Drug giants challenge state over “forever chemical” disclosure In an unprecedented legal move, the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are seeking federal intervention to block a state law designed to reveal whether common medications contain persistent "forever chemicals." This clash, unfolding between industry titans and state regulators, centers on Minnesota's ambitious PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) regulations and exposes a startling reality: the very drugs millions take for health may be adding to a lifelong burden of industrial toxins linked to cancer and hormone disruption. The outcome could set a pivotal precedent for chemical transparency and public health protection across the United States. The pharmaceutical pushback The conflict erupted after Minnesota enacted one of the nation's most comprehensive PFAS laws. The statute, known as Amara’s Law, phases out the unnecessary use of PFAS in consumer products by 2032 and, critically, requires manufacturers to report the presence of intentionally added PFAS starting in July 2026. While drugs and medical devices regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are exempt from the eventual sales ban, they are not exempt from the reporting requirement. In response, the PFAS Pharmaceutical Working Group (PPWG)—a coalition representing giants like Pfizer, Merck and Roche—petitioned the U.S. Department of Justice. The group argued that Minnesota’s law is overly broad, creates an "unprecedented" disclosure burden and forces companies to navigate a confusing "regulatory patchwork" as other states pass similar rules. The industry's core claim is that federal authority, primarily through the FDA, should preempt such state-level mandates, ensuring a single national standard. Medications under the microscope The industry's vigorous opposition gains context from recent scientific scrutiny. A 2024 study identified pharmaceuticals as significant contributors to PFAS levels in wastewater. Furthermore, research published in the journal iScience analyzed hundreds of organofluorine drugs, a category that includes many blockbuster medications. The study found that depending on the regulatory definition used, a substantial number of common drugs—including cholesterol-lowering statins, antidepressants, antibiotics and antifungals—could be classified as PFAS. Drug manufacturers utilize organic fluorine to improve a medication's stability and efficacy. However, a fully fluorinated carbon atom is the defining hallmark of a PFAS compound. These "forever chemicals" do not break down in the environment, accumulate in the human body, and have been associated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with increased risks of cancer, developmental issues and reduced immune response. Environmental health advocates contend that consumers have a right to know if their daily medications contribute to this toxic load. A history of state-led action The current standoff is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a decades-long failure in federal chemical regulation. For years, the EPA’s approach to PFAS has been criticized as slow and insufficient, often relying on non-enforceable health advisories. This regulatory vacuum has propelled states to act as de facto laboratories of public health policy. • Vermont and California banned PFAS in food packaging. • Maine passed a law banning all non-essential uses of PFAS by 2030. • Over 30 states have now enacted some form of PFAS regulation, targeting everything from firefighting foam to cosmetics. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Prasad takes aim at the annual flu vaccine process, calling it an "evidence-based catastrophe." He promises a re-appraisal with honest labeling. Furthermore, he addresses the common practice of giving multiple vaccines simultaneously, admitting past studies were too small to ensure safety, creating a "false sense of efficacy." Most powerfully, he declares vaccines will no longer be sacred cows, stating they "will be treated like all other medication classes." To staff resistant to this new transparency, his message is blunt: "Please submit your resignation letters." This is a paradigm shift. It is a direct response to the catastrophic loss of public trust. As scientist Dr. Robert W. Malone reacted upon seeing the letter, "I am stunned... This [is a] revolution, the likes of which I never expected to see in my lifetime." For the families who lost children, this is a painful, overdue vindication. For the world watching, it is a signal that the era of unquestioned pharmaceutical authority is over. The long night of denial has ended. The difficult dawn of accountability has begun. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

