Monday, June 16, 2025

Epidemiologist fired from Harvard after refusing COVID shot named to CDC vaccine panel

 

Jennifer Kabbany - Fix Editor     •     June 16, 2025     •     The College Fix

World-renowned infectious-disease epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff — who was fired from Harvard Medical School last year after refusing the COVID vaccine — just got a new gig.

Kulldorff has been named a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.

Kulldorff, who had refused the COVID vaccine because of his infection-acquired immunity, lost his appointment at a Harvard-affiliated hospital in the early days of the COVID era, and in March of 2024 was officially terminated as a med school faculty member.

Since the COVID lockdowns began five years ago, Kulldorff argued that tactics such as social distancing, masking children, vaccines after infections, and other extreme measures were not the best course of action to fight the virus.

He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for sensible tactics that would allow the globe to reach “herd immunity” and has been signed by nearly 1 million scientists worldwide.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in announcing the new members of the panel last week on X, wrote that his selections signify a “major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines.”

Kennedy wrote he retired the 17 current members of the committee and is repopulating ACIP with eight new members “committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.”

“They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations. The committee will review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,” Kennedy stated.

MassLive reported that in 2021, “Kulldorff posted on X that ‘thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should.'”

“COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers,” he wrote. “Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

According to the New York Times, after Kennedy’s announcement, some infectious disease and vaccine experts accused the health secretary of going back on his pledge not to pick so-called anti-vaxxers.

“When Mr. Kennedy fired the entire committee, known as the A.C.I.P., he cited financial conflicts of interest and said a clean sweep was necessary to restore public trust in vaccination,” the Times reported.

As for Harvard’s role in the controversy, writing in City Journal last year, Kulldorff argued that Harvard turned its back on him, open debate, and medical freedom.

“The beauty of our immune system is that those who recover from an infection are protected if and when they are re-exposed. This has been known since the Athenian Plague of 430 BC—but it is no longer known at Harvard,” he wrote.

“Three prominent Harvard faculty coauthored the now infamous ‘consensus’ memorandum in The Lancet, questioning the existence of Covid-acquired immunity. By continuing to mandate the vaccine for students with a prior Covid infection, Harvard is de facto denying 2,500 years of science.”

Kennedy, in announcing Kulldorff, noted he is a biostatistician and “a leading expert in vaccine safety and infectious disease surveillance.”

“… Dr. Kulldorff developed widely used tools such as SaTScan and TreeScan for detecting disease outbreaks and vaccine adverse events. His expertise includes statistical methods for public health surveillance, immunization safety, and infectious disease epidemiology. He has also been an influential voice in public health policy, advocating for evidence-based approaches to pandemic response.”

MORE: Epidemiologist fired from Harvard after refusing COVID vaccine

IMAGE CAPTION & CREDIT: Martin Killdorff and an image of Harvard / screenshots

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

https://www.thecollegefix.com/epidemiologist-fired-from-harvard-after-refusing-covid-shot-named-to-cdc-vaccine-panel/

We Voted to Deport Every Single One of Them


It’s strange how I keep being told by the regime media and Democrat political flunkies, to the limited extent that those are different things, about how I didn’t vote for what Donald Trump is doing to illegal aliens. I keep hearing about how I don’t want ICE raiding Home Depots, factories, and non-Beatles strawberry fields or sending away 30-year illegal aliens or illegal alien honor students. I’m told that Donald Trump only promised to deport criminal aliens – in the sense that they committed other crimes besides the crime they committed by being illegal aliens – and that Trump can’t actually send criminal aliens away either.

I find that odd because I voted to send every single one of them back. 

And by “every single one of them,” I mean every single one of them. No exceptions. No quarter. No carveouts for farm or hospitality workers – the people trying to convince Trump to let up on that simply want to keep their serfs. Send them all back.

We tried tolerance, and 20 million uninvited Third World peasants settled here. It wasn’t just without our permission. It was against our express will, as manifested by our elected representatives passing laws and our elected president signing them. The Democrats babble endlessly about Our Democracy, but it’s weird that when we vote on something, they think they can tell us, “No, you can’t have what you voted for. You’re going to get what you expressly voted against.”

