All COVID Vaccines Increase Cancer Risk, New Study Concludes

All COVID Vaccines Increase Cancer Risk, New Study Concludes

A South Korean study of over 8 million people reported an increased overall cancer risk of 27% linked to mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The researchers found higher risks for six specific cancers. Mainstream media criticized the study.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

October 2, 2025

COVID-19 vaccines and boosters — both mRNA and non-mRNA — pose an increased risk of six types of cancer and a 27% higher risk of cancer overall, according to a recent South Korean study of over 8 million people.

Four South Korean researchers published the report last week as a letter in Biomarker Research, a Springer Nature journal.

According to the study, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are associated with a higher risk of breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer, across all vaccine types and age groups.

Mainstream medical commentators were quick to dismiss the findings, with MedPageToday describing it as “flawed.” But other medical and scientific experts disagreed.

“In plain terms: both major COVID-19 vaccine platforms appear to be carcinogenic,” epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote in a post on Substack.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a medical oncologist, told The Defender the study builds on other recent findings but “is the first to show that cDNA [non-mRNA] and mRNA vaccines are associated with cancer risk, suggesting that the spike protein is directly carcinogenic.”

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week on his YouTube show that the research marks “the largest-scale study so far” examining the association between the COVID-19 shots and cancer.

 ‘No vaccine technology was free from cancer risk’

According to the study, while the carcinogenic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 “has been hypothetically proposed,” there has been little research on the potential cancer risk from COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers said the “shared structures” contained within the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, including the spike protein, might mean that the COVID-19 shots are associated with cancer risks.

The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups.

Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including:

• Overall cancer: 27% higher risk
• Breast cancer: 20% higher risk
• Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk
• Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk
• Lung cancer: 53% higher risk
• Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk
• Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk

The statistical analysis of the results showed that there is a “1 in 1,000 chance that this result arose by chance,” Campbell said.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna showed a 20% higher overall risk of cancer and were most closely linked to a higher risk of breast, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancers.

Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, known as cDNA vaccines and which include the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots, were associated with a 47% higher overall risk of cancer. They were specifically linked to an increased risk of colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers.

Patients who received a mixture of mRNA and cDNA doses also faced an increased risk, with a 34% higher incidence of cancer overall and a close association with a higher risk of breast and thyroid cancers.

“The elevated cancer risks were not confined to one vaccine platform,” Hulscher wrote. “Each vaccine type was associated with a measurable increase in overall cancer — and each had specific cancer sites driving the signal. In other words, no vaccine technology was free of cancer risk in this dataset.”

Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said the data show that among vaccinated people, the cancer risk increases with time.

“The increased risk of cancer for vaccinated subjects rises in a linear fashion over the entire period of the study, at a steeper angle than the unvaccinated curve, and it does not flatten out. The increased incidence just keeps getting bigger. It could go on for decades. It’s truly alarming,” Baker said.

‘Every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks’

The results also showed vaccinated people under 65 years of age were at particular risk of some types of cancer.

“The relatively younger population (individuals under 65 years) was more vulnerable to thyroid and breast cancers; by comparison, the older population (75 years and older) was more susceptible to prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, vaccinated people under age 65 showed an overall increased risk of cancer, while elderly adults — particularly those over 75 — had the highest overall risk.

Vaccinated women also had a relatively higher risk of cancer than vaccinated men, with vaccinated women showing a particularly increased risk of colorectal and thyroid cancers, and vaccinated men showing a higher risk of gastric and lung cancers.

Hulscher wrote:

“Both the overall and site-specific results show a consistent pattern — every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks, though the type and absolute burden varied. Women and the elderly were hit hardest, but no population segment was spared.”

The study’s results also showed that COVID-19 boosters resulted in a substantially higher risk of certain types of cancer. This included a 125% higher risk of pancreatic cancer and a 23% higher risk of gastric cancer.

Dalgleish called the numbers “striking,” saying the jump in risk after booster shots “is an unexpected increase that we are also seeing in the United Kingdom.”