FDA admits COVID jabs KILLED CHILDREN – body count SUPPRESSED The dam of denial finally breaks The evidence comes from a letter written by Dr. Vinay Prasad to his team at the FDA's vaccine division. In plain, clinical language, he states, "OBPV career staff have found that at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination." He notes these deaths were assessed as related using standard causality frameworks. This is the first official FDA confirmation of a direct, fatal link between the COVID-19 shots and child mortality, a reality the agency and its partners spent years publicly dismissing. The letter asks the haunting question many parents have voiced since 2021: "Did COVID-19 vaccine programs kill more healthy kids than it saved?" Prasad concedes the agency lacks reliable data to answer this, stating, "The truth is we do not know if we saved lives on balance." This admission of ignorance is a damning indictment of the coercive mandates that pushed these products onto low-risk youth. He describes these mandates, championed by the Biden administration, as "unethical" and harmful. A system designed to ignore, gaslight Why did it take until 2025 for this analysis to happen? Prasad points to a "cultural and systemic" failure. The early warning signs were there. He recalls that in May 2021, then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claimed, "We have not seen a signal," a statement many found "dishonest and manipulative." Internally, when FDA advisor Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg presented evidence of child deaths in the summer of 2025, some staff leaked information to media to portray her as fearmongering. Courageous whistleblowers, doctors, and journalists toured the country during this time, alerting the public about the unlawful, totalitarian COVID-19 mandates and the tidal wave of vaccine injury and death that was being systematically covered up. The author of the Vax Freedom Guide remembers listening to hundreds of people during his book signings during the Take Action for Freedom, Save a Generation tour. These people, seeking knowledge and justice for their families, had either lost loved ones to the so-called vaccine and/or were under serious duress to take the shots or be kicked out of the military and lose their education/careers. The author remembers getting on stage during the height of these mandates and speaking to crowded rooms about how children were being harmed by vaccines, from vaccine-induced myocarditis to autism diagnoses after routine vaccinations. Today, Dr. Prasad now states unequivocally, "COVID-19 vaccines did result in the death of children. Dr. Hoeg was correct in her assessment." So were the whistleblowers, and truth telling doctors and journalists who dared speak out against this system. The system itself was built to obscure the truth. The findings for these childhood deaths are based on VAERS, the passive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Dr. Prasad acknowledges the system's profound flaws: "The submission process is tedious and most people who start the form give up along the way. Many more deaths may be unreported." This means the ten confirmed cases are merely the visible tip of a tragic iceberg, a fact consistent with independent analyses suggesting severe under-reporting of vaccine injuries. What about all the children who died after COVID vaccination but the family doctor attributed it to something else, because vaccine injury doesn't exist in their propagated mind? A revolutionary new path forward Beyond the admission of past failure, Prasad's letter charts a radical new course for vaccine regulation, one that aligns with long-standing demands from safety advocates. He declares that the FDA will now demand "pre-market randomized trials assessing clinical endpoints for most new products." This means vaccine makers must prove their shots actually prevent disease, not just that they provoke an antibody response. He specifically nullifies the use of unproven surrogate endpoints to authorize vaccines for pregnant women. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Norovirus cases surge nationwide ahead of holiday season, CDC reports Cases of norovirus, a highly contagious gastrointestinal illness, are rising sharply across the United States as the holiday season approaches, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC reports that nearly 14% of norovirus tests came back positive in mid-November—double the rate recorded just three months ago in August. The virus, often mislabeled as the "stomach flu" (though unrelated to influenza), is notorious for its rapid spread in crowded environments such as cruise ships, nursing homes, schools and prisons. Recent outbreaks have already sickened 98 passengers on a Royal Caribbean cruise and 75 on an Oceania Cruises ship in October alone. BrightU. AI's Enoch explains that norovirus is a highly contagious, single-stranded RNA virus that is notorious for causing acute gastroenteritis, commonly referred to as stomach flu or food poisoning. Noroviruses are responsible for significant public health concerns worldwide, with an estimated 685 million cases and 200,000 deaths annually, primarily among children under five years old and the elderly. A growing public health concern Norovirus is the leading cause of foodborne illness in the U.S., responsible for 58% of infections annually, according to the CDC. Each year, it results in: • 19–21 million illnesses • 465,000 emergency room visits • 109,000 hospitalizations • 900 deaths (primarily in adults 65+) Symptoms—vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, stomach pain, fever and body aches—typically appear 12–48 hours after exposure and last 1–3 days in healthy individuals. However, young children, the elderly and immunocompromised individuals face higher risks of severe dehydration, which can become life-threatening. Why is norovirus spreading WastewaterSCAN, a Stanford-Emory University monitoring program, detected a 69% increase in norovirus concentrations nationwide since October. Amanda Bidwell, scientific program manager for the program, noted that while current levels