And ask yourself, and Secretary Kennedy, why he’s approving more and more of them. Safe for whom? Effective at what?
On September 22, President Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy announce made the long-awaited announcement on autism that was the bold departure from previous failures to look squarely at the issue and speak boldly and honestly about it. And these two publicly funded officials boldly managed to ignore the entire herd of elephants in the room with them. Every. Single. One.
We have three bold new initiatives that sidestep the real issue as a means to “restore trust” and help families. ‘wanna buy a bridge?
But reality is rolling out, whether Kennedy and Trump want it to or not. Science is pumping out important, often very large-scale studies showing that mRNA vaccines are perhaps the greatest threat to humanity that we have ever faced.
There is good science emerging, but there is little good news in the remarkable document that follows here. The news, although mostly not good, is information nonetheless that you urgently need. CMN News, the Credible Medical News Network, provides a compendium and compilation of peer reviewed studies and authoritative opinion pieces which is, taken together, extremely worthwhile.
But the bad news is that the mRNA news is very, very bad. Not hopeless, but bad. Turbo cancer bad. VAIDS bad. Post injection DNA modification bad. Neurodegenerative and cardiovascular and immune function bad.
If you know people who are beginning to take in data to counter their blind faith in “safe and effective” magic words, there is a good deal here for them. Read on.
In case you needed something else to cement your conviction that mRNA vaccines are not good for living things (are any vaccines good for living things?), please take a look at this very large South Korean study.
What it underscores, yet again, is that no sane person will willingly accept an mRNA vaccine in their body, or that of their child/pet/loved one.
But isn’t Secretary Kennedy, our man on the Hill, protecting us from mRNA and other vaccines?
Among the “vaccines” approved since Secretary Kennedy took office on February 13, 2025, are more mRNA jabs, including a replicon one. And that is, indeed, very, very bad.
Here’s the list of approvals since then (mRNA jabs are in BOLD)
Penmenvy (GSK) was Approved on February 14, 2025. Nuvaxovid (Novavax) was approved May 19, 2025 mNexSpike (Moderna) was approved on May 30, 2025.2 This is a self-amplifying mRNA (replicon) vaccine which uses a self-replicating RNA platform that amplifies antigen expression inside cells. mResvia (Moderna) was approved June 12, 2025 Imovax (Sanofi) was approved on July 24, 2025 Ixchiq (Valneva Austria GmbH) was approved on August 6, 2025 Updated 2025-21026 COVID-19 formulations (Comirnaty by Prizer, Spikevax by Moderna and nNexSpike by Moderna) were approved August 27, 2025
Frankly, when you look at the other vaccines in this list, their lack of safety and dangerous profiles are appalling as well, but mRNA vaccines, especially the horrifying replicon platform ones, are an especial threat to the continued existence of humanity. Which makes sense, after all, since they are, in fact, bioweapons.
They are absolutely safe and effective,just not the way you think: safe for the people who developed them and hide behind the clever cover story of the weapons as vaccines and effective in incapacitating and killing people (that is what weapons are supposed to do, after all).
Not safe as in harmless and effective in preventing disease. Nope. Safe from prosecution and effective as destroying the population.
But, c’mon! We don’t have nearly enough of these Safe and Effective biological Molotov cocktails. We need more, lots more! We are in luck! Coming right up!
Here is a chart showing the jabs currently in the pipeline for FDA approval or recently approved. Note that we now have both “Conventional” mRNA and “Replicon mRNA” “vaccines” coming at us:
Secretary Kennedy and President Trump chose to focus on Tylenol (acetaminophen) as the convenient autism boogey man of the moment. Aside from a few dropped hints by the NOT Secretary of Health and Human Services, vaccines pretty much got a free pass despite Secretary Kennedy’s prior research, campaigns, statements, documentaries, law suites and speeches. Poof! Just like that!
It’s Tylenol! Secretary Kennedy’s research, campaigns, statements, documentaries, law suites and speeches, like the morning mist, seem to have vanished into our fondest memories of yesteryear.
Here is a question for Secretary Kennedy: now that we’ve got autism out of the way by just avoiding a simple OTC drug in pregnancy (which hardly explains the normally developing child who gets an MMR shot at 18 months and develops regressive autism over the next 24 hours, especially if they did not get Tylenol, but, never mind – we’re sticking to the Tylenol story), could we turn to the excess deaths, myocarditis, turbo cancers, the fertility cataclysm, clotting disorders (in life and in death), autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative disorders and the host of other horrifying consequences of “Conventional” mRNA, the disastrous “Replicon” mRNA and the ordinary disaster that “ordinary” vaccines are and have been? Or do we get to focus on another major candidate making America unhealthy, like FDA Red Dye #3 or Tylenol?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—specifically its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—have funded scientists at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln to create brand-new, never-before-seen influenza viruses through laboratory engineering, according to a September 21 preprint posted on bioRxiv.
The authors claim their aim was vaccine development, but the methods reveal the deliberate construction of novel pathogens with enhanced laboratory growth traits.
The revelation of this federally funded creation of novel pathogens on American soil comes just days after President Donald Trump stood before the United Nations calling for (here) a global end to bioweapons research, raising profound questions about whether “vaccine development” is now serving as the cover for the very gain-of-function experiments he condemned.
Stated Aim: A New Vaccine for Cattle
The paper frames its purpose around the 2024 detection of H5N1 bird flu in U.S. dairy herds and the lack of licensed cattle vaccines.
The authors present their work as an effort to design a “centralized consensus H5 vaccine” delivered with adenovirus vectors, hoping to elicit both systemic and mucosal immunity in calves.
They argue that such a vaccine would reduce agricultural losses and “remove cattle as a newly established reservoir for zoonotic spread” of bird flu.
Yet beneath the stated goal of protecting cattle lies the undeniable reality that U.S. tax dollars are being used to build entirely new influenza strains in the lab—dangerous, pandemic-causing pathogens created under the banner of “vaccine development.”
What They Actually Did: Built New Viruses That Never Existed in Nature
Instead of working with purportedly circulating H5N1 isolates, the team engineered new pathogens using reverse genetics:
Six internal gene segments (PB1, PB2, PA, NP, M, and NS) were pulled from the PR8 H1N1 laboratory strain, which is optimized for high replication in mammalian cells and chicken eggs.
These were combined with synthetic H5 and N genes stripped of their natural multibasic cleavage site.
The result: novel reassortant influenza viruses with enhanced lab replication efficiency compared to wild-type H5N1.
The viruses were generated in HEK293 and MDCK cells, then amplified in embryonated chicken eggs, all under BSL-2 laboratory conditions at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Genetic engineering, reverse genetics virus creation, and animal studies were all performed at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, under IBC and IACUC approvals.
Work was conducted in BSL-2+ labs, required only for moderate-risk agents, despite the fact that the study involved the creation of novel influenza viruses capable of causing pandemics.
Who Paid for It
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (Grant Nos. 2020-06448, 2024-08723).
Replication-Competent Vectors: The study used replication-competent adenovirus vaccine platforms (Ad28 and Ad48) that can spread within the host, unlike safer replication-deficient types.
Failed Protection Against the Actual Threat: Despite claims of vaccine promise, the engineered vaccine produced no protective neutralization against the circulating bovine H5N1 strain (Bovine/24)—the virus causing real outbreaks in U.S. cattle.
No Cattle Challenge Studies: The vaccine was never tested against live infection in cattle, only in mice.
Sex Bias: Only male calves were tested, ignoring potential sex differences in immune response. By testing only male calves, the study ignored well-established sex differences in immunity—females typically mount stronger antibody and T-cell responses but also suffer higher rates of adverse reactions—leaving half the population unaccounted for and casting doubt on the safety and applicability of the findings.
Bottom Line
While the University of Nebraska team presented their work as vaccine development, the methods show they constructed brand-new bird flu viruses through reverse genetics, engineered with a PR8 laboratory backbone to enhance replication traits.
These pathogens, created with federal funding, were built and amplified under BSL-2 conditions—labs designed for moderate-risk microbes, not novel influenza strains with pandemic potential.
The authors claim their goal was to stop the spread of H5N1 in cattle, but the vaccine failed to neutralize the very strain now circulating in U.S. herds, was never tested in cattle challenges, and excluded females altogether.
Coming just days after President Trump’s UN call to end bioweapons creation, this project exemplifies the dangerous reality that pandemic-capable pathogens are being created under the guise of “vaccine development.”
Trump shares encounter with employee whose son was severely vaccine-injured, and condemns how children are “pumped” with 80 different vaccines so early in life.
As part of its new Autism Data Science Initiative (ADSI), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will investigate whether medical exposures—including vaccines—are linked to the rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Reviews of 91 human studies up to 2016 show that approximately 74% of studies suggest mercury exposure—including through vaccines—as a risk factor or contributor to ASD, showing both direct and indirect effects on brain development.
The new announcement came during a White House press conference in the Roosevelt Room, where President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined what they described as “progress in uncovering the root causes of autism.”
The fact sheet released by HHS details three primary initiatives: a renewed look at leucovorin (folinic acid) as a treatment for autism-related symptoms, guidance to physicians on acetaminophen use in pregnancy, and the NIH’s launch of the Autism Data Science Initiative.
Although vaccines were not listed among the three headline goals, they were nevertheless singled out later in the announcement under the NIH initiative’s “medical and perinatal influences” heading.
Data from CDC VAERS show 2,682,925 adverse events linked to vaccines since 1990—yet, as the Harvard Pilgrim study commissioned by HHS confirmed, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported, meaning the true number is likely in the hundreds of millions.
NIH Autism Data Science Initiative
The new NIH initiative involves more than $50 million in new awards, funding 13 projects that will focus on autism prevalence, etiology, treatment, services, and replication studies.
According to HHS, the projects will use “large-scale, integrated data resources” spanning genetics, epigenetics, proteomics, metabolomics, and behavioral data.
A defining feature is the “exposomics” (the study of all environmental exposures over a lifetime and their impact on health) approach, which NIH says will comprehensively study environmental, medical, and lifestyle factors that may contribute to autism.
