Connect with us


Former FDA Commissioner Defends Parental Rights



Scott Gottlieb fmr FDA com

Scott Gottlieb, the former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner is coming to the defense of parents. On Sunday, Gottlieb said parents and the physicians of their  children should be the ones to decide whether or not children receive COVID-19 booster shots, and not mandated by schools.

“I certainly don’t think schools should be mandating boosters. I think this should be left up to the discretion of parents and their physicians. You know, it’s going to depend on the individual circumstance,” Gottlieb said Sunday in an interview with CBS’s Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

Not only did Gottlieb explain that children, especially those between the ages of 12 and 16 years old, showed a more robust vaccine durability than adults but added they are also much less at risk from infection.

The Hill reports:

Instead of the previous recommendation of receiving a booster shot six months after a second dose, the FDA is expected to also amend that recommendation to five months for both children and adults.

The authorization, which requires signoff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is expected to be endorsed by its director, Rochelle Walensky, according to the Times.

The decision over whether to require boosters may prove tricky given that states may decide to amend their own definitions of what it means to be “fully vaccinated.” 

Last month, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said she was planning to introduce legislation that would tweak the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include the booster shot. 

You may like

Continue Reading


  1. Ken johnson

    January 4, 2022 at 11:17 am

    Just a thought. . .almost all of these mandate issues can be filed under our individual freedoms. Is our constitution still valid or a mere suggestion? How can we enforce constitutional “guarantees”?

  2. Marty

    January 5, 2022 at 12:30 am

    Sara is always on the cutting edge!!

  3. Terrence McParland

    January 5, 2022 at 4:12 am

    Do you think they will actually answer your question? The fact is yes the Constitution is still valid. You can find out what Reps actually vote in favor of constitutional laws. Some think Devin Nunes is some great constitutional savior, but he only votes in favor of Constitutional laws 66% of the time while AOC is 32% and there are plenty that are in the teens, a few are near 100 or at 100% . Your question was addressed by James Madison in the Federalist #44 and #46 as well as by Hamilton The Federalist #16 and #33
    The Virginia Resolution and the Kentucky Resolution puts a check on such over reaching powers. All Addresses NULIFICATION
    Nullification- County Sheriffs who took a stand against mandates WERE DOING THEIR JOBS CORRECTLY. No Enforcement no Tyranny, State legislators have this power as well.
    For Maximum effectiveness the people MUST reach out to state legislatures. Business owners can only gather in union to reach the legislatures as well. Needs to be organized and not overlooked. All Mandates that a Gov issued can be taken away and stripped of power if the Governor goes too far.
    Federal Government does not over ride the state government in these mandate cases.

    I can take you down a rabbit hole in regard to agencies and the United Nations ( who have broken their own laws) According to the UN the INDIVIDUAL has rights over the COLLECTIVE.

    The people who wrote this or any news report will NEVER tell you much or what their owners will allow them to tell. They do get to go around with some sort of superiority complex of look what I found out or look what I know, however in reality they know very little.

    After all that I stated above enforcement happens when Communities stand up and demand their legislatures to actually do their job that they took an oath to do.
    There is a fine line on corruption, aggressive pushiness, and running an agenda and the line has been crossed. It is officially annoying, insulting and the whole thing is house of cards. It needs to end.
    What I have written is pointless if you do not share with at least 2 other people who will share with 2 more people. Of course the more the better.
    None of the “EXPERTS” have any credibility. That is a different animal all together. They really do not see nor does most of the population see the House of cards and pull 1 or 2 cards and it all falls on itself and everyone is revealed. They are pushing too much.
    I will stop

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Prestigious Science Journals Confirm Censored Views: Masks at Best Don’t Reduce COVID Infection



Screen Shot 2021 05 18 at 12.58.58 PM scaled

Just The News reports that a prestigious science journal has confirmed what was highly censored among social media regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic: “the best-case scenario for one of the most common COVID-19 interventions may be that it has no measurable effect on infection.”

A systematic review of studies of mask mandates for children, published Saturday in the British Medical Journal‘s Archives of Disease in Childhood, found “no association” with infection or transmission in 16 of the 22 observational studies and “critical” or “serious” risk of bias in the six countervailing studies. It got the attention of Elon Musk, owner of X, formerly Twitter.

Emails turned over under public records requests show that National Institutes of Health officials were privately questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks and forthcoming vaccines just a month after then-NIH Director Francis Collins appeared to plot with colleagues to organize a “quick and devastating take down” of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration.

Self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher the more often people said they wore masks, according to a Norwegian study accepted for publication Nov. 13 in the Cambridge University Press journal Epidemiology and Infection.

An analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 20 suggests that “scientific censorship is often driven by scientists” and not just “authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance,” as popularly believed.

The paper, co-authored by dozens of scholars known for challenging orthodoxies in their fields, cited “self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups” as motives for censorious scientists.

Heterodox COVID scholarship may suffer hard-to-prove “camouflaged censorship” by way of “double standards” applied to such research, the paper states.

The findings cast further doubt on the practice of not only public health authorities but scientists themselves in demonizing science-based skepticism of the effectiveness of COVID interventions, particularly in relation to their potential medical, mental and social harms.

“Masking recommendations appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data,” they wrote, noting that a much broader systematic review of mask RCTs by the research collaborative Cochrane concluded masks make “little to no difference” against flu or COVID.

(Cochrane unilaterally reinterpreted the study to downplay its findings, over the authors’ objections, after facing media scrutiny.)

You may like

Continue Reading