are lower than last year's historic surge, outbreaks are expected to rise further. Last year's spike was fueled by an emerging variant, GII.17, which may have mutated to become more contagious. Dr. Robert Atmar, a Baylor College of Medicine professor, explained: "The two possibilities are that something in the virus changed to make it more transmissible, or there were changes in the population that a larger proportion were susceptible. Probably it's a combination of both." Yale University immunologist Dr. Craig Wilen added: "GII.17 was so effective last year because we had significantly less immunity to it. Traditional ethanol-based hand sanitizers don't work as well for norovirus as they do for other viruses." How to protect yourself The CDC emphasizes strict hygiene measures, as norovirus is resistant to most sanitizers and can survive on surfaces for weeks. Key prevention steps include: • Washing hands vigorously with soap (not just sanitizer) for 20 seconds • Disinfecting surfaces with bleach-based cleaners • Avoiding raw shellfish (especially oysters, a common norovirus carrier) • Staying home for at least 48 hours after symptoms subside (the virus remains contagious) With holiday gatherings and travel increasing, experts warn that norovirus outbreaks could escalate. As Bidwell cautioned: "We have three years of data showing a strong seasonal pattern. But I can't say right now how big of a peak it will be." Watch the video below about norovirus being a symbol of vaccine disasters. https://www.brighteon.com/d643aa47-5566-477b-af81-bd40969e0303 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Trump administration moves to cut federal benefits for illegal immigrants amid border crisis In a sweeping policy shift, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Friday, Nov. 28, that the Trump administration is preparing to cut off federal tax benefits for illegal immigrants and other non-qualified aliens. The move, directed by President Donald Trump, targets refundable tax credits—including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Additional Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit and Saver's Match Credit—that have been accessible to undocumented individuals. The announcement comes amid escalating concerns over illegal immigration, with Trump warning of a "nation-killing" crisis fueled by open borders and unsustainable welfare burdens. The Department of the Treasury's proposed regulations aim to clarify that refundable tax credits—which provide cash payments to low-income households—will no longer be available to those without legal immigration status. "At @ POTUS @ realDonaldTrump's direction, we are working to cut off federal benefits to illegal aliens and preserve them for U.S. citizens," Bessent posted on X (formerly Twitter). The decision follows Trump's lengthy Thanksgiving Day post decrying the economic and social strain caused by mass migration. He claimed that the U.S. foreign-born population has reached 53 million, many of whom rely on welfare, exacerbating issues like crime, overcrowded hospitals and housing shortages. "A migrant earning $30,000 with a green card will get roughly $50,000 in yearly benefits for their family," Trump wrote. "This refugee burden is the leading cause of social dysfunction in America." Historical context: Immigration and welfare policy The debate over taxpayer-funded benefits for undocumented immigrants is not new. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch, federal law has restricted non-citizens' access to welfare programs since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. However, loopholes—particularly in tax credits—have allowed some undocumented workers to receive refunds despite paying little or no income tax. Critics argue this incentivizes illegal immigration, while advocates claim these benefits support vulnerable families contributing to the economy. Trump's latest move aligns with his broader immigration agenda, which includes pausing migration from "Third World countries," deporting public charges and reversing Biden-era admissions. His administration previously sought to expand the "public charge" rule, denying green cards to immigrants likely to rely on government assistance. The Treasury's action signals a tightening of fiscal controls as border crossings surge. Under former President Joe Biden, illegal entries have skyrocketed, with monthly apprehensions exceeding 300,000 at times—a stark contrast to Trump's final year, when daily crossings dropped to 500-600. Border officials report arresting individuals from 180 countries, including potential security risks. Trump's rhetoric has intensified ahead of the 2024 election, framing immigration as an existential threat. "Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation," he declared, vowing to deport those who "undermine domestic tranquility." The Treasury's crackdown on tax benefits marks another front in the Trump administration's immigration battle. While supporters applaud fiscal responsibility, opponents warn of humanitarian fallout. The debate over welfare, borders and national identity still dominates the political scene—with millions of lives hanging in the balance. Watch the video below that talks about California funding illegal aliens' healthcare over the state's own police. https://www.brighteon.com/be58a597-76d9-4fd9-85af-17fccdb31113 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 So here we are. The promise of a stricter safety net has been yanked away, leaving consumers to navigate the cosmetics aisle with a mix of hope and unease. Perhaps the threat of future regulation or the looming European ban will finally compel the industry to reformulate products proactively. In the meantime, the burden of proof has shifted from the manufacturers who produce these goods to the individuals who use them, a silent and unfair exchange where the only thing that should be contaminating our makeup is doubt. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