The list of exposures includes:
Environmental contaminants such as chemicals and other hazardous substances found in everyday life
Nutrition and maternal diet factors like folate intake, fish consumption, and ultra-processed foods
Medical and perinatal influences, explicitly naming medications and vaccinations alongside obstetric complications and neonatal intensive care exposures
Psychosocial stressors, infections, and immune responses during pregnancy and early development
By directly including vaccinations in its research portfolio, NIH is, for the first time, publicly committing to probe potential links between vaccines and autism within a large-scale government-backed initiative.
Autism Rates Continue to Climb
The announcement comes amid sobering new numbers from the CDC: 1 in 31 U.S. children born in 2014 has been diagnosed with autism—nearly a fivefold increase from when the CDC first began tracking autism rates in 2000.
The prevalence is higher among boys (1 in 20) and highest in California, where nearly 1 in 12.5 children are affected.
Trump & Kennedy Single Out Vaccines
During the announcement, Trump shared his encounter with an employee whose son was apparently severely injured by vaccines:
The U.S. president also encouraged parents to space out vaccinations in their children:
Secretary Kennedy also emphasized the new focus on vaccines, pointing out how 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe that a vaccine injured their child:
Bottom Line
While leucovorin therapy and acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy formed part of the HHS briefing, it is the NIH Autism Data Science Initiative that is likely to draw the most scrutiny.
For decades, the possibility of a vaccine-autism connection has been dismissed by government health agencies, and officials have repeatedly emphasized that “vaccines are safe and effective.”
The fact that NIH’s own research portfolio will now explicitly include vaccinations as one of the risk factors under study marks a major shift—and one that could carry significant implications for both public health policy and parental trust in government vaccine programs.
Oh, brother, if there’s one thing that screams “we never learn” louder than a lab leak cover-up, it’s the mad scientists firing up AI to cook up brand-new viruses designed to hunt bacteria like microscopic terminators – phages so novel they’ve never existed in nature, promising to zap superbugs but risking a rogue evolution that could spell doom for humanity. We’re talking September 2025 breakthroughs where bioengineers used generative AI to dream up synthetic bacteriophage genomes, slapped them into bacteria, and watched the critters replicate and kill E. coli in lab dishes like it’s no big deal. This isn’t sci-fi; it’s happening now, with revelations warning of “extreme caution” as these AI-born killers could mutate beyond control, turning a “cure” into a curse. America First means slapping the brakes on this hubris before it bites us – because labs are “secure” until they’re not, and playing God with viruses is a gamble we can’t afford.
The AI Phage Revolution: From Code to Killer
It all kicked off with advancements in 2023-2024, but the real bombshell dropped in September 2025 when researchers announced the world’s first fully AI-designed bacteriophages – viruses that infect and destroy bacteria – capable of replicating and slaying resistant strains like E. coli in tests. These aren’t tweaks to existing phages; they’re entirely new creations, with AI proposing genetic codes that scientists synthesized and inserted into host cells, watching the viruses assemble, burst out, and infect targets.
How does it work? AI analyzes massive datasets of phage genomes – like the 10,000 sequenced by 2024 – to predict sequences that bind to specific bacteria, then generates novel ones that nature never made. Once designed, labs synthesize the DNA, insert it into bacteria, and let the phages self-assemble, replicating to form armies that latch onto targets, inject their code, and burst the cells open – a precision kill without antibiotics’ broad wipeout. Effectiveness? Lab tests from September 2025 showed these AI phages wiping out resistant E. coli strains in hours, with success rates over 90% in controlled settings.
The Dark Side: Evolution Risks and Unintended Mayhem
But here’s the nightmare fuel – these designer viruses are uncharted territory, and we have zero clue how they’ll evolve once unleashed. Revelations from genome pioneers in September 2025 warn of “extreme caution,” noting that AI phages could mutate in the wild, jumping hosts or turning virulent like a bad sci-fi plague. Unlike natural phages that co-evolved with bacteria over eons, these lab-born beasts lack those checks – a single tweak could let them infect humans or animals, sparking outbreaks we can’t predict. Think COVID’s origins: Man-made viruses don’t play by nature’s rules, and with phages replicating in minutes, evolution could spin out of control faster than you can say “gain-of-function.
“Worse, they’re being touted as “precision medicine” for superbugs, but revelations from a November 25, 2024, study show AI tools already predicting phage efficacy for E. coli with 85% accuracy, paving the way for widespread use. By May 22, 2025, startups were deploying AI-designed lysins – proteins from phages that punch holes in bacterial walls – to kill multidrug-resistant infections, but full phages amp the risk – they could spread unchecked, mutating to target beneficial bacteria or worse.
Lab Safety: “Secure” Until It’s Not
Sure, these labs are “as safe as possible” – BSL-3 or 4 levels with airlocks, suits, and protocols – but revelations from a January 6, 2025, real-world study on adverse events remind us accidents happen, like the 2023 Wuhan whispers or U.S. lab mishaps in 2022 that released engineered bugs. No containment is foolproof – human error, earthquakes, or sabotage could release these AI phages, and once out, they’re self-replicating time bombs. A 2020 commentary warned of “postantibiotic era” risks, but AI speeds it up, with no way to “recall” a rogue virus. The left’s “trust the science” mantra rings hollow here – we never learn from past lab leaks, and these viruses put all humanity on the line.
America First rejects this hubris – why risk humanity for “designer” fixes when natural phages already exist? Polls from August 2025 show 58% of Americans distrust AI in biotech, with 65% fearing lab leaks. We never learn – from COVID to this – and it’s time to pull the plug before the monsters escape.
The reverse transcription debate is a decoy, while the real risk is DNA fragments built to integrate into your genome.
At the recent ACIP meeting, Dr. Evelyn Griffin rightly raised the alarm about mRNA reverse transcription—pointing to published studies showing nucleic acids in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot can be integrated into human DNA, namely human liver cells under lab settings.
But Pfizer’s Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad quickly dismissed the concern:
“RNA cannot reverse transcribe to DNA [because that] requires a set of molecules and enzymes that don’t exist in humans and are largely reserved for retroviruses.”
Moderna chimed in, citing FDA reviews of “hundreds of millions” of doses and claiming “no indication of genotoxicity.”
The public was left thinking: case closed.
But this article will show that the real risk isn’t rare reverse transcription at all—it’s the integration of plasmid DNA contaminants into the human genome, a pathway every cell in the body is equipped to carry out.
Pfizer and Moderna are technically wrong that reverse transcription “can’t happen,” but they also know it’s rare—so they lean on that half-truth to keep the spotlight off plasmid DNA integration, which is far more likely and far more dangerous.
It’s a sleight of hand—a bait-and-switch.
Emergency room director Dr. Richard Bartlett told this website that the real scandal isn’t reverse transcription at all, but the hidden plasmid DNA contamination that provides the mechanism for Pfizer’s genetic code to be incorporated into human DNA and causes disease.
“Pfizer and Moderna are distracting from the smoking gun of plasmid DNA contamination in their COVID-19 mRNA shots,” Dr. Bartlett said. “In 2022, investigators worked with the information they had, but that information was not complete. The fact that Pfizer’s genetic code was incorporated into human host DNA is irrefutable. And the most likely mechanism that it got there is plasmid DNA, not mRNA reverse transcription. Pfizer knows this. Moderna knows this. They hid the damning information from investigators and doctors in 2022. That is why investigators misinterpreted DNA integration as reverse transcription. I am convinced that Pfizer’s genetic code found in human cells did not come from the mRNA, but from plasmid DNA contamination. This is catastrophic.”
You can watch a clip of the exchange, posted by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, below:
The Bait-and-Switch
This is the inside baseball play: Pfizer and Moderna want the debate stuck on reverse transcription.
Why?
Because they can plausibly argue it’s rare.
The enzyme required for reverse transcription—LINE-1—is typically absent from the vast majority of human cells, with only modest expression detected in specialized cell types like epithelial cells, and higher activity mainly in tumors and with aging.
That makes reverse transcription possible, but not systemic.
They know this, and they exploit it.
But focusing there keeps eyes off the much bigger danger.
The study Dr. Griffin cited made the best assumption it could with the cherry-picked information the manufacturers released—but what it could not account for, because Pfizer and Moderna hid the evidence and still refuse to admit it, is the smoking gun: plasmid DNA contamination, the very mechanism by which foreign DNA can be incorporated into the human genome after injection, kept from researchers and the public and denying true informed consent.
Plasmids are routinely used in the industry to incorporate foreign DNA into host DNA.
The Bigger Threat: Plasmid DNA Integration
The COVID-19 mRNA shots are manufactured using DNA plasmids—the very genetic engineering tools designed to insert code into genomes.
By definition, plasmids are integration-competent.
They can stitch themselves into human DNA.
Independent labs have confirmed that Pfizer’s vials contain toxic levels of plasmid DNA.
A French government-funded study led by Didier Raoult (Nov 2024) found 5,160 ng of plasmid DNA per dose—516 times higher than the FDA/EMA safety limit.
A December 2024 peer-reviewed paper in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law found 227–334% more DNA contamination than WHO limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter/enhancer.
A September 2025 peer-reviewed study in Autoimmunityconfirmed both Pfizer and Moderna’s shots are contaminated with billions to hundreds of billions of DNA fragments per dose—up to 627 times higher than FDA/WHO limits—with Pfizer uniquely carrying the SV40 promoter-enhancer, a cancer-linked sequence designed to drive foreign DNA into human cell nuclei.
This isn’t speculation.
The contamination is proven.
What’s Inside Pfizer’s Plasmid
Pfizer’s plasmid doesn’t just contain bacterial DNA and the SV40 cancer-promoting gene sequence.
α-globin (blood/cardiovascular): regulates red blood cell gene expression.
AES/TLE5 (immune): regulates transcriptional control in immune pathways.
MT-RNR1 (neurological/mitochondrial): tied to mitochondrial function and neurological disorders.
An October 2023 Nature npj Vaccines paper confirmed these sequences are part of Pfizer’s design:
“Pfizer-BioNTech’s 5’ UTR sequence is derived from the human hemoglobin α-globin (HBA1) gene… For the 3’ UTR, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine combines one segment from a human mRNA encoding amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES) and another from mitochondrial 12 S rRNA (mtRNR1).”
These are not inert.
They are regulatory DNA codes.
Alignment With the Injury Signal
Here’s where it gets damning.
