The federal government buried a study that found a 1,135% increase in autism among children who had the Hepatitis B vaccine, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said on Monday.Hepatitis B is a disease primarily transmitted through sexual contact or drug use. Nevertheless, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the Hep B vaccine for newborn babies.<h2 id="">‘They kept the study secret’</h2>In an interview with Tucker Carlson on Monday, Kennedy revealed that the CDC conducted an internal study in 1999 on a possible link between the Hep B shot and autism. The researchers, led by Thomas Versraten, were “shocked” by the findings.“They looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life and compared those children to children who had received the vaccine later or not at all, and they found an 1,135 percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children,” said Kennedy. “And it shocked them.”The reason this is unknown to the public, Kennedy revealed, is that the CDC buried the data.“They kept the study secret,” he said. “And then they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link. And we know how they did it: they got rid of all the older children essentially, and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed.”The health secretary said the CDC “did a lot of other tricks” as well to hide the data.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">NEW: RFK Jr. tells Tucker Carlson the CDC buried its own internal study showing a 1135% INCREASE in autism risk from hepatitis B vaccination. The researchers were shocked So they covered it up. How? “They got rid of all the older children essentially and just had younger… <a href="https://t.co/AV2kmeLw6C">pic.twitter.com/AV2kmeLw6C</a>&mdash; The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) <a href="https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1939747230430425130?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Kennedy has previously maintained that the CDC’s recommendation of Hep B vaccines for infants came as a favor to Big Pharma. The federal government had asked pharmaceutical companies in the 1970s to develop a vaccine for the gay community, where drug use and unsafe sex had become rampant. But once the vaccine was developed, there was low uptake among homosexuals. After the drug companies complained about the lost revenue, the CDC agreed to add the vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule.<h2 id="">The only infant vaccine to be properly reported showed a link to autism</h2>The study on the Hep B shot was not the only evidence on autism and vaccines that was discarded. Kennedy stated in his interview with Carlson that the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine was also linked to autism, based on data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which the agency uses to monitor vaccine safety. But when VAERS showed a link to autism, the medical community dismissed the data by claiming VAERS was “unreliable.”“[W]hat they were saying—the Institute of Medicine [now the National Academy of Medicine], which is part of the National Academy of Sciences . . . [was] that the only system CDC has to study vaccine injury is so bad that any study done on it we’re not going to count,” Kennedy said.The Institute of Medicine reportedly admitted that out of over 10 shots given to infants within the first six months of life, DTaP is the only one that was studied for links to autism.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">To the claim that the vaccine–autism link has been “debunked,” Kennedy had a message for Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, and everyone who smugly insists on it. “None of the vaccines given to children in the first six months of life have ever been studied for autism.” Let that… <a href="https://t.co/veEedWwJfK">pic.twitter.com/veEedWwJfK</a>&mdash; The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) <a href="https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1939851715194319326?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Kennedy promised to provide the American people with “definitive answers” on the link between vaccines and autism within the next six months.‍

RFK: CDC covered up study showing autism link to Hep B vaccine

'They found an 1,135 percent elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children'

Legacy media outlets are up in arms after a January 6th defendant, once targeted by a weaponized Justice Department, was appointed to help investigate the DOJ’s weaponization under Joe Biden.Jared Wise is a former FBI agent who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He committed no violence or vandalism during the protest, but at one point shouted at Metropolitan Police officers, “You guys are disgusting. I’m former—I’m former law enforcement. You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it. . . . Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!” The Biden FBI claimed Wise also cheered violence against police officers.The FBI charged Wise with trespassing, as they did to all other January 6th defendants who entered the Capitol that day. He was pardoned by President Trump in January, along with roughly 1,600 other J6 defendants who were targeted by the Justice Department.On Tuesday, the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/politics/justice-department-rioter-weaponization.html" id="">reported</a> that Wise has been appointed to the Weaponization Working Group, a DOJ task force. The group’s purpose is to investigate the department’s weaponization against conservative Americans by the Biden administration, which includes the persecution of J6 political prisoners. Wise will serve as adviser to the task force’s chief, Ed Martin, who launched an official investigation into the J6 persecutions when he was acting US Attorney in Washington, DC. Although Trump had nominated Martin to be DC US Attorney, the appointment was torpedoed in May by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (NC), who cited Martin’s support for J6 defendants as his reason for tanking the nomination.<h2 id="">Media: ‘This is ridiculous’</h2>New York Times activists were unable to contain their fury in their reportage.“His selection meant that a man who had urged violence against police officers was now responsible for the department’s official effort to exact revenge against those who had tried to hold the rioters accountable,” fumed Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman.The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/02/january-6-rioter-justice-department-jared-l-wise" id="">seethed</a> that Wise’s appointment is “a sign of the elevated role rioters are playing since they were granted clemency by the president” and shows how the DOJ is “tailoring itself to [Trump’s] retribution agenda.”Steven Benen, a political contributor to MSNBC, <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/jan-6-rioter-encouraged-violence-police-hired-work-trumps-doj-rcna216452" id="">complained</a>: “I realize that Trump has already found a variety of ways to reward Jan. 6 rioters — with pardons and praise — but this is ridiculous. The next time a Republican tries to pretend that the president is an ally of law enforcement, keep this development in mind.”‍