FDA withdraws asbestos testing rule for talc cosmetics, leaving consumers in the dark about toxic products they use every day The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has quietly withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required standardized asbestos testing for talc-based cosmetics. The decision, made just days into the holiday season, represents a major setback for efforts to protect consumers from a known carcinogen that can contaminate talc. It shifts responsibility for safety back onto an industry with a long history of voluntary oversight and leaves millions of Americans wondering about the safety of everyday products. For decades, health advocates have fought to eliminate asbestos from consumer goods. This mineral, linked to deadly cancers like mesothelioma, can be found naturally alongside talc deposits. The withdrawn rule was a direct response to the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, which mandated the FDA to expand safety oversight. Its sudden removal has drawn sharp criticism. "It’s just crazy," said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. The agency defended its action, stating it was acting "on the basis of the Make America Healthy Again priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply." It pledged to develop a new, broader proposal to reduce asbestos exposure. Faber expressed deep skepticism about that promise. "I think there’s a better chance Santa is going to come down my chimney than for FDA to propose a new rule," he said. Toxic cosmetics contamination is putting consumers in danger The danger is not theoretical. While the FDA found no asbestos in 50 samples in 2021, a 2019 agency test found asbestos in 9 out of 52 cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group’s own analysis of 2,000 products suggested a 15% contamination rate. "Nothing says happy holidays like more cancer," Faber remarked. "We’re going back to the honor system." The cancer risk is particularly high for products that can be inhaled or applied to sensitive areas like the genital region. Medical experts warn that even a single asbestos fiber lodged in the lungs can lead to mesothelioma decades later. The amount of talc in products varies widely, with some face powders containing up to 100% talc. Consumers bear the burden This regulatory reversal places an impossible burden on shoppers. "It puts the onus on Americans to have to try to identify consumer products that might be contaminated, and the average person can’t do that because you can’t know without testing," said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. "People should be outraged," she added. Finding talc-free cosmetics is a significant challenge, especially for powder-based items like eye shadows, blushes, and foundations where talc is prized for its silky texture. While the American Cancer Society recommends choosing talc-free or cornstarch-based alternatives, these are not always easy to identify or access. Meanwhile, talc remains in a wide range of items, from makeup to some candies, gums, and tablets, and is still categorized as Generally Recognized As Safe in food due to its long history of use. Industry voices had expressed concern about the proposed testing rule, worrying about costs and false positives. Christopher Phalen of the National Association of Manufacturers wrote that false positives could lead to the loss of product batches and spur litigation. In contrast, the European Union, declaring talc a carcinogen, will ban it from all cosmetics by 2027. The FDA’s withdrawal notice stated the agency would seek a "more comprehensive approach" and consider "less costly" rules. Yet for advocates who watched Johnson & Johnson remove its talc-based baby powder from North American markets amid a storm of lawsuits, this delay feels like a dangerous step backward. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) called the decision "reckless and dangerous." 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 As Prasad, who also serves as the CBER's director, warned his staff, the path forward demands honesty – something sorely lacking in America's broken vaccine regulatory system. Those unwilling to uphold that standard, he declared, should "submit their resignation letters to their supervisor." The FDA is now confronting its failures. Whether it can restore public trust remains to be seen. Watch this clip from "The Ben Armstrong Show" about the FDA's vaccine approval scam being exposed. https://www.brighteon.com/fb83101e-167a-42ca-bb44-5f577ede43c8 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