Two independent safety reviews (2022, 2024) found that serious adverse events after Pfizer’s mRNA shot cluster into three categories:
Pfizer’s own 5.3.6 safety reportconfirms the same triad:
25,957 neurological events
1,050 immune/autoimmune cases
932 blood/hematological disorders
Now line it up:
Plasmid fragment: α-globin → blood
Plasmid fragment: AES/TLE5 → immune
Plasmid fragment: MT-RNR1 → neurological
The plasmid blueprint and the injury clusters align perfectly—making the case plain without muddying the waters with debates over mRNA reverse transcription.
In other words, the match between Pfizer’s plasmid design and the injury clusters is exact, and it stands on its own—no need to get lost in the reverse transcription smokescreen.
Every Cell Has the Machinery
Unlike reverse transcription, which relies on rare LINE-1 enzymes, plasmid DNA doesn’t need anything special.
Every human cell carriesDNA repair systems—like Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)—that can integrate foreign DNA into chromosomes.
These pathways are active everywhere because they’re required for basic genome maintenance.
That means plasmid integration is not rare.
It’s possible in virtually every cell.
The Silence Is Deafening
Pfizer and Moderna keep ACIP fixated on reverse transcription—a long shot they can safely dismiss—while saying nothing about plasmid DNA contamination, which is systemic and inescapable.
And yet their own blueprint, their own fragments, and their own safety data all point to the same conclusion: integration risk matches the injury signal.
Bottom Line
Reverse transcription is real but rare.
Plasmid DNA integration is universal—all cells have the machinery.
Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments regulating blood, immune, and neurological systems.
Those are the exact systems showing up in serious vaccine injuries, confirmed by independent reviews and Pfizer’s own report.
This is not coincidence—it’s alignment.
The unavoidable question is whether Pfizer’s plasmid design itself is driving the blood, immune, and neurological injuries dominating the safety signal.
Until regulators investigate, the only responsible course is to pull these shots from the market.
That’s why the focus must shift off the apparently rare possibility of mRNA reverse transcription and onto the far greater danger—plasmid DNA integration—a risk built into every cell and written into Pfizer’s own blueprint.
Pentagon-funded study confirms scientists deliberately created airborne hantavirus particles and carried out stabilization trials to prolong their survival.
The U.S. military has funded research, published in July in the journal Pathogens, in which scientists deliberately aerosolized Sin Nombre virus (SNV)—the hantavirus that kills roughly 30% of those infected—in order to study how long the virus can survive in the air and under what conditions it remains infectious.
Why is the Pentagon commissioning experiments that turn a rodent-borne virus with a 30% kill rate into an airborne particle?
Why are U.S. defense labs probing how to stabilize lethal aerosols?
The study would say it aerosolized hantavirus because “gaining insight into the SNV bioaerosol decay profile is fundamental to the prevention of SNV infections,” but the deeper concern is whether such work risks accidental release or could be harnessed intentionally for pandemic potential.
This new study fits the same disturbing pattern: taxpayer-funded projects that blur the line between “biodefense” and the step-by-step recipe for a future bioweapon.
Dr. Richard Bartlett didn’t mince words as he raised alarm over Pentagon-backed hantavirus aerosol experiments:
“How much longer will We the People tolerate our government using our tax dollars to do deadly experiments in our homeland? Has anyone heard that the COVID pandemic might have been caused by a lab leak? We have no guarantee that another lab leak might happen on our own soil. Remember: Dr. Anthony Fauci and a 2016 NIH-led biosecurity report identified insider leaks as the “most probable” risk in gain-of-function research.”
A Lethal Virus
The authors admit the severity of the pathogen upfront:
“Later symptoms involve respiratory distress that requires immediate medical attention and has a 30% fatality rate.”
In other words, this is not a mild virus.
If contracted, nearly one in three patients will die, and there is no approved treatment or vaccine.
The Pentagon’s Involvement
This wasn’t purely academic work.
The study declares its sponsor:
“This research was funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), under grant number DTRA/CBS-NSRI CB1099.”
That means the Pentagon’s weapons division paid for scientists to aerosolize and study the airborne stability of a lethal hantavirus—a clear overlap with bioweapons research.
Aerosolizing a Killer
The researchers describe how they turned the virus into an aerosol:
“Suspensions were aerosolized via a 120 kHz ultrasonic nozzle… with 3 lpm of carrier air.”
Put plainly, they deliberately converted liquid hantavirus into airborne particles small enough to reach deep into human lungs.
This step—aerosolization—is the foundation of making a respiratory bioweapon.
Measuring Airborne Survival
They then tracked how long these particles remained infectious under different conditions:
“At 49.1 ± 0.8% RH, the addition of 1.0 ppm ozone caused a significant increase in the amount of SNV decay at 2.6 ± 0.1 log/min.”
In other words, in normal humidity, the virus survives in the air unless destroyed by ozone.
Sunlight weakened it but did not fully eliminate infectivity.
This proves SNV is stable enough to persist airborne indoors—such as in barns, sheds, or attics—precisely where human infections are known to occur.
Comparison to Other Pandemic Viruses
The researchers themselves compared SNV to avian influenza and Lassa virus:
“This transmission route is similar to other viruses that have an environmental transmission route, such as avian influenza (e.g., H5N1) and Lassa virus.”
This places hantavirus in the same category as pathogens with known pandemic potential.
The implication is clear: if SNV ever adapted to spread person-to-person, as Andes virus already does, the results would be catastrophic.
Particle Sizes Optimized for Lung Infection
The team also measured the size of the particles they created:
“The results indicated a bimodal distribution… with a peak at under a micron in size and a second peak under two microns.”
Translated, these are exactly the particle sizes most dangerous to humans, capable of bypassing upper airways and embedding deep inside the lungs.
This is a specialized flow-through system designed to expose bioaerosols to controlled conditions such as simulated sunlight, ozone, and humidity.
Institutional Affiliations
The authors are affiliated with the following institutions:
Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), Omaha, NE
The Global Center for Health Security, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), Omaha, NE
National Strategic Research Institute (NSRI), Omaha, NE
Center for Global Health, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Full List of Scientists
Elizabeth A. Klug
Danielle N. Rivera
Vicki L. Herrera
Ashley R. Ravnholdt
Daniel N. Ackerman
Yangsheng Yu
Chunyan Ye
Steven B. Bradfute
St. Patrick Reid
Joshua L. Santarpia
Bottom Line
The Pentagon has funded scientists to take a hantavirus with a 30% fatality rate, aerosolize it into tiny lung-penetrating particles, and measure how long it stays infectious in the air.
This kind of research, while framed as biodefense, is indistinguishable from steps needed to weaponize a virus.
With no vaccine or treatment available, the knowledge produced here doesn’t just help “protect”—it creates a blueprint for how to turn hantavirus into a bioweapon.
A number of nations have failed to meet their Constitutional requirements to formally accept the 2024 amendments to the IHR so they have “rejected” the amendments to the IHR (for the time being).
Today (September 19, 2025), the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted on June 1, 2024 came into legally binding effect for most, but not all nations.
A total of 11 nations have “rejected” the amendments, 2 more have filed “reservations” and “declarations”, an additional 8 nations have submitted “declarations” and one nation has submitted a “statement.
The 2022 amendments that shortened the time for entry into force from 24 to 12 months has obviously made it difficult for many nations to abide by their internal rules, so many nations have requested extensions to the time allowed for them to complete the proper procedures in order to come into compliance with the 2024 amendments.
PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may change their position and withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.
APPENDIX 4 (pages 82-95)
REJECTIONS, RESERVATIONS, DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS BY STATES PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005) ADOPTED THROUGH RESOLUTION WHA77.17 (2024) (1),(2)
(1) As at 19 September 2025. The process relating to reservations expressed is ongoing. The deadlines for submitting objections to reservations expressed are 8 November 2025 for States Parties to which the amendments adopted through resolution WHA75.12 (2022) apply, and 8 February 2026 for States Parties to which those amendments do not apply.
(2) This Appendix reproduces the relevant parts of the communications submitted by States Parties in connection with the amendments adopted through resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
I. REJECTIONS
PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.
If you live in any of the 11 nations listed below, YOU STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND A RESPONSIBILITY to oppose the amendments to the International Health Regulations, but you must also realize that officials from these nations can change their position and withdraw their rejection of the amendments at any time.
1. ARGENTINA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 whereby the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Following a thorough review of the legal, institutional and budgetary implications, the Argentine Republic hereby rejects the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 under the terms stipulated in article 61 of the said Regulations.
The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva conveys to the World Health Organization the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (3)
(3) Translated from Spanish.
2. AUSTRIA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and has the honor to refer to the Circular Letter dated 19 September 2024, no. C.L.40.2024, concerning the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization as well as Article 59, paragraph ibis, and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as “IHR”), the Republic of Austria rejects the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), as notified by the Director-General of the World Health Organization on 19 September 2024.
The rejection is of preliminary nature and will be withdrawn once the Parliament of Austria has approved the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
3. BRAZIL
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 19 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and wishes to make the following considerations:
Brazil has consistently supported and will continue to support the process of reviewing and updating the legal framework underpinning WHO’s response to public health emergencies, including the acceptance of the package of amendments to the IHR.
Taking into account the adoption of Resolution WHA77.17 by the World Health Assembly – which confers a recommendatory status to the amendments – Brazil has already initiated internal discussions within the competent national bodies aimed at institutional and operational adjustments to implement the changes that reflect the best practices embodied in the amended IHR, in areas under the purview of the Executive Branch and Regulatory Agencies.
Nevertheless, pursuant to Brazil ‘s constitutional framework, the International Health Regulations must be submitted to Congress for approval, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers and institutional harmony.
In this context, with reference to Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), Brazil notifies the rejection of the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17.
The Government of Brazil intends to make every effort to secure the prompt approval of the amended text by the National Congress, so that the rejection may be reversed pursuant to Article 63 of the IHR, once the legislative procedures are concluded.
The Permanent Mission of Brazil avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
4. CANADA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva, received on 8 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and has the honor to refer to the Director-General ‘s notification Ref.: C.L.40.2024 of 19 September 2024, by which the Director-General notified States Parties to the International Health Regulation (2005), adopted by the Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 23 May 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”), of the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva on I June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 Amendments”).