Media seethes as J6 defendant appointed to DOJ role

'This is ridiculous,' complained MSNBC

This post is the third (see parts 1 and 2 <a id="">here</a> and <a id="">here</a>) in a series responding to an attack against America’s Frontline Doctors (<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2" target="_blank" id="">AFLDS</a>) Founder Dr. Simone Gold. In an article on the website MedShadow, president and founder of the site, Suzanne Robotti, made 12 claims about Gold’s statements and activities, based on a <a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/videos/the-stand-the-truth-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/" target="_blank" id="">video</a> featuring Dr. Gold. As we have previously shown, Robotti often falsifies what Gold said, as well.[1] This attack is part of a growing trend of attacking, vilifying, and censoring any doctor who does not conform to the establishment medicine perspective on COVID-19. Many highly qualified physicians, virologists, vaccinologists, epidemiologists, and others have been maligned in this way.Astute and critical readers should make sure that an author substantiates his/her claims, and provides references that actually prove the point they are claiming it does; Robotti fails to “prove” her claims as any reader who checked her references would know. Assuming that a link or footnote is accurate without viewing it allows authors to mislead others and propagate a false narrative. Her references in her 4th claim that we are now responding to are no different.Claim 4. Were there animal studies?MedShadow: <blockquote id="">Gold claims that the COVID-19 vaccines were never tested in animals. which, if true, would be concerning. Fortunately for us, her claim is false. A simple Google search of “are there any animal studies for COVID-19 vaccine?” found published animal studies in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243" target="_blank" id="">Nature.com</a>, &nbsp;<a href="https://www.cell.com/molecular-therapy-family/molecular-therapy/pdfExtended/S1525-0016(17)30156-9" target="_blank" id="">Cell</a> Journal and at the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/" target="_blank" id="">NIH</a> and was reported in <a href="https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/pfizer-biontech-report-strong-immune-response-animals-to-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-candidate" target="_blank" id="">FierceBiotech.com</a>.</blockquote> AFLDS: MedShadow author Suzanne Robotti must have “misunderstood” Dr. Gold. Gold never claimed that animal testing wasn’t done. What she said was (emphasis added): <blockquote id="">“There is no independently published animal study. One of the companies said they do have animal studies, but they haven’t published any data on it. There’s been a complete rush to put this to market and you simply cannot do this safely without published data on animal studies, because animals often will die at the end, and unless we know that, we don’t know if it’s safe to give to humans.”</blockquote>This is in accordance with America’s Frontline Doctors' White Paper on Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19[2] which states:<blockquote id="">No Independently Published Animal Studies. Most other previous vaccines have performed and published results on animal studies prior to giving to humans. This is critical because deadly effects are often not seen until this step. Vaccines that have been given to humans prior to animal trials have frequently resulted in deaths that caused the governments to yank the vaccines. Most scientists believe that human death is inevitable if there are no prior peer-reviewed animal studies.</blockquote>Let’s look at the references that Robotti provided to prove that Gold was wrong.The first link (Nature.com) opens to an article published in January 2018, almost 2 years before COVID-19 appeared on the scene. The paper’s discussion about mRNA vaccines tested for other viruses does not tell us anything about how animals would fare if tested for a vaccine against SARS Cov-2. The second one (Cell), also about mRNA Vaccines, addressed the H10N8 and H7N9 flu viruses. It was published in June 2017, about 2.5 years before SARS Cov2 appeared. With the third and fourth links (NIH and FierceBioTech) MedShadow validates Gold’s contention, since neither of them were independently published studies. The NIH study reported on Moderna’s animal testing. The NIH is an umbrella government agency; many of the agencies for which the authors/researchers on this study work are part of the NIH and one researcher works for Moderna. In fact, not only does the NIH have an interest in the intellectual property patent on the vaccine[3], but the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), also under the NIH and headed by Anthony Fauci, was involved in the Moderna vaccine trials.[4] Funding for the study came from the various government agencies to which the researchers belong and a Burroughs Wellcome fund. Burroughs Wellcome is a pharmaceutical company. This was not an independently published study.FierceBioTech’s link opens to an article that discusses a primate study done for Pfizer’s vaccine; 52 of the 61 authors/researchers listed work for Pfizer or BioNTech, the makers of the vaccine. Competing interests include authors who are inventors on patents and patent applications related to RNA technology and COVID-19 vaccine and who hold stock and stock options in Pfizer or BioNTech. This, too, was not an independently published study.A similar study about animal testing for the Janssen vaccine was also not independently published.[5] Authors/researchers for this study worked for Harvard and Janssen, among other companies. Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) was a major contributor to Harvard, funding a 2 year grant in 2014 to collaborate on a tuberculosis related project.[6] 2018-2019 donors to Harvard included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which awarded the university $50 million for particular projects.[7] Bill Gates, a major funder of vaccines and global vaccination campaigns, declared in early 2020, that the entire world would need to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Competing interests include authors who are listed as co-inventors on provisional vaccine patents and who hold stock in Johnson and Johnson.Any time an organization receives this kind of “gift”, it is to be understood that they will not want to do anything to jeopardize their relationship with their donors, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.<h3 id="">Biodistribution studies</h3>Here's some more of what we know about animal testing for COVID-19 vaccines.When Dr. Valerie Donaldson couldn’t find any biodistribution studies for the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&amp;J vaccines online after 20 hours of research, she turned to her colleagues at Penn State in the Materials Research Institute; they, too, could not find any biodistribution studies online.She pointed out that the Pfizer EMA (European Medical Assessment) does make note of a biodistribution study, however, it was not included in the document. It was obtained from the Japanese government only after being requested.