FDA internal review confirms COVID-19 injections KILLED at least 10 children The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has acknowledged that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines have caused the deaths of American children – a revelation that has prompted internal calls for humility, introspection and sweeping regulatory reform. The findings were detailed in an internal FDA review, sent via email to the agency's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and confirmed by FDA Chief Medical Officer Dr. Vinay Prasad. Journalists, including Emily Kopp of the Daily Caller, later reported on the findings. According to the disclosure, FDA officials identified at least 10 pediatric deaths directly linked to COVID-19 vaccination, with evidence suggesting the true toll is likely higher due to underreporting. The deaths, occurring between 2021 and 2024, were initially dismissed or ignored by career staff until Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, a senior advisor, independently investigated reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Her findings, later corroborated by FDA analysts, revealed that young, healthy children – those least at risk from COVID-19 – bore fatal consequences from vaccination. "This is a profound revelation," Prasad wrote in the email. "Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death." The acknowledgment comes years after independent researchers and physicians first warned of vaccine-induced myocarditis, a potentially lethal heart inflammation disproportionately affecting young males. The FDA's delayed response allowed vaccine mandates to expand to younger age groups, including children as young as 12, without adequate risk-benefit analysis. Despite early warnings about vaccine damage from Israeli health authorities, U.S. agencies dismissed concerns. Rochelle Walensky, then the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, falsely claimed in May 2021 that no safety signal had been detected in over 200 million doses administered. Vaccine deaths covered up while pharma profits soar The internal review also exposed deep divisions within the FDA, with some staff resisting the acknowledgment of vaccine-related deaths and leaking misleading accounts to media outlets. Prasad condemned the leaks as "unethical, illegal and factually incorrect." He emphasized that reasonable disagreements over causality should not obscure the broader truth: COVID-19 vaccines have killed children. The fallout has reignited scrutiny of the FDA's regulatory capture by pharmaceutical interests. The agency fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines under emergency use authorization, shielded manufacturers from liability, and ignored post-market safety commitments – including studies on subclinical myocarditis and pregnancy risks. Meanwhile, vaccine makers reaped billions in global profits, with no generic competition due to the lack of a biosimilar pathway. In response, Prasad outlined sweeping reforms to restore evidence-based medicine at the FDA. Future vaccine approvals will require randomized trials proving clinical benefits – not just antibody responses – while existing frameworks, such as the "evidence-based catastrophe" of annual flu vaccines, will be overhauled. The agency will also reassess the safety of administering multiple vaccines simultaneously, a practice long criticized by health freedom advocates. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch engine, the FDA's admission of vaccine-related deaths confirms long-standing concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety and undermines the mainstream narrative that these injections were "perfectly safe." This revelation exposes the pharmaceutical industry's reckless disregard for human life while validating the need for independent investigations into vaccine injuries and deaths. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint, explicitly calls for continued abortion data collection—even suggesting withholding Medicaid funds from states that refuse to comply. Yet the CDC's sudden silence raises questions about whether the agency is succumbing to political pressure or simply scaling back due to resource constraints. The CDC's unexplained halt in abortion reporting leaves a gap in understanding one of the most contentious and rapidly evolving public health issues in America. As states forge ahead with divergent policies, the lack of centralized data could hinder efforts to assess safety, access and long-term societal impacts. Whether the pause is temporary or permanent, its ramifications will be felt by researchers, lawmakers and advocates who rely on transparency to inform the national debate. Watch the video below that talks about a Virginia school that arranged abortions for students and didn't tell parents. https://www.brighteon.com/f465fac3-0cfd-4e82-b99c-a0a0325ff397 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Data in the dark: CDC’s sudden abortion reporting pause sparks bipartisan alarm The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has abruptly paused its collection and analysis of abortion data without explanation, leaving state officials and advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate perplexed. The move comes as states increasingly diverge on abortion policies following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, making comprehensive data crucial for assessing public health impacts. Critics warn that the lack of federal reporting could obscure trends in abortion rates, complications and interstate travel for the procedure—key metrics in evaluating policy effectiveness. In a recent routine exchange, Virginia Department of Health Office of Vital Records received an