It gets even worse. We’re also somehow morally obligated to bear the burdens of the policy we expressly rejected by paying for these bums’ hotel rooms, food, medical care, and cell phones. We’re also obligated to endure their looting, raping, and murdering of decent American citizens. And, if we try to enforce the laws we passed – remember, this is supposed to be a democracy, but you don’t really have a democracy if you pass laws and they don’t get enforced – the Democrats will turn their catspaws loose and unleash the military wing of their garbage party to start rioting.

No. I did not vote for that. I voted not to submit. Everybody out. Get-o on-o el bus-o, you’re going back to that equatorial hellhole whose flag you proudly wave as you loot the local Apple store.

But “Illegal aliens are wonderful, hard-working people just here to make a better life.” I wouldn’t care even if that were true. There’s always a story with these regime media martyrs. They’re always shining paragons of goodness and light when the regime media highlights them to show the cold-heartedness of Donald Trump enforcing our democratically enacted laws. We all remember Maryland Man and how he went from humble, aspiring American to Tren de Agua human trafficker who beat the crap out of his wife – if you believe her sworn testimony given under oath multiple times – and who participated in the murder of another gangbangers’ mother while dabbling in the kind of perversions you might find in a Lincoln Project founder’s browser history. 

They always turn out to be scumbags. The regime media always fails to mention that drug conviction, assault conviction, or lewd conduct with a minor conviction – there’s a whole lot of those. An extraordinary number of illegal aliens seem to be perverts of some stripe. Well, they can go be perverts back in their homeland where, hopefully, their countrymen handle perverts with extreme prejudice (assuming said perversion is not a key component of their culture, but enough about Middle East consanguinity and little boy fetishes).

Let’s just assume most illegal aliens are wonderful people whose only crime was to dream of a better life or something, though all of them are actual criminals just by being here illegally. Fine. Deport them all.

What about the hard-working family man who’s been here without documents for 30 years? Yeah, get the hell out.. It doesn’t make it better that you’ve successfully defied our laws – again, laws democratically passed by the people of the United States – for three decades. That makes it much, much worse. There’s no such thing as a legal alien tenure. Adios!

How about the guys hanging outside of the Home Depot? What about the ones who pick our fruits, blow leaves off our sidewalks and pluck our chickens? Who’s going to do the jobs Americans won’t do? Well, adequately paid Americans, especially once we stop giving free money to native citizens for sitting on their mom’s couches playing video games and smoking dope. Yes, we wholeheartedly support the mass deportation of the latest Democratic slave class. We totally voted for that – and I do not believe Donald Trump will break his word to us with a mini-amnesty. Promises made, promises kept – deport them all.

But who’s going to raise the children of liberal SSRI goblins? Don’t they need discount Guatemalan nannies to watch young Kayden and Ashleigh while they go to their jobs in marketing, HR, and optimizing synergy? You can’t expect them to put down the Chardonnay and pick up their kids. Sure, I can. Say “Adios” to Lupe and raise your own children. You might even find some of the fulfillment that eludes you and be able to stop trying to feed the emptiness inside your soul with drugs and the woke pagan gospel preached on “The View.” 

What about the dreamer who is now an honor student? Well, we have a dream, too. We dream of a day when people like us – American citizens – can govern ourselves and have our will carried out instead of being ignored by our garbage ruling class. We dream of living in a democracy, not a sham. And as for those alleged honor students, I can’t think of any place that needs their amazing talents and the cure for cancer that they’re all just right on the edge of finding more than the crap-pile countries they were born in. We can’t be so selfish as to hoard these achievers for ourselves. We must facilitate their return so they can share their amazing potential with their own people.

To disagree with me means you hate foreigners and want them to die. I think that’s the only conclusion we can reasonably take from this.