[8] The Moderna EMA[9] also mentions an animal biodistribution study, though not one made for their Covid-19 vaccine which uses mRNA 1273.The study they referred to used mRNA 1647 and was performed in a non-GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) lab, yet they based their understanding of the biodistribution of their Covid-19 vaccine on it. This study, like the Pfizer study, was not included in the document, although it did include information about it.[10]Janssen’s EMA[11] also refers to a biodistribution study which was not done with their Covid-19 vaccine formulation.[12]<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:550px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="550px"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/68664b51438e45400a229773_Traditional%20vaccine%20development%20nebraskameddotcom.jpg" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div><figcaption id=""> "Were The COVID-19 Vaccines Rushed? Here's How The Vaccines Were Developed So Fast". Nebraskamed.Com, 2021 <a href="https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines-rushed" target="_blank" id="">https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines-rushed</a>.</figcaption></figure><h3 id="">Important animal studies were skipped</h3>A STAT News article entitled “Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals”[13] explains that even though vaccines are normally tested on animals to see if they actually prevent infection before trialing it in human volunteers and putting them at risk, this wasn’t happening with the COVID-19 vaccines.<blockquote id="">“I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial,” said Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, a Cambridge, Mass.-based biotech that has produced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate at record speed. He told STAT that scientists at the National Institutes of Health are working on nonclinical research in parallel.”</blockquote>Meanwhile, the clinical trial started recruiting healthy participants in the first week of March. That isn’t how vaccine testing normally happens. Regulators require that a manufacturer show a product is safe before it goes into people, and while it isn’t enshrined in law, researchers almost always check that a new concoction is effective in lab animals before putting human volunteers at potential risk.Here is what the NIAID wrote about animal testing of the Moderna vaccine: <blockquote id="">Preclinical data with Moderna’s mRNA vaccine produced promising results in animal models. Mouse experiments demonstrated that a low dose of the vaccine induced a robust neutralizing antibody response and a high-level protection against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways, similar to safety and immunogenicity results subsequently observed in a phase I human clinical study.</blockquote>Here is the NIH stance on animal testing of COVID-19 vaccines as described in an article on the website, the Ecologist, entitled “Animal testing and the coronavirus crisis”.[14]<blockquote id="">The most forward-thinking coronavirus researchers are forgoing cruel and archaic tests on animals in favour of cutting-edge human-relevant methods. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to speed up the development of a possible vaccine by bypassing a lengthy animal testing phase in favour of testing it directly in humans. While some tests on animals were still involved in this case, NIH's decision is a huge step towards safe, straight-to-human vaccine trials in the future.</blockquote>Moderna’s May 2017, White Paper - mRNA Vaccines: Disruptive Innovation in Vaccination lists rapid testing in small animals as part of a benefit of RNA vaccines over traditional vaccines.[15]<h3 id="">Animal testing was not the only part of vaccine development to be skipped over.</h3>Hallie Levine, writing for Johnson and Johnson about their vaccine[16] describes five steps before bringing a Covid-19 vaccine to market; animal testing wasn’t one of them. (As we saw above, the biodistribution study they depended on was not specific to their Covid-19 vaccine.)The first step was Phase 1, their Preclinical Stage: How will this vaccine work? While they claim that this is the stage to find the proper antigen (which they say can take up to 4 years), they never explained how they found the antigen to use, only that they will use the adenovirus vector to deliver the antigen. They used the adenovirus vector for their Ebola virus vaccine and investigational HIV and RSV vaccines.In Step 2 they went straight to testing on people and combined Phase 1 and Phase 2a studies which are ordinarily done separately. Phase 1 is for testing the vaccine in a small group of adults, to evaluate its safety and measure the immune response it generates. Phase 2a studies are to determine the most effective dose and learn more about safety. By combining what are ordinarily sequential steps, J&amp;J compressed into just a few months what would ordinarily take years. Janssen acknowledges that vaccine development usually takes up to a decade from discovery. When this article was written in September 2020, they had already begun phase 3 clinical trials and hoped to have a safe and effective vaccine in 2021.Now we know how they produced it so quickly, but can we really know that it’s safe and effective?<h2 id="">The consequences of rushing a vaccine to market</h2>Under the section heading “Unique challenges of vaccine trials for COVID-19: Potential implications for liability”, a law firm addressing Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers[17] pointed out that:<blockquote id="">… prior to clinical testing in healthy volunteers, there is usually extensive testing of safety in non-human primates. In addition, the transition from animal studies to the progression from phase 1 through phase 3 clinical testing is usually sequential and cautious because of prior historical experience of unanticipated safety issues during vaccine development. … In the acceleration of vaccine development for COVID-19, there are also potential safety risks related to shortening and overlapping the safety evaluation processes that are usually sequential, including very rapid exposure to large populations of healthy people and contemporaneous testing in animals. … Companies should also consider including a statement in their informed consent documents explaining the accelerated nature of the clinical trial and noting the potential additional risks inherent to the abbreviated timeline. For example, human trials may be proceeding without the benefit of data normally gathered from animal studies …</blockquote>And what will be the consequence of this rushed development of the vaccine where animal testing is abbreviated, clinical studies are rushed and overlapping, and independent studies are lacking?<blockquote id="">… ethicists aren’t so sure that the eventual benefits of rushing this unproven vaccine into clinical trials will outweigh the risks. “Outbreaks and national emergencies often create pressure to suspend rights, standards and/or normal rules of ethical conduct. Often our decision to do so seems unwise in retrospect,” wrote Jonathan Kimmelman, director of McGill University’s biomedical ethics unit …[18]</blockquote>Dr. Gold was right to be concerned about the lack of independently published animal studies.