unexpected one-line email from the CDC: "At this time, CDC is pausing data analysis and will not be releasing an abortion surveillance report." The agency, which has compiled abortion statistics since 1969, provided no further clarification despite multiple requests for comment. The decision has drawn rare bipartisan criticism. Victoria Cobb of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia argued, "When it comes to the depopulation of the next generation of Americans, the state and federal governments have a vested interest in collecting this data." Meanwhile, Rae Pickett of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia agreed, stating, "It makes sense to analyze data, to study data and to make changes and adjustments based on that data." Questions over motives and reliability Speculation abounds as to why the CDC halted its reporting. Some suggest budget cuts may be to blame. Patrick Brown of the Ethics and Public Policy Center warned earlier this year that layoffs within the CDC's Division of Reproductive Health could jeopardize data collection. "This is the kind of basic statistics gathering that there's just not really a good free market solution for," he told Politico. Others fear political interference. Isaac Maddow-Zimet of the Guttmacher Institute, which maintains its own abortion database, expressed concern that if reporting resumes, the CDC might skew findings to support abortion restrictions. "If that report is started again, it will present data in a way that isn't grounded in science, or which seeks to make the case for restricting abortion care," he said. BrightU. AI's Enoch notes that CDC abortion reports relied on voluntary state submissions, with California, Maryland and New Hampshire—all strongly pro-abortion states—refusing to participate. This inconsistency already limited the report's accuracy. Now, with states enacting vastly different abortion laws—from near-total bans to expanded access—the absence of federal data leaves policymakers and researchers without a clear national picture. The broader implications for public health The CDC's pause coincides with growing scrutiny over abortion-related health outcomes, including complications and the rise of interstate abortion travel. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to track the effects of policies such as abortion pill distribution, sanctuary laws and funding for out-of-state procedures. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

The Matrix has you. People spend their whole lives plugged into systems, they never chose and never questioned. But some feel it - that quiet signal behind the noise. A hint that the world can run differently. Those who act today, live differently tomorrow ⛓️ Smarter. Freer. On your terms. I’m Richard Shapiro, the owner of TradeGPT - old principles, new technology.🔬 The lens that helps you see the truth behind markets and systems. 🚪Discover the tech that shows how the system really works. Check this out.

Woke negligence fuels billion-dollar fraud scandal in Minnesota on Gov. Tim Walz’s watch A staggering betrayal of public trust has unfolded in Minnesota, revealing how progressive policies and political cowardice enabled criminals to steal more than $1 billion from taxpayers. Federal prosecutors have detailed a sprawling fraud epidemic that festered for five years, primarily within the state’s Somali diaspora, while Governor Tim Walz’s administration stood by. This isn't just a story of greed; it's a damning indictment of a woke political regime that prioritized racial optics over basic accountability, allowing the social safety net to be gutted by brazen criminals. The scale is almost unimaginable. Authorities say $1 billion was stolen from programs meant to feed children, house the homeless, and provide therapy for autistic kids. That sum exceeds the state’s entire annual budget for its Department of Corrections. To date, 59 people have been convicted in three major schemes. This fraud didn't just happen in the shadows; it flourished because those in power looked away. The most infamous scheme involved Feeding Our Future, a Minneapolis nonprofit. During the pandemic, it partnered with local businesses to claim reimbursements for tens of thousands of meals that were never served. Instead, funds bought luxury cars, homes, and international real estate. This was just the beginning. Later schemes involved inflated claims for homelessness services and a cynical plot that recruited Somali children for fake autism therapy, paying their parents kickbacks. Fear of racism accusations paralyzed oversight Red flags waved furiously early on. State education officials questioned suspicious invoices from Feeding Our Future in 2020. The nonprofit’s response? It threatened the state with a discrimination lawsuit, warning that challenging “minority-owned businesses” would lead to accusations of racism “sprawled across the news.” Faced with this, the Walz administration backed down. The money spigot stayed on. This pattern of regulatory surrender defined the scandal. A report by Minnesota’s nonpartisan legislative auditor confirmed that threats of litigation and negative press crippled oversight. Kayseh Magan, a former state fraud investigator, explained the political calculus: “There is a perception that forcefully tackling this issue might cause political backlash among the Somali community, which is a core voting bloc” for Democrats. Federal prosecutor Joseph