Canada supports the IHR as a cornerstone of the global health security architecture and the work done to strengthen the IHR through the 2024 Amendments. Canada also reiterates its full support for the role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on global health and in supporting Member States in strengthening health systems.
The Permanent Mission notes that, per the above-mentioned notification and pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR, the 2024 Amendments are scheduled to enter into force on 19 September 2025 for States Parties that did not reject the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 28 May 2022.
The Permanent Mission wishes to inform the Director-General that Canada must avail itself, through the present note, of the option of submitting a notification of rejection of the 2024 Amendments in accordance with paragraphs I bis and 2 of Article 59 and Article 61 of the IHR to allow sufficient time to complete the remaining steps of its internal treaty adoption process. Indeed, the said process is not expected to be finalized prior to the entry into force of the 2024 Amendments. Canada has started and is progressing through its domestic procedures and will inform the Director-General of their completion in a subsequent note.
The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Director-General of World health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
5. CZECH REPUBLIC
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding the amendments of the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director General as follows.
The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director General that in the Czech Republic, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the said amendments will not have been met before 19 September 2025.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), the Czech Republic hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the amendments of the international Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024.
In accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the International Health Regulations (2005), once the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of said amendments have been met, the Czech Republic may notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection.
The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
6. GERMANY
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to communicate the following:
On 1 June 2024, the final day of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, the States Parties adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) annexed to Resolution WHA77.17.
On 19 September 2024, the Director-General notified the adoption by the Health Assembly of the amended International Health Regulations (ref. C.L.40.2024).
In view of the imminent end of the period for rejection on 19 July 2025, the Federal Republic of Germany greatly regrets that it must declare that the requirements of the national constitution for the implementation of the amendments will not be achieved before 19 September 2025. The requisite legislative process is still ongoing.
Accordingly, in compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the aforementioned amendments to the International Health Regulations.
In accordance with Article 63 (1) of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of the rejection as soon as the national requirements for the implementation of the amendments have been achieved.
The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurance of its high consideration. (4)
(4) English translation from German provided by the Government.
7. ISRAEL
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 4 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization in Geneva, and has the honor to inform his office of the following:
Due to the continuation of the current circumstances, the State of Israel finds it necessary to reject the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, we hereby notify the Director-General of Israel’s rejection of all of the amendments to the International Health Regulations adopted in decision 77.17 by the World Health Assembly in its 77th session in May 2024.
Please note that Israel maintains its right under Article 63 of the IHR to withdraw its rejection to the IHR amendments in the future with or without reservations.
The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
8. ITALY
Letter of the Minister of Health of Italy, received on 18 July 2025
I am writing to you with reference to your notification dated 19 September 2024, regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), the above-mentioned amendments shall enter into force 12 months after the date of the above mentioned notification, i.e. on 19 September 2025, except for those Parties that have notified the WHO’s Director-General of their rejection or reservations in respect of the said amendments.
In accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), I hereby notify Your Excellency of Italy’s rejection of all the amendments adopted by the Seventy Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
Please accept, Director-General, the assurance of my highest consideration. (5)
(5) English translation from Italian provided by the Government.
9. NETHERLANDS (KINGDOM OF THE)
Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 21 February 2025
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director-General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows.
Since the Kingdom of the Netherlands rejected the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly through resolution WHA75.12 (hereinafter referred to as “2022 amendments”), the articles of the IHR as they were worded prior to the 2022 amendments apply to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the 2024 amendments shall enter into force for the Kingdom of the Netherlands 24 months after the date of the Director-General’s notification, i.e. on 19 September 2026, except if the Kingdom has notified the Director-General on or before 19 March 2026 of its rejection of, or reservations in respect of, the 2024 amendments.
The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director-General that in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments will not have been met before 19 March 2026.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the 2024 amendments pending the parliamentary approval procedure.
If the constitutional requirements for the acceptance of the 2024 amendments in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are met, the Kingdom of the Netherlands will notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments).
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva kindly asks WHO for confirmation of receipt of this Note Verbale and avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
10. PHILIPPINES
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 15 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to the notification C.L.40.2024 dated 19 September 2024 on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows:
The Philippines welcomes the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) and is undertaking steps to implement the same.
In accordance with domestic legal requirements, international instruments and changes thereto may not enter into force for the Philippines before such requirements are met. Therefore, the Philippines formally registers its rejection of the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) as conveyed via C.L.40.2024 in accordance with Article 61.
The Philippines will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of this rejection upon completion of domestic requirements in accordance with Article 63 of the International Health Regulations (2005).
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration
11. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva (“The Mission”) presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) and the amendments thereto adopted in Geneva on June 1, 2024 (the 2024 amendments) in resolution WHA77.17 and set forth in the notification of the 2024 amendments by the Director-General on September 19, 2024 (C.L.40.2024).
The Mission, by means of this note and pursuant to IHR Articles 59.lbis and 61, informs the Director-General of the World Health Organization that the Government of the United States of America rejects the 2024 amendments.
The Permanent Mission of the United States of America avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
II. RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS
1. HOLY SEE
Letter of the Secretary of State of the Holy See, received on 11 July 2025
The undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has the honor to certify hereby that the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, accepts the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seven World Health Assembly through its Resolution WHA 77.17 of 1 June 2024. Enclosed are the text of 4 declarations and 2 reservations, which are an integral part of this Instrument of Accession. In witness whereof the undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has signed this document and has affixed thereto the seal of the Secretariat of State.
Reservations and Declarations
annexed to the Instrument of Accession Declarations
In light of the territorial nature of the provisions contained in the Amended International Health Regulations, the Holy See declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that in acceding to the Amended Regulations only in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, it intends to apply their provisions exclusively within the Territory of the Vatican City State as circumscribed by the Leonine Walls.
The Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, declares that it will apply the Amended International Health Regulations in a manner compatible with the particular nature of the Vatican City State, the Sources of its Law (Law LXXI of 1 October 2008) and Catholic moral doctrine.
The Holy See, in conformity with its particular mission, underlines, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that any reference to “gender” in the Amended International Health Regulations and in any document that has been or that will be adopted in relation to those Regulations is to be understood as grounded on the biological sexual identity that is male and female.
The Holy See declares, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that the terms “health services”, “relevant health products” and “cell- and gene-based therapies and other health technologies” may not be construed as to include abortion nor access to abortion, abortifacients, contraceptives, assisted reproductive technologies, human cloning or to other technologies and therapies contrary to Catholic moral doctrine.
Reservations
Since neither the Holy See or the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 44 bis of the Amended International Health Regulations, thus reserving the right to decide on a case- by-case basis whether to implement the decisions and recommendations of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism.
Since neither the Holy See nor the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 56.5 of the Amended International Health Regulations so that any disputes that may arise between itself and the World Health Organization concerning the interpretation or application of the 2024 amendments should not be submitted to the Health Assembly.
2. SWITZERLAND
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, received on 10 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the decision of the Federal Council dated 20 June 2025, has the honor to notify it that Switzerland accepts the amendments made in 2024 to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), with the following reservation and declarations, in accordance with Article 62, paragraph 2, of the said Regulations:
Reservation concerning Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. vi and paragraph 3 (i)
Switzerland makes a reservation with regard to the question of managing misinformation and disinformation in core capacities for risk communication. It intends to pursue its objective and evidence based activities regarding risks, as specified under its legislation (Epidemics Act of 28 September 2012, art. 9, para. 1) and with strict regard for freedom of expression, the media and science as guaranteed under articles 16, 17 and 20 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999.
Interpretative declaration on Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. v and paragraph 3 (h)
With regard to the obligations concerning the implementation, maintenance and strengthening of core capacities in respect of access to health services and health products needed for action, as referred to in Annex 1, the Swiss Confederation or its cantons will apply the Regulations in accordance with the division of jurisdiction specified by the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 in the areas of health (art. 117 et seq.), federalism (art. 3 and 42 et seq.) and according to the principle of subsidiarity (art. 5 (a)).
Declaration under Article 4, paragraph 4
The competent National IHR Authority is the Federal Office of Public Health (OFSP), Schwartzenburgerstrasse 157, 3003 Berne, Switzerland, tel. +41 58 462 21 11, info@bag.admin.ch
The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and the other international organizations in Geneva takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization (WHO) the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (6)
(6) Translated from French.
III. DECLARATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005)
1. CROATIA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Croatia, received on 10 July 2025
The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Croatia presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to the Notification to State Parties concerning amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (Ref.: C.L.40.2024), specifically page 2, paragraph 3 under section ADA.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR (2005), which provides that any State Party unable to fully implement the necessary domestic legislative and administrative arrangements may submit a declaration to the Director-General within ten months from the date of notification – i.e. no later than 19 July 2025 – the Republic of Croatia hereby submits its declaration to postpone the application of the said amendments, including the obligation to designate or establish a National IHR Authority (NIA).
This declaration is based on the following considerations:
– Full implementation of the amended IHR obligations requires amendments to the current Law on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases;
– The process of establishing or appointing the NIA involves:
– Adoption of a formal decision on the establishment or designation of the NIA;
– Enactment or revision of the relevant legal framework to provide a solid basis for such designation or establishment;
– Preparation of official documentation clearly defining the responsibilities, scope of authority, and mandate of the NIA.
Given the complexity of the legislative process, including the stages of legal drafting, public consultation, inter-institutional coordination, and parliamentary adoption, it is not feasible to finalize all necessary changes by the stipulated deadline of 19 September 2025.
Accordingly, the Republic of Croatia respectfully requests the postponement of the application of the above-mentioned amendments, with the relevant legislative activities planned within the scope of the 2026 National Legislative Programme.
The Ministry of Health avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General the assurances of its highest consideration
2. CYPRUS
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Cyprus, received on 13 June 2025
I refer to your letter dated 19 September, 2024 regarding the National Adoption of Amendments to the International Health Regulations as per the provisions of the resolution WHA77.17 and note the following:
On behalf of the Republic of Cyprus I acknowledge receipt of your written notification regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations as adopted through resolution·WHA77.17 on 1 June 2024 at the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly.