Critics call one-year follow-up period ‘bonkers’

According to MedPageToday, the one-year follow-up period the researchers used in the study was “bonkers,” and the study didn’t take into account the patients’ family histories of cancer and their screening history.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, said “the criticism levied against the study is of healthy user bias.” He explained:

“The idea that people more likely to engage in one medical intervention (vaccination) are also more likely to engage in another (cancer screening) … is a valid concern for a vaxed-unvaxed study such as this one, as those seeking a vaccine will have drastically different healthcare-seeking behavior than those not seeking a vaccine.

 “[However,] this is not just a vaxed-unvaxed study — it also differentiates the vaccines. Healthy user bias is not a point of argument for why one vaccine (cDNA) shows a strong cancer risk above another (mRNA). Further, the study doesn’t say vaccines cause cancer, but are associated with them.

“We are complex multicellular organisms. Cancerous cells are created within us with great frequency, and are usually subdued by our anti-cancer mechanisms. … If a vaccine can disrupt that anti-cancer mechanism, then cancers can manifest in a short time window.”

Even if cDNA vaccines were shown to pose a higher cancer risk, Baker said the study also highlights the risk of mRNA technology.

“This study absolutely implicates the mRNA platform,” he said. “Remember, COVID-19 was the first widespread use of that technology platform in humans … In its first application, it increases cancers.”

Campbell said official South Korean data is typically reliable, and the study was well structured.

“South Korea was a very heavily vaccinated country,” he said. “There was … just a few hundred thousand in the unvaccinated group, but that’s good enough to get some pretty good data from.”

The study’s authors did not elaborate on possible mechanisms contained within the COVID-19 vaccines that might result in a higher cancer risk.

Baker said the “significantly increased hazard ratios for six different cancer types suggests to me a possible immune system impairment contributing to the increased risk. It’s frightening, because the risk is not limited to any one type of cancer that might be screened against.”

According to Campbell, the spike protein and DNA contaminants found in the mRNA vaccines may be among the factors contributing to this risk.

The authors suggested that more research is necessary “to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine-induced hyperinflammation.”

Growing number of studies link COVID shots to severe adverse events

Other recent large-scale studies and analyses suggest a link between the COVID-19 vaccines and serious adverse events such as cancer.

Earlier this year, an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people showed that people who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated. The risk increased with each additional dose.

A study of 1.3 million women in the Czech Republic published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine in June showed that the rate of successful conception — a pregnancy leading to live birth nine months later — for vaccinated women was “substantially lower” than for those who were unvaccinated.

A 30-month study of nearly 300,000 people in Italy, published in the journal EXCLI in July, found a 23% increased risk of cancer following one or two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 9% increased risk among those who received three or more doses.

The Italian study’s results also showed statistically significant increases in breast, bladder and colorectal cancers.

Jablonowski said the Italian study’s findings largely mirror those of the South Korean study, as there is “a corroboration of evidence that cannot be ignored.”

“The comparison of the results … is awfully interesting,” Jablonowski said. “The two studies generally agree on many cancer types. One form of cancer that they do not agree on is prostate cancer. It is not remotely noteworthy in the Italian study, and the strongest signal in the Korean study.”

‘Nearly 70% of the global population has been injected with a carcinogenic product’

The South Korean researchers said the balance between the relative risks of COVID-19 infection and adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination warrants further examination.

“Given the decreasing severity of COVID-19, current concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine primarily revolve around AEs [adverse events] even with booster shots,” the researchers wrote.

The authors of the study also called for more research “to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.” They suggested that clinicians “prioritize monitoring the risk of gastric cancer in relation to COVID-19 booster doses.”

Hulscher went further, suggesting the study’s results strengthen calls by some scientists and medical organizations that the COVID-19 vaccines should be suspended or withdrawn.

“Governments, regulators, clinicians, and researchers must confront a sobering reality: nearly 70% of the global population has been injected with a carcinogenic product. The evidence demands immediate market withdrawal of these products,” Hulscher wrote.