H. Thompson, who oversaw the cases, was candid about the climate of fear. “This was a huge part of the problem,” he said. “Allegations of racism can be a reputation or career killer.” He connected the dots to the post-George Floyd era in Minneapolis, where heightened racial sensitivities paralyzed enforcement. The result was a feeding frenzy for fraudsters. Governor Walz’s response has been a masterclass in deflection. He acknowledged pandemic policies prioritized speed over safeguards, stating, “The programs are set up to move the money to people... and in many cases, the criminals find the loopholes.” Now seeking a third term, he’s announced a task force and promises of AI-driven detection. This is too little, too late. The scandal is so profound that even the liberal New York Times was forced to torch his administration’s negligence. The fallout has been severe. More than 400 employees of the Minnesota Department of Human Services publicly accused Walz of ignoring warnings and retaliating against whistleblowers. They claimed on social media, “Tim Walz systematically retaliated against whistleblowers using monitoring, threats, repression.” The governor’s office did not rebut these specific claims. The Minnesota saga is a warning for every state. It exposes what happens when identity politics trump the rule of law, when officials are more afraid of being called a name than of stopping a crime. A billion dollars is gone, and it's money that should have fed hungry children and housed vulnerable families. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Fauci's actions reveal a disturbing pattern: government-funded gain-of-function research, a manufactured pandemic and a coordinated campaign to silence dissent. The consequences have been catastrophic—millions dead, economies destroyed and freedoms stripped away under the guise of "public health." Now, with the truth emerging, the question remains: Will Fauci ever face justice? Or will the Deep State continue protecting those who orchestrated one of the greatest medical frauds in history? For those seeking transparency, accountability and an end to government overreach, the fight is far from over. The American people deserve answers—and those responsible must be held to account. Watch this video about Sen. Rand Paul's book "Deception: The Great COVID Cover-up." https://www.brighteon.com/39ea5420-e787-4635-8a02-139172662055 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Fauci’s COVID cover-up exposed: Emails reveal orchestrated suppression of lab-leak theory For years, questions surrounding the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) have been met with censorship, propaganda and outright deception from top U.S. health officials. Now, damning evidence confirms what many have long suspected: Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), engaged in a deliberate cover-up to suppress the Wuhan lab-leak theory—despite privately acknowledging its plausibility. Recently uncovered emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Fauci and former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins actively conspired to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis, even as they privately discussed its validity. In early 2020, Fauci and Collins circulated an article from ZeroHedge, which suggested COVID-19 could be a man-made bioweapon. Despite acknowledging this as a "plausible explanation," Fauci publicly denounced the lab-leak theory and pressured Big Tech to censor anyone who dared question the official narrative. Former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson highlighted the hypocrisy: "Tony Fauci knew perfectly well he had funded gain-of-function experiments at that very same laboratory." Yet, when questioned under oath, Fauci lied to Congress, insisting NIH had never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan—a claim contradicted by his own emails. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch, Dr. Fauci's exposed emails confirm what many have suspected—he actively suppressed the lab leak theory to protect Big Pharma's interests and the government's bioweapons agenda. This deliberate deception cost countless lives by delaying proper treatments and fueling the COVID scamdemic, proving once again that the medical-industrial complex prioritizes control over truth. The manufactured "scientific consensus" In February 2020, Fauci commissioned and approved a now-infamous scientific paper, "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," which falsely claimed COVID-19 had natural origins. This paper, published in Nature Medicine, was used as propaganda to shut down debate. Fauci even cited it during a White House briefing alongside then-President Donald Trump, despite privately knowing the lab-leak theory was credible. Dr. Marty Makary, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner and former Johns Hopkins University professor, exposed the scheme in a recent interview: "He was frantically engaging in a massive cover-up with 3 a.m. emails and phone calls... All these virologists told him, 'We think it came from the Wuhan lab,' and days later, those same scientists wrote a letter saying it definitely did not." Makary also revealed that Fauci and Collins dismantled Obama-era restrictions on gain-of-function research—a dangerous practice involving the genetic manipulation of viruses to enhance their lethality. By watering down regulations, they ensured federal