The Democrats and the regime media are trying to run the scam that Donald Trump promised not to send anybody like that back, that he was going to focus only on criminals who had committed more crimes than just illegally coming to this country. But he didn’t promise that, and that’s not what we want anyway. We want them all gone, from child molester to two-year-old child. He can prioritize the pervs, rapists, multiple drunk drivers, gang members, and murderers, but that doesn’t mean that ICE should not also be tossing out every other illegal alien they can disappear. It should deport every single one of them.

We’re constantly told that we have some sort of moral obligation not to do the things that we put into law. I keep asking, but I never get an answer about where this moral obligation arises from. It’s not in the Bible – no, Jesus was not a divine anchor baby. Mary and Joseph were literally on the road to be counted in a census of legal residents. I do recall the whole thing about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, though, which in this case would be a green card. 

This alleged obligation doesn’t come from a statute. As we’ve discussed, the statutes are clear – get out and don’t come back. So, where does this moral obligation come from?

I think it comes from where the sun doesn’t shine. I think they just made it up. They just got together and decided that they think never deporting anybody would be a good idea, so now everybody is suddenly morally obligated to comply. Never mind if they never got our buy-in. Never mind if there wasn’t a vote on it. Never mind if the people literally voted for the opposite. No, the Democrats simply decided that ignoring immigration law is a moral imperative – please also ignore the fact that this would increase Democrat power by inflating population numbers for the purposes of apportionment and by changing America’s demographics from an uppity American citizenry that naively expects to participate in their own governance into a mass of Third World peasants who obey in return for a few scraps from the leftists’ table.

We decline to accept the Democrats’ unilateral moral declaration. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump to throw every single illegal alien out of our country. 

I’m a linear guy, and I always felt that every illegal alien needs to pack up and hop on a southbound ICE party bus for a one-way trip to Tijuana. But some folks on our side are more soft-hearted than me and used to respond to these sob stories with the kind of Bushie compassion that helped get us into this mess. I’m happy to say that lame mindset is dying out. Our patience is gone. We’ve been burned too badly. We’ve been disrespected, dishonored, and deceived for too long. We’ve seen too many of our people die. The moderate position is now kicking them all out.

So yeah, we voted to deport all of them. Trump has sealed the border, so we’ve stopped digging the hole. It’s time to fill it in. We focus first on throwing out the criminal pluses – because every illegal alien is a criminal, it’s just some commit additional crimes – but that doesn’t mean the others get a free pass. No, all they get, should they refuse to self-deport, is a free trip out of the United States forever.

I totally voted for that.



Meowist Revolution: Cat Ladies Cosplay as Cat-Ladies to End M’ICE in ‘No Kings’ Sidewalk Parade (WATCH)

 


The ‘No Kings’ protests brought out the crazies of the Democrat Party on Saturday. The rallies were littered with cosplaying lefties. One of the more bizarre sightings was cat ladies as costumed cat-ladies doing a sidewalk parade against illegal alien deportations.

Check out this feline line. (WATCH)
Yes, this is nothing new.

One poster sarcastically says the costumed cat ladies have made him see the light, while others say they know where Democrats’ undeniable urge to cosplay comes from.

Oh, they’re working. Many are professional protesters, so silly dress-up is their job.

Many saw the irony of Democrats protesting against kings since it’s no secret the party would prefer to be ruled by one.
It’s all projection. Democrats are a royal pain because they’d love to crown a king (or a queen - hello, Kamala) that would carry out all their rights-crushing fantasies. Thankfully, kitty cat cosplay will never get them there.



Donald Trump claims Russia kicked out of G7 while Trudeau was in office

Stephen Harper actually being Prime Minister at the time.

Harper was one of the toughest and most principled critics of Putin’s initial invasion of Ukraine, a stark contrast from Trump’s refusal to take a strong stand against Russian aggression.

Speaking at the G7 in Kananaskis, Alberta, U.S. President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Russia was kicked out of the G7 while Justin Trudeau was Prime Minister:

“The G7 used to be the G8,” Donald Trump mused after a bilateral meeting with host Prime Minister Mark Carney at the G7 summit in the Canadian Rockies.