“It is now completely indefensible to continue any booster or variant vaccine program,” Dalgleish said.

Watch John Campbell discuss the South Korea study here:

Related articles in The Defender

• ‘The More Doses You Get, The Sooner You are Likely to Die’: Japanese Data Suggest COVID Vaccines Led to Surge in Excess Deaths
• Study of 1.3 Million Women Links COVID Vaccines to Pregnancy Risk
• Watch: Spike Protein Leads to ‘Five Mechanisms of Damage’ in Human Body
• DNA Contamination in Pfizer COVID Vaccines Up to Four Times Legal Limits, Study Finds
• Scientists Petition FDA to Suspend or Withdraw mRNA COVID Vaccines

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and host of "The Defender In-Depth" on CHD.TV.

------------------------

Source

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/all-covid-vaccines-increase-cancer-risk-new-study-concludes/

‘Complete Rubbish’: 5 Ways Pfizer Dodged Trump’s Demand for Transparency

‘Complete Rubbish’: 5 Ways Pfizer Dodged Trump’s Demand for Transparency

Pfizer’s press release addressing President Donald Trump’s demand for transparency regarding the COVID-19 vaccines offers a masterclass in the misleading “tricks of the trade” used by the vaccine industry. Here’s a breakdown of five reasons Pfizer’s reply was “rife with deception” and what we can learn from it.

September 18, 2025

By Clayton J. Baker, M.D.

On Sept. 1, on Truth Social, President Donald Trump posted a demand for transparency. Specifically, he called for public release of the data he has received from pharmaceutical companies regarding the modified mRNA-based COVID-19 injections, calling out Pfizer specifically.

He wrote:

“It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree! With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW. I have been shown information from Pfizer, and others, that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public. Why not??? … They show me GREAT numbers and results, but they don’t seem to be showing them to many others. I want them to show them NOW, to CDC and the public, and clear up this MESS, one way or the other!!!”

In the same message, Trump also publicly questioned the success of Operation Warp Speed.

On Sept. 8, Pfizer put out a press release touting the results of Phase 3 trials for its newest version of its mRNA gene therapy for COVID-19 for 2025-2026. It begins:

“Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE today announced positive topline results from an ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial cohort evaluating the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 30-µg dose of the LP.8.1-adapted monovalent COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) 2025-2026 Formula in adults aged 65 and older and in adults aged 18 through 64 with at least one underlying risk condition for severe COVID-19.

“The preliminary data show a robust increase in neutralizing antibodies targeting the LP.8.1 sublineage of SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination.”

Pfizer’s document is rife with deception, which comes as no surprise, given Pfizer’s long history of fraud and criminality. However, it is instructive to review the press release, as it reveals several of the deceptive tricks of the trade frequently used in the vaccine industry.

Here are my Top 5 reasons Pfizer’s reply to Trump is complete rubbish.

They are:

1. Pfizer’s long history of criminality and fraud.
2. An antibody response does not equal immunity.
3. Chasing respiratory viruses with vaccines is futile.
4. Claims of safety are unsupported.
5. COVID does not merit boosters.

Pfizer’s long history of criminality and fraud

Long before COVID-19, Pfizer had established itself as one of the most prolifically criminal corporations in history, with a rap sheet that would make British Petroleum blush. Since 2000, Pfizer and its subsidiaries have been found guilty of 107 offenses totaling a staggering $11,261,560,400.

That’s right: over one hundred violations, totaling over $11 billion in penalties. At least 22 of those were violations of the False Claims Act — meaning Pfizer has been found guilty of defrauding the government an astonishing 22 times in the last 25 years.

The Pfizer press release provides only a summary of their studies. It does not include the raw data, as Trump ordered. The press release merely states, “Companies have submitted these data to the FDA.” In this respect, it completely fails to answer the president’s appeal for transparency.

Pfizer ends its press release with a 1,100-word italicized disclaimer that begins with the following:

“The information contained in this release is as of September 8, 2025. Pfizer assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements contained in this release as the result of new information or future events or developments.”