I appreciate the commitment of the World Health Organization to strengthening global health security and recognize the importance of timely implementation of the updated International Health Regulations provisions. However, due to the complexity of our national procedures, as this includes a legislative·process, l respectfully request a 12-month extension to the deadline for national adoption of these amendments beyond the current deadline of 19 September 2025. This of additional time will allow us to align our national legislative frameworks and procedures with the revised regulations.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
3. FRANCE
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and the international organizations in Switzerland, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the World Health Organization at Geneva and has the honor to refer to its circular letter C.L.40.2024 notifying States Parties of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
In accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3, of the International Health Regulations (2005), this Mission hereby informs Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, that France requires an extension of the period to effect the legal and administrative adjustments necessary for the full implementation of the amendments to the International Health Regulations. In accordance with the Article referred to above, the necessary legal and administrative arrangements will be in place to facilitate the implementation of the amendments by 19 September 2026 at the latest.
The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization at Geneva the renewed assurances of its highest consideration.
(7) Translated from French.
4. HUNGARY
Letter of the Minister of Interior of Hungary, received on 18 July 2025
Following the adoption of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 amendments to the IHR”) by the World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59, the 2024 amendments to the IHR will enter into force on 19 September 2025.
The Government of Hungary reaffirms its strong commitment to the IHR (2005) as a cornerstone of global health security and international cooperation. We recognize the critical role that the IHR (2005) play in strengthening countries’ capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events, thereby ensuring collective preparedness and safeguarding populations worldwide. Its effective implementation is essential for promoting transparency, coordination, and rapid response to health threats across borders. Hungary remains dedicated to supporting the continuous improvement of the IHR and its implementation, both nationally and through collaborative efforts at the regional and global levels.
With this in mind, Hungary has taken a number of steps to prepare for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments to the IHR. However, the incorporation of necessary amendments in our national legislation is a complex legislative process requiring longer time beyond 19 September 2025 in order to ensure the desirable legal consistency with the purpose of ensuring smooth applicability of relevant provisions.
Due to the sharing of competences between the EU and its Member States, the Council Decision “inviting Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) contained in the Annex to Resolution WHA77.17 and adopted on 1 June 2024” was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 26 May 2025. Taking the rules of procedures into account, the remaining time until 19 September 2025 does not permit Hungary to conduct the necessary legislative procedure.
On behalf of the Government of Hungary, and in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR 2005, I hereby declare that the amendments of the relevant Hungarian laws will not be completed by 19 September 2025.
The outstanding adjustments are to complete the review of EU and Hungarian legislation to ensure legislative consistency with the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
Along with this declaration it’s my pleasure to confirm that the Government of Hungary is truly committed to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the 2024 amendments to the IHR by 19 September 2026.
Please accept, Director-General, the assurances of my highest consideration
(8) English translation from Hungarian provided by the Government
5. IRELAND
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 11 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers document C.L.40.2024 received on l 9th September 2024, through which States Parties to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) received notification from the Director-General of amendments thereto.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR, the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations wishes to formally submit a declaration notifying the Director-General of Ireland’s intent to avail of the permissible 12-month period to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements to accommodate the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
6. LATVIA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Latvia, received on 16 July 2025
On behalf of the Republic of Latvia, I would like to reaffirm our full support for the International Health Regulations (IHR) and express our commitment to implementing the recent amendments adopted by the World Health Assembly (resolution WHA77.17 (2024)). Latvia has initiated the necessary administrative and legislative procedures to align national laws and regulations with the updated IHR. However, due to the requirement for parliamentary approval of legislative changes, it will not be feasible to complete all necessary adjustments by the deadline of 19 September 2025. Therefore, in accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3 of the IHR, I hereby formally notify the World Health Organization that the following actions may not be finalized by the above-mentioned deadline:
1. An inter-institutional l discussion process is currently underway to identify and appoint the National IHR Authority in Latvia.
2. Following the designation of the relevant Authority, amendments will be required to several national laws and regulatory acts, including:
– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 1050 “Procedure for Implementing Public Health Protection Measures”;
– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 417 “On the International Health Regulations”;
– The Epidemiological Safety Law.
Until the official designation of the National IRR Authority is completed, the State Emergency Medical Service (NMPD) – currently serving as the National IHR Focal Point – will perform the responsibilities of the National IHR Authority.
Once a formal decision is made at the national level, the nomination will be updated accordingly, and the World Health Organization will be promptly informed.
Latvia remains fully committed to the principles and obligations of the IHR and will continue contributing to global effort to safeguard public health and uphold international cooperation. It is our intention to complete all outstanding adjustments by 19 September 2026.
7. MALTA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to circular letter C.L.40.2024, has the honor to kindly request that Malta be granted an extension under Article 59(3) of the International Health Regulations (2005), as amended in 2024.
This request is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the International Health Regulations, as Government of the Republic of Malta is presently not in a position to fully align its domestic legislative and administrative framework with the requirements set out in the 2024 amendments, within the twelve-month period following their formal notification, which ends on 19 September 2025.
The Government of the Republic of Malta reiterates its strong commitment to the objectives of the Regulations and appreciates the continued support of WHO during the transitional phase.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
8.SOUTH AFRICA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of South Africa, received on 19 July 2025
I have the honor to refer to the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through resolution WHA77.17 (2024) (“the 2024 amendments”) and notified to States Parties via circular letter C.L. 40.2024 of 19 September 2024.
South Africa welcomes the 2024 amendments and, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations (2005), submits its declaration to the Director-General, noting the need for outstanding adjustments regarding its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements.
Accordingly, South Africa shall enjoy twelve additional months from the entry into force of the 2024 amendments, that is, until 19 September 2026, to adjust the above-referenced arrangements with the 2024 amendments.
South Africa looks forward to a well-considered and sustainable approach to the implementation of the amended International Health Regulations (2005) in order to advance global public health.
IV. STATEMENTS
1. TÜRKIYE
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the Latter’s Note dated 19 September 2024 (Ref.: C.L.40.2024) has the honor to notify the Director-General of the following:
“Türkiye will implement the provisions of the International Health Regulations in accordance with the Convention regarding the regime of the Turkish Straits, signed at Montreux on 20 July 1936, as well as by taking into account Turkish 2019 Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and any future revisions to be made thereto.”
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
Federal advisory committee fails to inform public about the risks, despite new RFK Jr.-aligned members.
The newly reconstituted CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was supposed to be different.
With several new members aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s mandate for transparency and health freedom, expectations were high that the panel would finally call out the dangers hidden in vaccine development.
Instead, the new board folded.
TurniACIP’s Hollow Move
On Thursday, ACIP votedmerely to push back the MMRV shot recommendation to age 4 because of the increased risk of febrile seizures in toddlers.
But the CDC had already admitted back in 2008 that ProQuad (MMRV) increased the risk of febrile seizures in toddlers 12–23 months old, and by 2009 ACIP was discouraging its use as the first dose at 12–15 months.
CDC had already cited studies showing about 4.3 cases per 10,000 doses—roughly double the risk compared to separate MMR and Varivax shots.
Meaning this latest “new” move by ACIP isn’t reform at all, but a belated rehash of mainstream business-as-usual policy that does nothing to protect children, even with so-called health freedom members now on the panel.
The Real Elephant in the Room: Plasmids
Instead of going further—instead of confronting the core problem—the panel stopped short.
They left in place recommendations for children to continue receiving vaccines that could contain plasmid DNA contamination with human gene segments capable of integrating into the human genome, a fact admitted in patents, FDA inserts, and independent lab findings.
MMRV (ProQuad): Recombinant Human Albumin Risk
ProQuad (MMRV) contains recombinant human albumin (rHA), made with a plasmid carrying the human ALB gene that could integrate into the human genome and dysregulate blood and cardiovascular systems (here).
The shot has never been tested for carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, or fertility impairment.
If recombinant human albumin (rHA) gene segments integrated into the human genome—particularly the ALB gene involved in encoding albumin—this could potentially disrupt the regulation of albumin production and its widespread biological functions.
Albumin plays a critical role in multiple physiological systems, especially in blood and cardiovascular homeostasis.
Potential Systems Dysregulated by ALB Gene Integration
Blood and Vascular System: Albumin regulates osmotic pressure in the blood vessels, facilitates transport of hormones, fatty acids, and drugs, and has anticoagulant properties by binding antithrombin and inhibiting platelet aggregation. Disruption could cause blood clotting abnormalities, impaired transport functions, and fluid balance issues.
Cardiovascular System: Since albumin affects blood volume and pressure regulation, abnormal expression might lead to dysregulated blood pressure, edema, or vascular inflammation.
Immune System and Inflammation: Albumin helps regulate inflammatory responses; its disruption could contribute to immune dysregulation, such as vasculitis or hypersensitivity reactions.
Associated Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
The malfunction or dysregulation of albumin expression caused by integration could manifest as SAEs involving these systems, potentially including:
Edema (fluid retention and swelling)
Thrombocytopenia or other blood clotting disorders
Vasculitis (blood vessel inflammation)
Anaphylaxis or severe allergic reactions
Cardiovascular abnormalities like hypertension or vascular inflammation
Immune-mediated conditions affecting blood and vascular health
This aligns with reported SAEs listed in the FDA insert for ProQuad (MMRV), including thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, edema, anaphylaxis, and severe allergic reactions.
The underlying hypothesis is that integration of human ALB gene segments from recombinant albumin plasmids into the genome could disrupt this key protein’s regulation, leading to these blood and cardiovascular disorders.
Thus, the biological systems regulated by albumin—primarily blood volume/osmotic balance, coagulation, transport, and vascular integrity—are the most plausible targets for dysregulation if human albumin gene plasmid fragments integrate into the human genome, and these are reflected in the types of SAEs observed.
ACIP’s Failure
The new ACIP, with new health freedom-minded members recently appointed, was supposed to be a firewall.
Instead, they chose to deliberate over the timing of doses—not the DNA contamination, not the lack of long-term studies, not the risk of permanent genomic integration in children.
This is not reform, but surrender dressed up as oversight.
What the public got was a board that kept the program alive, keeping dangerous products in circulation under the federal Vaccines for Children program, and dodging the real questions.
Bottom Line
ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorff tried to frame the febrile seizure debate as a matter of “trust,” urging the public to listen to scientists who debate openly.