Standing next to a mute Carney on Monday, the U.S. president blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, and previous Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for dropping Russia from the alliance over its 2014 invasion of the Crimean peninsula.

“Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in. And I would say that was a mistake because you wouldn’t have a war right now,” he said of Moscow’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Both elements of Trump’s statement are false.

First, Justin Trudeau wasn’t the Prime Minister in 2014, Stephen Harper was.

Second, Russia was kicked out of the G7 because it invaded Crimea and stole it from Ukraine. Thus, it is absurd to claim that there would have been no war if Russia hadn’t been kicked out, since Russia was kicked out because it launched a war.

Harper’s principled stand contrasts with Trump’s refusal to confront Russia

Trump’s false statement is yet another reminder of the way in which the U.S. President represents a disturbing deviation from what used to be considered a core of Western Conservatism: Confronting Russia and other authoritarian states.

Trump repeatedly shows that he identifies with dictators like Vladimir Putin more than he does with leaders of fellow democracies.

It’s worth remembering some of the statements former Prime Minister Stephen Harper made about Russia while he was in office, so we can see what principled strength really looks like:

“I don’t think Russia under Vladimir Putin belongs in the G7. Period.”

“Canada would very, very strongly oppose Putin ever sitting around that table again. It would require consensus to bring Russia back and that consensus will just not happen.”

“Whether it takes five months or 50 years, this country and the Western world — the free world — will never recognize the occupation of Crimea or any other Ukrainian soil by Russia — never.”

“Russia is more often than not trying deliberately to be a strategic rival, to deliberately counter the good things we’re trying to achieve in the world than for no other reason than to just counter them.”

The “mindset of the guy we are dealing with is that the Cold War has never ended and `I’ve got to fight to change the ending somehow.”‘

“I don’t think there is any way under this leader Russia will ever change.”

Harper also told Putin to “get out of Ukraine”:

“Putin received a less-than-warm welcome from Harper last November when he approached Harper for a handshake at the G-20 summit in Australia. Harper told Putin, “I guess I’ll shake your hand, but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine.”

Asked what Putin’s response was, Harper said Putin denied that he was in Ukraine.

“This is kind of typical Russian foreign policy to just say black is white even though everyone knows the contrary. I think as long as that’s the view that they are going to take, that they’re just going to treat us like we are all stupid, there really is no point in having a dialogue with them,” Harper said.”

Harper also warned of the threat posed by Russia, a threat that has only grown since then:

“This is a country that has shown a willingness to invade its neighbours, to actually seize territory that does not belong to it, and so I don’t think we should take this escalation of a hostile military posture lightly. It needs to be treated seriously.”

At a time when authoritarian regimes are ramping up their military spending and interference in our way of life, the free world needs principled leadership from people across the political spectrum. Prospective leaders would do well to take their cues from Stephen Harper, rather than Donald Trump.

Spencer Fernando

Image – Twitter

https://spencerfernando.com/2025/06/16/donald-trump-falsely-claims-russia-was-kicked-out-of-the-g7-while-trudeau-was-in-office-despite-stephen-harper-actually-being-prime-minister-at-the-time/


X22, And we Know, and more- June 16

 



Ethno-Nationalism and the ‘Stranger Within Our Gates’


Many of the Americans who are warning us about the rising tide of a dangerous Christian nationalism are the same ones who delight in chiding supporters of Trump’s immigration enforcement on the basis of biblical principles.  “Love thy neighbor,” they say to those who welcome the deportations, even as they act as though it would be a terrible thing if public policy were guided by Christian principles.  “Care for the stranger within thy gates,” they implore, quoting the Old Testament, as though 40 million people who broke our laws by entering the nation are indistinguishable from a single lonesome traveler in need of a bed for the night.

Leave aside that these moralizers are cynically leveraging scripture from religious traditions that they deplore.  The riots in Los Angeles have starkly defined the ridiculous premise that defines the resistance to deportation.  No serious person disputes that existing law makes it a crime for a foreigner to enter the country without permission.  No serious person disputes that millions of people are in the country illegally because they crossed the border without permission.  No serious person disputes that the federal government rightfully has the power to enforce federal law.