To my reading, this disclaimer essentially states: We are guessing about the future here, and this press release could turn out to be a load of horse crap. We accept no responsibility to correct ourselves if that turns out to be the case.

Do you trust Pfizer’s reported results? If so, I can get you a sweet deal on a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Let us hope and pray the president and his advisors keep in mind exactly whom they are dealing with here, and how this document utterly fails to provide the transparency the president seeks.

An antibody response does not equal immunity

Let’s assume Pfizer is telling the truth this time. (I realize that’s quite an assumption, but humor me for a moment.) Let’s say Pfizer’s 2025-2026 version of the COVID-19 shot does produce “at least a 4-fold increase in LP.8.1-neutralizing antibody titers,” as the press release claims.

So what?

If their claim sounds obscure, it’s because it is. It does not, as Pfizer claims,

“Reinforce pre-clinical data that supported the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the LP.8.1-adapted COVID-19 vaccine, which demonstrated improved [sic] immune responses against multiple circulating SARS-CoV-2 sublineages.”

Equating antibody production with “immune response” is an intellectually dishonest linguistic sleight-of-hand that is all too typical in the world of vaccines.

Antibody production, robust or not, is no guarantee of clinically relevant immunity. Not at all. The assertion that if a vaccine invokes a strong antibody response, it will therefore protect you from catching, spreading or getting sick from an illness is a faulty inference based on false premises.

Equating antibody production with immunity is one of the foundational lies of vaccinology. It’s like a greedy, overzealous sports agent declaring his 18-year-old pitching prospect to be a perennial major league all-star, simply because he can chuck the ball at 98 miles per hour.

The kid may have a strong arm. But if he can’t throw a strike, he’s useless.

The human immune system is extremely complex, beyond the understanding of humanity as a whole, much less the likes of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, a Paul Offit or any other vaccine zealot you care to name. Antibodies are just one of the elements of the immune response to infection. An important one, but just one.

Remember that, contrary to the repeated claims of Pfizer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the legacy media and Joe “winter of severe illness and death” Biden himself, the original Pfizer COVID-19 shots did not prevent recipients from catching or spreading the virus.

Those shots produced a vigorous antibody response, too. But they didn’t do what we were told repeatedly that they would do. Not even close.

Chasing respiratory viruses with vaccines is futile

Even if antibodies were enough to provide immunity, the antibodies that a vaccine stimulates production of in your body have to match the intended part of the virus — the antigen — to have a beneficial effect.

If the virus mutates sufficiently while the product is in development, the vaccine-induced antibodies, designed for the old version of the target antigen, won’t recognize the new, mutated version of the antigen to which they are supposed to attach. In a word, they won’t “stick,” and they won’t do their intended job.

Small, simple RNA-based respiratory viruses, like the one that causes COVID-19, influenza and most common colds, mutate rapidly and constantly. When we hear about the latest “variant” of COVID-19, this refers to the most recent product of this constant evolutionary process.

When it comes to simple, rapidly mutating viruses like SARS-CoV-2 or influenza, vaccine developers are like a would-be fashionista who only shops at Filene’s Basement. They are forever caught in a futile chase to keep up-to-date, although they only have access to last season’s designs.

However, if manufacturers like Pfizer can market their products effectively enough, this fatal flaw becomes a feature, not a bug. Provided Pfizer can keep people convinced they need repeated boosters, seasonal vaccines represent an unbeatable business model.

Liability-free medicines for healthy people? Cha-ching! Inject every man, woman and child, every year, on an endless subscription model? Cha-ching!

In reality, respiratory viruses have us beat with regard to vaccines. They’re too nimble and quick to keep up with. Vaccines end up as weapons suited only for fighting the last war.

Best to cover your cough, wash your hands, and let your immune system do what it does best on its own. (Not to mention, stop gain-of-functioning harmless viruses into deadly bioweapons.) But where’s the money in that?

Claims of safety are unsupported

Pfizer’s press release states that “The safety profile of the vaccine was consistent with previous studies, with no new safety concerns identified.”

