This is the result of millions of Americans refusing to stay quiet. @AGJamesUthmeier I applaud your boldness, courage, and tenacity in the face of historic levels of corruption. You are doing America proud!

The US Atomic Energy Commission once placed radioactive material all around a city, including within its water supply to study how a nuclear attack would harm Americans. No informed consent.

Do you agree with the FDA permitting a hospital, doctor, school, public employer, or university to permit researchers to conduct secret biomedical experiments on you or your children without informing you of what you are being exposed to & without obtaining your consent?

America, YOU MUST read to the end: First, when Pfizer caused medical providers to promote and administer Bextra and three other drugs for off-label uses, and those providers billed the United States for such use, the Department of Justice fined Pfizer more than $1 billion for fraud. Where does the CDC derive authority to engage in the same kind of off-label promotion of COVID-19 drugs for which DOJ has levied historic criminal and civil penalties on everyone else? Second, Congress denies any person authority to introduce unapproved drugs into interstate commerce without FDA approval, which includes unlicensed uses of licensed drugs. Doctors can administer off-label uses, but just as the FDA cannot engage in medicine to promote such off-label use, it cannot be determined where the CDC is authorized to engage in such conduct. If the CDC can recommend the use of unlicensed drugs, then you are no longer required to issue an EUA for them; the CDC can partner with America's largest medical providers and pay them with federal funding to administer them on the CDC director's recommendation to bypass all such requirements relating to unlicensed uses under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act & the Public Health Service Act, facts I'm confident HHS legal counsel and the Office of Human Research Protection are concealing from you. In other words, you are no longer required to issue EUAs, CDC can recommend the use of any unlicensed drugs, including those approved under the World Health Organization, but not the FDA. Unlicensed is unlicensed, period. Third, 26 USC § 4132(a)(2) states that a vaccine is one that is designed to "prevent" a disease. "Prevent" is a term the FDA must assign as a licensed fact. Can the federal government, under the Social Security Act, pay for unlicensed uses of drugs not licensed as a vaccine by the FDA? I think not. Under the first EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, it was plainly stated that the drug was an "investigational vaccine," meaning it was under investigation to become licensed, according to 42 U.S.C. § 262(a), as a biological vaccine. Fourth, if the federal government and/or Pfizer require the providers to monitor recipients for adverse effects and report on those effects, then that activity is subject to 42 U.S.C. § 289, requiring you to ensure the recipients' "legally effective informed consent" is obtained. Finally, you should require the CDC Director to identify the statutory authority under which the agency issues recommendations that promote drugs for off-label uses—conduct pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves could not lawfully engage in — and the authority under which the federal government can fund such uses, since they are not licensed to "prevent" anything. Moreover, why is the CDC not conspicuously requiring providers to inform the public that unlicensed use of the drugs means the FDA has not approved such use based on clinical trials proving the drug's safety for that age group? IMPORTANTLY: the CDC should remind healthcare providers that under misbranding laws, no provider can claim the unlicensed use WILL prevent the disease or promote the drug for an indication. They can only state that it is their opinion that the drug MIGHT have benefit, not that it WILL accomplish an end result. Any other language that claims the same benefit of the licensed product is a misbranding violation—a felony under 21 USC § 331, punishable with incarceration and fines under § 333. The CDC should be clearer before its political fervor leads medical professionals to engage in criminal conduct. You should know that Governor Pritzker enacted a law stating that Illinois will no longer consider it misbranding for a provider to promote a drug the FDA refuses to approve but the World Health Organization does. Now, future CDC directors can simply recommend WHO drugs, which rogue political actors will use as justification to mandate them for the public, and those drugs will be shielded from civil liability when injuring Americans. The CDC Director knows exactly what pathway is being laid for the next administration. That pathway violates federal law, and you should be informed of your exclusive authority to stop it. Congress authorizes you, not the CDC director, to determine when, where, and how unlicensed drugs will be used in commerce. When the CDC oversteps your authority, you possess the authority to correct it. Furthermore, you cannot trust HHS legal counsel to protect public safety or to inform you of your exclusive powers regarding this subject. I know this personally. America needs you more than you can possibly understand at the moment because you're unaware of what the Democrat led Governors Public Health Alliance is doing in preparing America for the next pandemic. It is a level of horror few know is coming because no one knows the laws regulating unlicensed drugs, biologics, and devices. That lack of knowledge led to the past human rights atrocities under the Biden administration.

It's time to fully restore the honor of our military heroes @PeteHegseth The @SecWar should be informed that if HHS determines a drug must be issued an EUA, it requires informed consent from service members (DoDI 6200.02). The Assistant Sec. of Health must authorize initial use and then obtain permission from the Under Sec. of Personnel and Readiness. Then, the Sec of the Army must establish a medical protocol with the Surgeon Gen of the Army. Then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the DoD's general counsel must sign off on that protocol. After which, the Surgeon General must coordinated with the U.S. Army Medical Research & Development Command to establish an Institutional Review Board to obtain reports of adverse effects of the durg's use and to ensure no service member is punished for refusing the EUA product. @PeteHegseth this is not rocket science. It is plainly laid out in various DoDIs and federal law. The punishments were not "mistakes"; they were clear, well-established violations of federal law. The political consequences to the DoD agency and the 6 civilian appointees running it under Biden for violating such laws cannot be the reason it has taken two years to determine whether those laws were indeed violated. Whitewashing the criminal activity under an after-action report is not honor; it is avoidance of honor, and it spits in the faces of all those who served this nation with such honor. Call me, and as an expert in the subject matter, I'll write a report in under 10 pages to restore the honor those civilians stole from our military heroes by exposing the lawless activity of the Senior Pentagon Leadership. Of note, your Marine JAG still has unlawful orders in effect.

BREAKING: Former governors Inslee (WA) and Brown (OR) filed responses in two SCOTUS cases. Asked what authority they had to mandate COVID products immune from liability while bound by federal contracts requiring voluntary consent, they pointed to the Ninth Circuit—which ignored those contracts. The question is whether states can mandate experimental drugs while also requiring a waiver of the right to sue if injured. Neither governor could defend the 9th Circuit's opinion, nor did they try. In other words, America, the COVID-19 mandates were unlawful as applied to drugs classified as investigational and products immune from civil liability. Why? You hold a privilege of citizenship and a fundamental right to sue when injured, and states are precluded from using coercion to separate you from that right by punishing you for refusing drugs immune from civil liability. This fact has 200 years of Supreme Court precedent behind it. These cases END all vaccine mandates in the nation as we now know them. Stand by for major updates coming over the next two weeks.

Breaking...U.S. House calls on Dr. Terry Adirim to testify about her role in destroying the lives of thousands of military members subject to COVID-19 mandates, which federal law and DoD regulations prohibited. Read Rep. Harris's press release here: harris.house.gov/media/press…

A letter goes to Congress this week on the FDA’s continued use of an unlawful Biden-era regulation that allows biomedical experiments on Americans without their knowledge or consent. Yes, you read that correctly. I will publish it here no later than Wednesday.

SCOTUS is considering whether to hear a petition in which the 9th Circuit claims that states can require citizens to inject experimental drugs, EVEN if they "pose a significant risk of adverse events," AND prospectively waive any right to sue as a condition of public employment.

I'm a consultant on this case: thefederalist.com/2026/08/26…

"JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”—Justice Amy Coney Barrett. WOW!