funding could continue flowing to high-risk experiments, including those at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Adding to the scandal, Fauci received a presidential pardon from Joe Biden in the final days of his administration, shielding him from potential prosecution for offenses committed between 2014 and the pardon date. Makary believes this was directly tied to Fauci's role in the COVID cover-up. Big Tech's role in the censorship machine The suppression didn't stop with Fauci. Social media giants, acting at the behest of government officials, deplatformed journalists and scientists who challenged the official narrative. ZeroHedge was banned for reporting on COVID's lab origins, while Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya—co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration—was secretly blacklisted by Twitter for opposing lockdowns. Bhattacharya condemned the censorship: "It was all true information that was just found inconvenient... a gross violation of the American First Amendment." 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 A call for political will The scientific evidence of a chemical-driven assault on male reproductive health is no longer ambiguous. The costs, both human and economic, are mounting. The HEAL report serves as a powerful indictment of the status quo and a clear call to action. As the European Commission deliberates on the future of chemical safety, the fundamental question remains whether political will can be mustered to prioritize the health of current and future generations over entrenched corporate interests. The vitality of men, and indeed of humanity itself, may depend on the answer. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

A silent crisis: Chemical pollution linked to plummeting male fertility and rising cancers A hidden public health crisis is unfolding, driven by the pervasive chemical pollution of our environment. A new report from the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) sounds a stark alarm, linking everyday exposure to pesticides, plastics and other industrial chemicals to a catastrophic decline in male reproductive health. The evidence points to a dramatic rise in prostate and testicular cancers, a more than 50% crash in sperm counts since the 1970s, and a suite of developmental disorders in infants. With the European Union poised to revise its cornerstone chemical safety law, REACH, a pivotal battle is underway between public health advocates demanding urgent action and industry interests seeking to delay and dilute crucial protections. The statistical portrait of a crisis The data compiled by HEAL paints a disturbing picture of deteriorating male health across Europe. Prostate cancer is now the third most-diagnosed cancer in men, with 330,000 new cases annually in the EU. More alarming is the trajectory of testicular cancer, which has surged by 25% since 2014, making it the most common cancer among men aged 15 to 44. Underpinning these trends is a foundational collapse in reproductive capacity: sperm counts have declined by more than half over the last five decades. Male infertility now affects up to one in twelve European couples, carrying direct medical costs estimated at €3-4.5 billion per year. The report identifies a common thread running through these disparate health issues: exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The chemical culprits and their mechanisms The report highlights a cocktail of pervasive pollutants as the likely cause of this crisis. These include: • Pesticides: Weed killers like glyphosate are cited as prominent EDCs. Recent studies suggest glyphosate can impair germ cell differentiation and cause DNA damage in sperm, even at levels previously deemed "acceptable." • Plasticizers: Phthalates and bisphenols (like BPA), found in countless consumer products, are associated with reduced semen quality, lower testosterone and feminizing effects in male infants. • "Forever chemicals": PFAS, detected in over 95% of participants in some European biomonitoring studies, are linked to poor sperm quality and delayed puberty. • Microplastics: Found in 100% of human testicular tissue samples, these particles may interfere with sperm formation and disrupt testosterone production. The damage is not limited to the individual exposed. The report details how chemical exposures to both parents can cause epigenetic changes—alterations in gene expression—that harm the reproductive health of their sons, creating transgenerational effects. Regulatory crossroads and industry resistance The HEAL report is timed to influence the long-awaited revision of the EU's REACH regulation, a landmark law designed to control chemical risks. Health advocates are pushing for robust reforms, including: • Group-based bans of entire chemical families, like all phthalates. • Mandatory assessment of the combined "cocktail effect" of multiple chemical exposures. • Stricter regulation of microplastics and polymers. However, this momentum faces significant headwinds. A key EU regulatory board recently issued a negative opinion on the proposed revisions, citing concerns about industry competitiveness and regulatory burdens. This reflects a long-standing tension, reminiscent of past political scandals where public health protections were allegedly weakened under pressure from powerful chemical industry lobbies and their political allies. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