But the committee didn’t debate the elephant in the room: plasmids, human gene contamination, and the utter absence of mutagenesis and carcinogenicity testing.
Both the newly appointed “health freedom” members and the long-standing vaccine loyalists on ACIP now face a test of credibility.
The authority they’ve been given carries a duty to move beyond procedural adjustments and confront deeper safety questions head-on.
That requires openness, genuine debate, and a willingness to subject their recommendations to far greater public scrutiny.
The public did not support changes to ACIP membership simply to see more of the same.
Parents and citizens expected new voices to raise real concerns and to demand stronger safety standards for children.
That expectation remains unmet, and the responsibility for addressing it lies squarely with the current panel.
Public discourse about political violence in the US is now driven by a single claim, that right‑wing actors commit the lion’s share of attacks. That thesis has migrated from activist reports into journalism and then into official talking points. Yet its footing is weaker than advertised. The proposition depends on datasets with moving definitions and selective scopes. It also depends on a habit of turning non‑political crime into political intent when the offender happens to have the wrong affiliations, while discounting ideologically charged offenses when they flow from left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian causes. When we examine how the numbers are built, we see a pattern. Definitions, inclusion criteria, and coding choices are doing more work than the underlying events.
Begin with first principles. A fair account of political violence must track two simple ideas. First, political motive, not the identity of the offender, is what makes an act political. Second, comparable acts must be counted on comparable terms. If a right‑wing offender’s ordinary bar fight is listed as political because he once shared extremist memes, then a left‑wing offender’s riot‑linked arson must be counted as political when it was plainly undertaken for an ideological purpose. If a database counts propaganda stickers as violent extremism on the right, it must also count left‑wing vandalism of memorials and offices as violent extremism on the left. If a study focuses only on fatal attacks, it must explain why non‑fatal bombings, arsons, beatings, and attempted assassinations, many of them left‑coded, do not count. These are not partisan demands, they flow from basic standards of inference. Like cases should be treated alike.
The most aggressive inflation starts with what gets labeled right‑wing by theme rather than by motive. Some compilers treat any identity‑biased crime as quintessentially right‑wing, even when the offender’s own rhetoric and associates place him in pro‑Palestinian or left‑wing circles. In that frame, antisemitic offenses are assigned to the right by definitional fiat, because the target is a protected group and because the right is said to be the natural home of bigotry. That approach reverses the direction of explanation. We are supposed to infer political ideology from the identity of the victim. The method equates theme with motive and then motive with right‑wing identity. Such reasoning would be rejected in any other empirical domain. It lets preconception fix the labels in advance and it protects the labels from correction when the facts of a case cut the other way.
Next, there is the tactic of counting everything around the right while counting only a narrow set of events on the left. One widely cited stream of reports counts every homicide committed by a person with white‑supremacist interest, including domestic disputes and intra‑gang murders with no political purpose. In the same breath, it excludes left‑wing violence that does not produce a corpse. The result is a double filter, add ordinary crime to one side and subtract ideologically driven, non‑fatal violence from the other. Add enough of the former and subtract enough of the latter and the headline becomes inevitable. The data will perform as designed.
A third move is the curated time window or the one‑off outlier exclusion. In some tallies, a single Islamist megattack that reshaped modern history is removed as exceptional. Removing it reduces the non‑right body count by thousands, which predictably enlarges the relative share of right‑wing violence. The rationale is presented as methodological prudence, but the consequence is political arithmetic. The new denominator makes right‑wing violence look like the dominant fraction by construction. If the goal is to measure danger and reality, there is no justification for erasing the single most consequential terrorist attack in US history. If the goal is to win a talking point, exclusion makes sense.
To see how these three moves work in practice, look closely at a few studies that shape the public conversation. Some academic‑adjacent databases operationalize political violence by category rather than by motive. Identity‑focused offenses are called right‑wing regardless of the offender’s own statements. Trivial or non‑violent acts, such as flyers or stickers, are counted alongside serious violent crimes. Meanwhile, ideologically driven left‑wing violence is discounted when it occurs during riots or in anarchist zones that officialdom preferred to frame as spontaneous unrest or mutual aid. The effect is a spectacular asymmetry. The right swallows even apolitical crime by offenders with the wrong associations. The left sheds political motive in cases where violence was plainly part of a cause. Inferences about national danger are then built on this misaligned scaffolding.
A second cluster of reports focuses on murders by extremists and then treats all killings by a person with extremist ties as extremist killings. Consider what that means. If a white‑supremacist gang member murders his girlfriend in a domestic dispute, the death is credited to right‑wing political violence. The political story gets a data point, but there was no political motive, there was only a crime that would have occurred regardless of ideology. Multiply this across a year and you can generate a lopsided pie chart. Then look at the inverse. Left‑wing attacks that injure, burn, intimidate, and terrorize but that do not result in death are omitted because no one died. The chart does not budge. The public sees the chart. The chart says the right is the problem. The construction of the chart does the work.
A third tranche of analysis focuses on the narrow category of terrorist murders. In one prominent version, only events with at least one fatality are counted. Plots are excluded, foiled attacks are excluded, attempts are excluded, arsons are excluded unless someone dies, riots are excluded unless a specific homicide is tied to political motive defined in a narrow way, and the September 11 attacks are placed in a separate box. In addition, the classification of several offenders as right‑wing is made on loose criteria, sometimes on the presence of racist postings or confused manifestos that do not articulate a political plan. When critics scratched the surface and re‑coded ambiguous cases, the large gap between right and left nearly vanished. Correct a few design choices and the headline dissolves into parity or into a more complex distribution that resists sloganeering.
In any rational inquiry the cure for definitional bias is casework. We must test the rules against particular incidents that the public has been taught to treat as examples of right‑wing political violence. When we do, many do not fit. They are either left‑coded, mixed, or non‑political. They often show untreated mental illness rather than doctrine. They often show radical milieus that have little to do with conservatives. They often show offenders who never voted in a Republican primary, who never donated to Republican candidates, and who told friends they had progressive or anti‑establishment views.
Consider the case of Vance Luther Boelter. He was appointed by a Democratic governor to a state workforce development board. He moved in Democratic circles. When he erupted in murderous violence, he targeted Democratic officials who had voted with Republicans on a specific immigration measure. He did not hunt Republicans. He hunted Democrats who in his view had betrayed a cause. The material recovered from his car included anti‑Trump flyers tied to a coordinated protest theme and other standard progressive paraphernalia. Sympathetic reporting later attempted to rebrand him as a Republican or a marginal Trump voter based on contested claims by acquaintances with obvious motives to sanitize the politics of the incident. The uncontested facts tell a simpler story. This was a politically motivated attack, but it was intra‑Democratic retribution over immigration policy. In any balanced dataset, the incident would count as left‑coded or at least as non‑right. It has instead been recycled as an instance of right‑wing violence because the victims were Democrats. This is definition by target again, not by motive.
Now take David DePape, the attacker in the Paul Pelosi case. The public was assured that he was a specimen of right‑wing rage. That claim folded fast when his history emerged. He was a Canadian national who was living and voting in the United States illegally. He lived for years in a progressive enclave with a left‑coded partner known for street protests and for far‑out radicalism. His home displayed a BLM flag and LGBTQ imagery. He had registered to vote with the Green Party and once cast a Green vote for a socialist candidate. He drifted into conspiracism and apparent psychosis, telling people he thought he was Jesus. None of this suggests a coherent right‑wing identity. It suggests a volatile mixture of mental illness and fringe ideology with leftist antecedents, followed by a paranoid fixation that eventually incorporated anti‑Pelosi fantasies. It is not hard to see why a media ecosystem primed to find a MAGA archetype fastened on that angle. It is harder to explain why serious compilers continue to code this event as right‑wing. If motive and milieu matter, the classification should be mixed or indeterminate at best. If the presence of a partisan target is enough to fix the label, then we are back to definition by victim rather than by motive.
Turn to Cody Allen Balmer, the arsonist who attacked the Pennsylvania governor’s residence. In real time, several commentators and officeholders offered the ritual line, another example of far‑right political violence. The details contradict the script. Balmer described himself as a Marxist. He expressed pro‑Palestinian themes and targeted the governor because he believed that the governor would harm Palestinians. His record shows serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and he had a trail of domestic violence and criminal charges. He never registered as a Republican, never voted in a Republican primary, and there is no record of Republican donations. When precise facts are inconvenient, the narrative retreats to ambiguity. Maybe he had some right‑wing sympathies. Maybe he saw posts on 𝕏. Maybe he was disturbed by current events in a way that aligned with conservative anger. The facts remain. Marxist self‑description, pro‑Palestinian motive, mental illness, and no partisan ties to the GOP. A fair coder would place this event on the left or mark it as non‑right. Yet the incident continues to be invoked in public as evidence for the thesis that right‑wing violence predominates. That is not data, it is branding.
Finally consider Anderson Lee Aldrich, the Club Q shooter. The instant narrative labeled the attack anti‑LGBTQ political violence from the right. The emerging record will not cooperate. Aldrich identified as non‑binary and asked to be addressed as Mx. Aldrich. He frequented Club Q and other gay venues. He never voted Republican, never participated in a GOP primary, and was never a donor to Republican candidates. His life showed serious dysfunction and suicidality, an arrest following threats involving a homemade bomb, and a trail of psychiatric treatment. In the courtroom, the picture was of a disturbed young person with violent fantasies and a warped relationship to identity, not a doctrinaire activist from any organized right‑wing scene. No fair reading of his history yields the conclusion that he was a conservative extremist. The rush to brand him as such flowed from the theme of the attack and the identity of the victims. The method is the same as before. Reverse engineer motive from target, then paint the act with the broadest possible brush.
These four cases are not cherry‑picked. They are prominent illustrations of a wider tendency. Where the facts point left or toward non‑political pathology, coders and commentators still push right. Where left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian attacks are unambiguous, the event is reframed as criminal violence with no ideology or it disappears into the gray spaces of data design. In the aggregate the skew compounds. Trivial propaganda acts inflate counts on the right. Non‑fatal left‑wing attacks are excluded. Ambiguous lone offenders are labeled right‑wing by default. Islamist and eco‑extremist events are minimized by time slicing or by outlier exclusions. Once the machinery is assembled, the conclusion is guaranteed. The right will look like the predominant source of political violence even if the underlying reality is mixed or if the greater share of routinized street violence has flowed from the left.