This shows that the core of the “debate” on illegal immigration is the absurd contention that the law should not be enforced.  This flies in the face of the purpose of laws (which are created to be enforced).  But there are greater ironies.  The people who insist that we don’t enforce the law were also the ones who smirked at us for years through a refrain of “No one is above the law!”

The L.A. riots have powerfully illustrated the glaring contradictions that define the opposition to Trump’s border agenda.  But perhaps no image from the riots distills the contradictions of open borders ideology better than the one that shows a masked man riding a dirt bike around a burning car while waving a Mexican flag.

Many have commented on the madness inherent in the scene.  This man — presumably a Mexican in the United States illegally — wears a mask to keep his identity private as he exploits and corrupts the American right to peaceful and public protest.  He is the embodiment of the people the left insist are just coming here “in search of a better life.”  But he still flies the flag of the place that he left, the place where his quality of life was presumably inferior.  Yes, he waves the flag of the nation that he now insists he will not return to.

It’s important to consider what that flag represents.  The display of the Mexican flag in Mexico means something different from the display of the Mexican flag in the United States.  Obviously, immigrants flying the Mexican flag in America recognize that life is better here and that America is superior to Mexico.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be here.  And the Mexican flag doesn’t represent a “set of ideas or principles” in the way that the American flag does.

The truth is that flying the Mexican flag in the United States is essentially an expression of ethno-nationalism.  It announces one’s affinity and allegiance to the Mexican people, not the nation-state that they abandoned.  And make no mistake: This idea of the nation as a people is defined by ethnic concerns.  It is no coincidence that Mexican-American activists enthusiastically refer to their people as “la raza” — Spanish for “the race.”  ChicanoTejano, and Mestizapolitics is largely defined by concern for ethnic and racial identity.

Understood as a statement of ethno-nationalist sentiment, the man waving the flag from the dirt bike calls for closer consideration.  What he’s really saying is that “his people” are those who share his ethnicity and nationality, and that those people constitute a sovereign nation within a nation.  This is the purest demonstration of where multiculturalism leads: a million tiny sovereign nations masquerading as one, but segregated and unbound, without any allegiance to the larger nation they inhabit.  There will be no assimilation, and there will certainly be no gratitude.  Make no mistake: This is the society that the left celebrates when it insists that “our diversity is our strength.”

This exposes the greatest irony of all.  The Biden administration made clear that its top priority for four years was fighting ethno-nationalist sentiment in America.  When Americans — especially white Americans — center their politics on national, religious, or (God forbid) ethnic identity, they will be surveilled, censored, demonized, arrested, doxxed, debanked, or otherwise humiliated.

But when foreign ethno-nationalists enter the country illegally, burn cars, loot businesses, and openly announce their ethno-nationalism...well, our hands are tied.  Not only do the left recoil at deporting them to their home nations, but they celebrate their ethno-nationalist activism and call for sympathetic Americans to join the cause.

An Associated Press radio broadcast played a clip of a protester imploring observers to join her in defying the enforcement of federal law.  The woman said, “Don’t be afraid to stand up for our people.”  “Our people.”  Which people is that?  That is the “nation within the nation,” premised explicitly on ethnic and nationalist sentiment, the nation that refuses to assimilate to the values and laws of its host, and the nation that the left insist must be defended, and indeed celebrated.

Like many Americans, I sympathize with and accept the guidance of the Jewish and Christian tradition.  We should provide for the stranger within our gates.  We should love our neighbors.  But to suggest that we’re falling short of those ideals in deporting people is preposterous.  In this case, the “stranger” or “neighbor” in question is one who snuck into the house, and who openly denies that the house is, in fact, ours.  Thus, the stranger or neighbor who barged in should not be surprised that upon spitting in his host’s face, he finds that his welcome runs out.

Jesus implicitly affirms the legitimacy of nations in the Great Commission: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations.”  We can debate the matter of what, exactly, Christ meant by “nations.”  But at this juncture, that question is peripheral.  The more pressing query is, “Why can’t we have one?”