Sounds good? Hang on just a second. The press release also states that:

• Only 100 participants were enrolled.
• Data was only obtained from “evaluable participants” without stating how many dropouts occurred.
• The study was conducted over a 14-day period.
• The safety profile of the vaccine “was consistent with previous studies,” without stating what the previous studies showed.

Here we go again with more of the classic chicanery typical of vaccine studies.

“Safety” cannot be established on the basis of a pitifully small study of fewer than one hundred subjects, followed for a mere two weeks.

“Safety” cannot be established simply by stating the findings were “consistent” with “previous studies” without telling us the findings of the previous studies.

“Safety” cannot be determined without comparison against a true placebo.

Pfizer’s glossing over of the issue of “safety” in this press release would be comical if we did not know the extent of vaccine-related injuries and deaths associated with the earlier versions of the COVID-19-modified mRNA injections.

COVID does not merit boosters

Let me put it bluntly: the SARS-CoV-2 virus simply doesn’t merit a vaccine anymore — if indeed it ever did. By now, this fact is not just an elephant in the room. It is a giant bull tusker trumpeting at top volume.

In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was released from the laboratory into the human population. Yes, it was a gain-of-function engineered virus. Yes, it was initially dangerous to the elderly and to persons with severe underlying conditions.

However, like all living things, viruses evolve in a manner that best suits their own survival and reproduction.

With the consistency of a natural law, viral evolution — especially in simple, rapidly-mutating viruses like SARS-CoV-2 — unfailingly favors mutations that render the pathogen less deadly to its host, yet more transmissible between individual hosts.

This makes perfect evolutionary sense, of course. Through mutation and natural selection, the virus learns to live with its host, rather than killing it. Whether you’re a human being or a virus, it does no good for you or your children to move into a new home and promptly burn it to the ground.

In other words, as we all know intuitively after the past five years, SARS-CoV-2 has evolved from behaving like a lab-engineered bioweapon to another common cold virus — which is exactly what other existing coronaviruses are.

The data confirm this as well. A new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report of 2024 data states that COVID-19 is no longer among the top 10 causes of death in the U.S.

Suicide, the 10th-ranked cause for 2024, was attributed to 48,000 deaths. Authors of the report have been unrevealing about the exact number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, or to its exact rank, elusively stating only that “It’s still in the top 15.”

We are left to conclude that the COVID-19 death count for 2024 is definitely below 48,000, possibly much lower. Given the “experts’” reluctance to give us the exact number, and given that it may well be as low as 15 on the list, it is very possible that it is much lower than that.

Before we jump to credit the modified mRNA injections for this decrease, note that vaccine booster acceptance rates for the COVID-19 injections have plummeted.

In late 2023, one month after the then-new COVID-19 boosters were released with heavy promotion, only 7% of adults and 2% of children got the boosters, an acceptance rate that “experts” referred to as “abysmal.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 fell off the list of leading causes of death the following year.

Summary

Pfizer’s reply to Trump’s very reasonable call for transparency of data regarding their latest edition of their modified mRNA COVID-19 injections is nothing less than an insult to the intelligence of every reader, including the president himself.

It appears that while Bourla was cynically flattering Trump by calling for a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer was trying to fool the president, and all Americans, with this deceptive document.

May Trump see through all this dishonesty. May he recognize Pfizer’s response to his call for honesty and transparency for what it is: complete rubbish.

Originally published by Brownstone Institute.

Clayton J. Baker, M.D., is an internal medicine physician with a quarter-century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018, he was clinical associate professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Brownstone Institute

The Brownstone Institute is a nonprofit organization founded May 2021. Its vision is of a society that places the highest value on the voluntary interaction of individuals and groups while minimizing the use of violence and force including that which is exercised by public or private authorities.

------------------------

Source

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/complete-rubbish-5-ways-pfizer-dodged-trumps-demand-transparency/

Assaults on Free Speech Go Into Hyperdrive After Charlie Kirk Killing

Assaults on Free Speech Go Into Hyperdrive After Charlie Kirk Killing

When you see me refusing to play along with the campaign to canonize Charlie Kirk or respect the emotional hysteria around his killing, this is the main reason why.