What would a sound methodology look like. Begin by coding motive, not identity, and require clear evidence for political intent. If the offender cannot articulate a political goal and there is no credible public record of one, do not count the act as political. Next, treat like cases alike. If domestic homicides by extremist affiliates count on one side, count them on both sides, or better, exclude them on both sides unless there is evidence the killing was carried out for political reasons. Third, include serious non‑fatal political violence, including arson, bombings, beatings, and attempted assassinations, and then weight incidents by severity. The public cares about danger, not only about death statistics. Fourth, avoid definitional shortcuts that infer ideology from target identity. Fifth, publish full incident lists with coding rationales so that outside reviewers can audit classifications. If your conclusions depend on hidden spreadsheets and shifting labels, they are not conclusions, they are talking points.
One might object that the exact labels do not matter because the trend is the same no matter how you count. That is false. Labeling shapes resource allocation and legal focus. When the data tell the public that right‑wing violence dwarfs left‑wing or Islamist violence, agencies are pressured to divert attention and funds accordingly. That may be wise in some periods. It is reckless if the numbers were built to sell a narrative rather than to inform about risk. It also warps civic understanding. Citizens begin to see ordinary conservatives as adjacent to violent fringe actors. Speech is chilled. Political engagement is stigmatized. The result is a brittle public square in which statistical fog is used to distress one side of the aisle.
Another objection says that it is unfair to distinguish between violent neo‑Nazis and conservatives because the former draw on a right‑coded tradition. The answer is simple. Fringe racists reject the central principles of modern conservatism and are expelled from mainstream conservative institutions. They are not part of the Republican coalition. They are enemies of it. Counting their apolitical crimes as right‑wing political violence smears millions of citizens by association. It is intellectually lazy and morally corrosive.
A third objection says that Islamist violence and left‑wing violence are red herrings, because the object of current concern is domestic extremism by whites. This reply repeats the selection problem at a higher level. The question is not whether we should ignore white offenders, the question is whether we should ignore other offenders, other ideologies, and other patterns of violence in order to uphold a single storyline. A government that can only see one danger is a government that will miss the next danger.
A final objection is rhetorical rather than empirical. It says that scrutinizing the numbers is an attempt to excuse violence on the right. The response is closure. No one is excusing anything. Violence for political ends is wrong. It should be punished. The claim under review is narrower. We are asking whether the claim of a dominant right‑wing share is supported by neutral counting. When we track motive, when we code like with like, and when we stop converting ordinary crimes into political statements, the dramatic right‑dominance story collapses. What remains is a complex landscape in which left‑wing and Islamist offenders, along with non‑political violent actors, account for a great deal of harm and pressure. The conservative point is not special pleading. It is a request for sobriety and standards.
Returning to the four cases. A Democratic appointee murders Democrats for voting with Republicans on immigration, a left‑coded conspiracist with visible progressive markers attacks the husband of a Democratic leader, a Marxist arsonist targets a Democratic governor over a pro‑Palestinian grievance, and a non‑binary club regular with a history of mental illness commits a mass shooting at a gay venue. None of these fit the template of organized right‑wing political violence. All four have been placed into that template anyway. If that is how the corner cases are handled in public view, imagine how less visible cases are coded. Imagine how many times the label is fixed by target, not by motive. Imagine how many times non‑fatal left‑wing violence is thrown out of scope. The dataset is not a mirror of reality, it is a machine for producing a preferred answer.
The remedy is not to flip the sign and declare that most political violence comes from the left. The remedy is to build an honest ledger. If we do, two conclusions will follow. First, much of what is today labeled right‑wing political violence is either non‑political crime by people with ugly affiliations or it is ambiguous lone‑offender pathology. Second, a large share of ideologically motivated street‑level aggression, from riots to arson to targeted intimidation, has been left‑coded or aligned with left‑wing and pro‑Palestinian causes in recent years, and it has been discounted by the very studies that purport to measure the phenomenon. Those conclusions do not vindicate anyone. They force us to see the shape of the problem without partisan blinders.
This is not an attempt to shock the conscience with graphic anecdotes or to turn data into propaganda. The aim has been clarity. Will stricter definitions and transparent coding erase right‑wing political violence. Not at all. They will do something better. They will put it in its proper proportion alongside left‑wing and Islamist violence and alongside non‑political violent crime. Only then can citizens and officials’ reason about risk without falling for the rhetoric of the spreadsheet. Only then can we protect the republic without sacrificing the truth to the fashion of the moment.
Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments regulating blood, immune, and neurological functions—the very systems most often harmed after injection, suggesting the blueprint may cause the injuries.
The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are built using DNA plasmids.
By definition, plasmids are integration-competent DNA molecules—they are the very tools genetic engineers use when they want to insert new code into a genome.
In other words, plasmids can integrate into human DNA.
Independent labs have confirmed that residual plasmid DNA fragments remain in Pfizer’s finished vaccine vials.
A French government-funded study led by Dr. Didier Raoult (Nov 2024) confirmed that Pfizer’s vaccine contains 5,160 ng of plasmid DNA per dose—516 times higher than the FDA and EMA’s safety limit of 10 ng.
The contamination included sequences from the vaccine’s manufacturing plasmid such as a bacterial origin of replication, a kanamycin resistance gene, and an SV40 initiation factor—a sequence historically linked to oncogenesis (the process of tumor formation or the induction of tumors).
A December 2024 peer-reviewed study in Science, Public Health Policy and the Lawfound that Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot contained 227–334% more DNA contamination than WHO limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence, and urged an immediate moratorium on mRNA vaccines.
As the article reveals:
These residual plasmid DNA fragments carry three human genetic sequences.
And the systems those sequences regulate—blood/cardiovascular, immune, and neurological—are exactly the same systems most often injured after the shot.
Meaning the very blueprint Pfizer used to mass-produce its mRNA shot is built from human DNA control codes—and the same biological systems those codes regulate are the ones showing up again and again in the most serious vaccine injuries.
The unavoidable question is whether this overlap is accidental—or whether regulators have ignored the possibility that Pfizer’s plasmid design itself is contributing to the very injuries now dominating the safety signal.
Severe AEs were classified into five groups: cardiac, allergic/immune, neurological, pregnant, and immunocompromised.
Among these, the majority of serious AEs were cardiac, immune, and neurological.
The review concluded: “Most of the reported severe adverse events were related to cardiac events,” and emphasized that allergic/immune and neurological complications also dominated the literature.
The authors stressed these three categories as the primary clusters of serious outcomes in both clinical and post-marketing data.
What’s Inside Pfizer’s Plasmid
Pfizer’s vaccine is produced from a DNA plasmid template.
That plasmid doesn’t just contain bacterial sequences.
It carries human untranslated regions (UTRs) said to be chosen to stabilize the synthetic RNA and make it behave like a high-output human transcript.
These include:
α-globin 5′UTR (blood/cardiovascular): In native biology, the 3′UTR of α-globin is the canonical stabilizer of mRNA during red blood cell development. But researchers have shown that the α-globin 5′UTR can be repurposed in synthetic constructs to boost translation efficiency in mammalian cells. In either case, the sequence is drawn from human blood biology, tying the plasmid design to the cardiovascular system — the single strongest AE signal.
AES/TLE5 3′UTR fragment (immune system): The AES/TLE5 gene family encodes transcriptional co-repressors involved in various developmental and signaling pathways, including immune functions. Its 3′UTR fragment was selected in mRNA engineering screens for its ability to extend RNA half-life and increase protein yield. By making spike RNA persist longer and produce more antigen inside antigen-presenting cells, this sequence indirectly drives heightened immune activation. That aligns directly with the allergic/immune AE category flagged in safety reviews.
MT-RNR1 fragment (neurological): MT-RNR1 encodes the mitochondrial 12S rRNA, essential for mitochondrial protein synthesis. Variants in MT-RNR1 are linked to hearing loss, drug-induced ototoxicity, and neurological mitochondrial syndromes. While MT-RNR1 is not an mRNA and lacks a natural 3′UTR, researchers have repurposed fragments of it in synthetic mRNA technology as stabilizers to enhance RNA persistence and translation. Its inclusion in Pfizer’s plasmid therefore borrows from a gene with direct neurological relevance, aligning with the neurological AE category consistently documented after vaccination.
The presence of these three human genetic sequences is confirmed in an October 2023 Nature npj Vaccines publication:
“Pfizer-BioNTech’s 5′ UTR sequence is derived from the human hemoglobin α-globin (HBA1) gene, an efficient expressor… For the 3′ UTR, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine combines one segment from a human mRNA encoding amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES) and another from mitochondrial 12 S rRNA (mtRNR1).”
This means it is not speculation—Pfizer’s own blueprint borrows directly from human blood, immune, and neurological genes.
And these happen to be the very systems most often injured in patients.
By their nature, these fragments are regulatory code.
If plasmid DNA fragments enter the nucleus of human cells, they are integration-competent and capable of altering gene regulation.
That means the very systems from which these sequences were borrowed—blood, immune, and neurological—could be dysregulated.
The Overlap No One Wants to Talk About
Adverse events: Independent reviews in 2022 and 2024 both concluded that the dominant serious side effects after Pfizer’s mRNA shot are cardiac, immune, and neurological.
Plasmid design: Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments that regulate blood, immune, and neurological systems.
Plasmid nature: By definition, plasmids are capable of genomic integration.
This isn’t coincidence.
It’s alignment.
The design choices in Pfizer’s plasmid template mirror the very domains where the worst vaccine injuries concentrate.
Evidence of Plasmid DNA Integration
Independent researchers have already presented evidence that vaccine-derived plasmid DNA can integrate into human cells.