How MedShadow fakes it to discredit Dr Simone Gold – Part 3: Animal Testing

The University of Pennsylvania has stripped William “Lia” Thomas of his swimming titles amid concessions to the Trump administration regarding men in women’s sports.Thomas, who identifies as transgender, caused outrage in 2022 when he competed for the NCAA women’s swimming championship at UPenn. He tied for fifth place in the 200 freestyle with Riley Gaines, who has since become an activist for women’s spaces, and came in first in the 500 freestyle. He was celebrated as a “civil rights icon” for being the first transgender to win an NCAA Division I national championship. UPenn’s administration — then headed by President Elizabeth Magill — ordered the team not to discuss Thomas with the media, <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/19/dont-talk-to-the-media-former-upenn-swimmer-says-college-silenced-trans-swimmers-teammates/" id="">said</a> a former teammate.<h2 id="">UPenn agrees to right the ship</h2>UPenn has now agreed to strip Thomas of his titles as the Trump administration cracks down on institutions that allow men to compete against women. The Department of Education has reportedly reached an agreement with UPenn in which the university will ban male participation in women’s sports, grant female athletes the titles they lost to male competitors, and issue a personal apology to all female athletes.“Today is a great victory for women and girls not only at the University of Pennsylvania, but all across our nation,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “The Department commends UPenn for rectifying its past harms against women and girls, and we will continue to fight relentlessly to restore Title IX’s proper application and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law.”<h2 id="">‘Are pigs flying?’</h2>Gaines reacted to the news by praising President Trump."UPenn has agreed to right its wrongs, restore records to the rightful female athletes, and issue an apology to the women impacted by the man they allowed to compete as a woman. Are pigs flying? God bless @realDonaldTrump,” she posted to X.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">UPenn has agreed to right its wrongs, restore records to the rightful female athletes, and issue an apology to the women impacted by the man they allowed to compete as a woman. Are pigs flying? God bless <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>. <a href="https://t.co/PZxcieyp7m">pic.twitter.com/PZxcieyp7m</a>&mdash; Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) <a href="https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1940187628021694922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h2 id="">‘Demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls’</h2>In early February, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/" id="">executive order</a> to withhold federal funding from institutions that allow men in women’s sports.“In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports,” the EO reads. “This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”“Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy,” the order continued. “It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.”‍

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Stream What is a Doctor? Today!

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - A Good Doctor Speaks with Dr. Gold

Latest Work

RFK: CDC covered up study showing autism link to Hep B vaccine

Media seethes as J6 defendant appointed to DOJ role

How MedShadow fakes it to discredit Dr Simone Gold – Part 3: Animal Testing

University strips trans athlete of titles amid concessions to Trump

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?