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. 

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 *


Former Harvard medical professor says he was fired for opposing Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates




“My hope is that someday, Harvard will find its way back to academic freedom and independence.” That is the heartfelt message from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former Harvard University professor of medicine since 2003, who recently announced publicly he was fired for “clinging to the truth” in his opposition to Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Kulldorff posted the news on social media alongside an essay published in the City Journal last week. The epidemiologist and biostatistician also spoke with National Review about the incident. Kulldorff says he was fired by the Harvard-affiliated Mass General Brigham hospital system and put on a leave of absence by Harvard Medical School in November 2021 over his stance on Covid.

Nearly two years later, in October 2023, his leave of absence was terminated as a matter of policy, marking the end of his time at the university. Harvard severed ties with Kulldorff “all on their initiative,” he said.

The history of the medical professional’s public stance on Covid-19 vaccines and mandates is detailed by National Review:

Censorship and rejection led Kulldorff to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020 alongside Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University. Together, the three public-health scientists argued for limited and targeted Covid-19 restrictions that “protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives,” as Kulldorff put it in his essay.

“The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified—and even grew slanderous,” he wrote, naming former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins as the one who ordered a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration.

Testifying before Congress in January, Collins reaffirmed his previous statements attacking the Great Barrington Declaration.

Despite the coordinated effort against it, the document has over 939,000 signatures in favor of age-based focused protection.

The Great Barrington Declaration’s authors, who advocated the quick reopening of schools, have been vindicated by recent studies that confirm pandemic-era school closures were, in fact, detrimental to student learning. The data show that students from third through eighth grade who spent most of the 2020–21 school year in remote learning fell more than half a grade behind in math scores on average, while those who attended school in person dropped a little over a third of a grade, according to a New York Times review of existing studies. In addition to learning losses, school closures did very little to stop the spread of Covid, studies show.

Continue Reading