Nature Scientific Reports Study (2023): A peer-reviewed paper demonstrated that when linear DNA fragments were introduced into human cells, between 1–10% of the transiently transfected cells became stably transfected, and in some constructs integration reached 10–20%. Junction sequencing confirmed the foreign DNA had been incorporated into the host genome. The authors concluded: “All of the forms of linear DNA resulted in a high fraction of the cells being stably transfected—between 10 and 20% of the initially transfected cells”
Kevin McKernan’s Study (2024): In February 2024, McKernan and colleagues published a preprint showing that plasmid DNA from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) integrated into the genome of human ovarian cancer cell lines (OVCAR3) in vitro. Using qPCR and DNA sequencing, they detected plasmid-specific sequences—including the spike gene and SV40 cancer promoter (yes, that’s in the plasmids, too)—persisting in the genomic DNA of exposed cells, indicating integration. Importantly, this was shown in a cancer cell line, not normal human cells, and there is no direct in vivo evidence in humans. The study demonstrates integration in this controlled lab model but does not prove it occurs in vaccinated people.
Phillip Buckhaults’ Findings (2024). McKernan’s warning was later echoed by Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, a cancer genomics expert at the University of South Carolina. In November 2024, Buckhaults presented results from normal human epithelial stem cells (colon organoids) exposed to mRNA vaccines. Using qPCR, his lab detected persistent plasmid DNA sequences—including the spike gene, SV40 promoter, and NeoKanR gene—in the genomic DNA of these cells one month later. This evidence of integration in non-cancerous cells addressed the main criticism of McKernan’s earlier study.
Intracellular Reverse Transcription Study (2022). A peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Genetics and DNA Research found that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) was reverse transcribed into DNA inside human liver cells (Huh7) within 6–48 hours of exposure. This study was said to deal with the vaccine’s mRNA component rather than plasmid contamination, but it reinforces the principle that nucleic acid from the shot can be copied into DNA inside human cells—complementing the plasmid integration evidence reported later.
Mechanistic Review on Genome Integration (2022). A review in the Journal of Neurological Disorders (Kyriakopoulos, McCullough, Nigh, Seneff) outlined plausible pathways for mRNA vaccine sequences to integrate into the human genome, citing LINE-1 retrotransposons and polymerase θ as mediators. The authors noted that spike-induced DNA damage and engineered mRNA stability (via methylpseudouridine and long poly(A) tails) may increase the likelihood of integration during DNA repair. While not experimental proof, the review concluded that genome interference by vaccine mRNA is “more than a theoretical possibility.”
Together, these findings underscore that integration is not just a hypothetical risk.
Published studies and independent genomic analyses now show plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can, under certain conditions, insert into human DNA.
Bottom Line
This is not claiming causation.
What it is showing is an investigative match:
Three human DNA sequences in the plasmid → blood, immune, neurological regulation.
Two independent peer-reviewed reviews (2022, 2024) → cardiac, immune, neurological injuries are the main serious AEs.
When the blueprint and the outcome line up this closely, the question is not whether the overlap exists.
It does.
The question is why no regulator has demanded a forensic accounting of whether integration of these human DNA fragments is occurring in patients—and whether this design is partly responsible for the most serious injuries tied to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
And we don’t even know the full picture—because Pfizer has never publicly disclosed the complete plasmid sequence, leaving unanswered what other genetic elements may have been built into the blueprint.
Georgia State University is creating pandemic-capable mutant avian influenza pathogens with NIH funding.
This month, the journal Virology published a study confirming that U.S. researchers at Georgia State University and South Korean collaborators from Jeju National University and Sungshin Women’s University are using reverse genetics to create chimeric H5N1 “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant AI154656.
Researchers combined purported highly pathogenic avian influenza genes with a laboratory H1N1 backbone.
This is not happening in isolation.
It’s unfolding amid international “pandemic preparedness” efforts, where the creation of dangerous bird flu pathogens goes hand-in-hand with the rollout of vaccines as the supposed solution, which no mainstream or non-mainstream sources are warning about—except this website.
It follows the same playbook as COVID-19, which multiple U.S. agencies have said most likely came from a lab incident.
The new bird flu pathogen creation comes as the United Nations has staged its first-ever global bird flu summit, mobilizing 500 officials and scientists to coordinate “control strategies,” surveillance, and vaccination campaigns—confirming that the very governments engineering these Frankenstein viruses are simultaneously organizing the policies and vaccines that will follow.Subscribe
Building Hybrid Pathogens
The paper openly admits to constructing synthetic flu viruses:
“Reverse genetically engineered reassortant H5N1 influenza viruses were generated using hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase genes derived from either A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (Vietnam rgH5N1) or A/Indonesia/05/2005 (Indonesia rgH5N1), with the remaining seven gene segments derived from A/PR/8/34 (H1N1).”
In plain terms: they spliced bird flu proteins from Asian outbreaks onto a lab H1N1 backbone.
That’s a lab-born hybrid that doesn’t exist in nature.
The very definition of engineered pathogen creation.
Inflammatory Collapse
The experiments revealed catastrophic immune reactions:
“Vaccinated AG129 mice demonstrated significantly higher levels of IL-6, IL-1β, the regulatory cytokine IL-10, and the neutrophil-attracting chemokine KC (CXCL-1) compared to vaccinated A129 mice.”
This translates to runaway lung inflammation—a cytokine storm–like collapse that mirrors the reportedly lethal immune overactivation seen in severe flu and COVID cases.
The Authors
Here are all of the authors, some also holding affiliations in South Korea:
Ki-Hye Kim
Hye Suk Hwang
Youri Lee
Yu-Jin Jung
Eun-Ju Ko
Jae Min Song
Sang-Moo Kang.
But all of them are affiliated with Georgia State University in Atlanta, which you can contact here.
Bottom Line
The paper proves two damning facts:
Engineered bird flu hybrids were built in a U.S. lab with help from South Korea, using reverse genetics.
These constructs triggered lethal inflammatory outcomes when combined with vaccination.
This is not preparation, but orchestration.
It’s the same pattern we saw before the COVID-19 pandemic, now being repeated with bird flu.
This isn’t isolated “basic science.”
It’s a pipeline: build dangerous pathogens, then promote vaccines as the “solution.”
The COVID-19 pandemic was said to have been caused by this very thing.
The criminalization of free speech and support for cancel culture for everyone–from President Trump down to his voters–related to Jan 6 established new rules. Now, it’s time to follow them.
Let’s just simply call them the “January 6 Rules.”
Apparently, in some attempted “gotcha” effort, social media influencers on the Left are calling out MAGA’s purported ideological pivot following the vile response by many on their side to the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week. Kirk’s legion of admirers is publicly identifying individuals—many of whom unsurprisingly work in the education system—cheering Kirk’s murder online. Several have been fired including perpetual head case Matthew Dowd at MSNBC.
But it is MAGA’s crusade to “cancel” those haters and not the expression of hate itself necessarily, causing performative pearl-clutching on the Left. What happened to the conservatives’ defense of unfettered free speech and rejection of ‘cancel culture’, professional posters such as Michael Tracey that ask online below?
Well, to Tracey and his ilk, allow me to answer: January 6, 2021.
Immediately following the media’s crowning of Joe Biden as president, the Left insisted any talk of voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election represented “the Big Lie,” a term first used by Adolf Hitler; subsequently, everyone including President Trump who openly doubted the outcome of the election was branded a nazi.
After a four-hour protest on January 6, the Left claimed President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that morning had “incited” a mob that attempted to overthrow democracy—while of course conveniently omitting the “peacefully and patriotically” part of the address. The Democratic-led House of Representatives impeached the president a week later for “incitement of insurrection” despite the fact that absolutely no “insurrection” nor “incitement” occurred.
Trump, along with hundreds of thousands of his supporters, were deplatformed by social media titans. Amazon Web Services also shuttered Parler, at the time considered the conservative alternative to Twitter.
When Joe Biden took power, his Department of Justice immediately opened a criminal investigation into the president based not just on his words and actions but also those of his aides and voters. Every Trump associate from his closest advisors to former Vice President Michael Pence were hauled before a grand jury in Washington and forced to disclose details of private conversations with the president. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro went to jail for refusing to cooperate with the Biden DOJ’s counterpart in Congress, the January 6 Select Committee.
Top DOJ official Jeffrey Clark was named a co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related indictment for writing a letter that was perfectly legal and never sent. (The attempted cancellation of Clark is still underway at the D.C. Bar.) Well-funded nonprofits working with Democratic officials sought to disbar attorneys who had worked on election-related lawsuits for the president.
Dozens of Trump advisors were indicted in other states for organizing and sending alternate slates of electors for January 6, a common act of political protest that a top National Archives official later confirmed happens every four years.
An Arrest Per Day for Political Speech
During the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history—a factoid Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray often bragged about—the feds arrested an average of at least one Jan 6 protester per day. Investigators, with the voluntary help of Big Tech, retrieved deleted social media accounts including private messages to look for anything that could be considered evidence of incriminating behavior. In many cases, memes mocking Democrats or questioning the 2020 election were included in arrest warrants even for nonviolent misdemeanants.
At trial, J6 prosecutors claimed that any reference to the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution, and the Declaration of Independence in private group chats was proof of wrongdoing. Even repeating or posting the words of Thomas Jefferson—”the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”—meant that the particular J6er wanted war and was entitled to imprisonment, according to the Biden DOJ.
Government witnesses including Capitol police officers routinely explained to Trump-hating D.C. jurors that the simple act of carrying an American flag inside of what used to be considered the “People’s House” and chanting “USA, USA!” was a crime.
The list goes on and on. But there is no question that the J6 prosecution of President Trump, his allies, and his voters represented the government’s gravest attack on free speech in U.S. history.
And that was only part of the torment endured by J6ers. Branded as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists” by everyone from Joe Biden down to the local yokel newspaper reporter in every town while J6ers were cancelled en masse by society. Most were immediately fired. Private companies stripped J6ers of their service; DoorDash, AirBnB, Lyft, and Uber were just a few that cancelled the accounts of J6ers, even those charged with petty offenses. Major financial institutions cancelled mortgages, credit cards, and banking accounts.
Those impacts continue to this day while many J6ers still struggle to find employment and put their lives back together.
So yes, Michael Tracey, things have changed. For four years, your side promoted the criminalization of free speech and endorsed cancel culture all in the name of the “Big Lie” and the “insurrection.” The Biden regime and the media used January 6 to try to cancel President Trump and the entire MAGA movement.
It didn’t work—and neither will the guilt-tripping about so-called abandoned principles, so go crawl back into your hole, sit down on the high stool facing the corner walls with your tall dunce cap on and just shut the hell up now already Michael Tracey.
fox files 
Recent Comments