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

September 19, 2025

It’s amazing how aggressively free speech in the United States is being torn apart in the wake of the Charlie Kirk killing.

Jimmy Kimmel was fired after President Trump’s FCC threatened ABC when the late night comic suggested that Kirk’s killer was a Trumper. I personally dislike Kimmel, but this is about as naked a government assault on free expression as you could possibly imagine.

Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has been ordered deported to Syria or Algeria after the Trump administration targeted him for political speech critical of Israel.

Trump has brokered a deal allowing TikTok to be purchased by a consortium that includes his billionaire buddies Larry Ellison and Marc Andreesen. US officials have acknowledged that Washington’s push to grab control of TikTok was because of the opposition to the Gaza holocaust that was circulating on the platform.

Oracle co-founder Ellison is a fanatical Zionist oligarch who has expressed support for the idea of a massive surveillance network to control all of society, and his son David just purchased Paramount, which owns CBS News. The younger Ellison has reportedly installed pro-Israel propagandist Bari Weiss to a senior leadership position within the network.

Trump says he has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into bringing “criminal RICO charges” against Code Pink activists who chanted anti-genocide slogans at him while he was dining at a restaurant. Like pro-Palestine demonstrators are mafia kingpins or something.

Bondi said during a podcast that the Trump administration is going to start prosecuting “hate speech” against conservatives, alleging that such speech was responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

When asked by the press about Bondi’s comments, Trump said “We’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe I’ll come after ABC.” Again, ABC was the network Jimmy Kimmel was fired from.

Trump henchman Stephen Miller said on a podcast that the White House is going to start targeting leftist “terrorist networks”, claiming on no basis whatsoever that Kirk’s assassination was the fault of a “vast domestic terror movement” which foments the kind of violence which led to Kirk’s death. Trump himself said that “a lot of people that you would traditionally say are on the left … [are] already under investigation,” and that he plans to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.

Vice President JD Vance has publicly been encouraging Trump supporters to try to get ordinary members of the public fired for saying mean things about Charlie Kirk, saying, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out, and hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”

Trump’s Truth Social account recently shared a video calling for state censorship of media outlets and online influencers who share “propaganda”, falsely framing this authoritarian notion as a reboot of the Smith-Mundt Act and suggesting that it should be called the “Charlie Kirk Act”.

When you see me refusing to play along with the campaign to canonize Charlie Kirk or respect the emotional hysteria around his killing, this is the main reason why. His death is already being used to manufacture consent for sweeping acts of tyranny, and it was clear from day one that it would be.

The empire managers are always seeking excuses to suppress free speech, crush the left, and stomp out opposition to Zionism and the US war machine. They’ll use any chance they get to advance these goals, which are all ultimately about expanding power and control.

Many pre-existing agendas are being shoved forward by those in power, as always happens when emotions run hot over a traumatic event. I’ve said it many times before and I’ll surely say it many times again: it’s precisely when we are most tempted to abandon rationality and play along with the emotionality of the moment that we need to be thinking most clearly and critically.

_____________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

-------------------------

Source

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/09/no_author/assaults-on-free-speech-go-into-hyperdrive-after-charlie-kirk-killing/

Who Killed Charlie Kirk?

Who Killed Charlie Kirk?

Ron Paul | Sep 16, 2025

I had the pleasure of appearing on Charlie Kirk’s program a few times over the years and I always found him to be polite, respectful, and genuinely interested in ideas. Even in areas where we might not have agreed, he listened carefully. He was a strong advocate of free speech and he made a career of trying to convince the youth of the value of free speech and dialogue regardless of political differences.

At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country and as such he had enormous influence over the future of the conservative movement and even the Republican party. As I discovered during my Republican presidential runs, the youth of this country are truly inspired by the ideas of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory, with an ever-changing plotline that makes little sense.

Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more non-interventionist approach. Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge President Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran. He was rebuffed by President Trump, Carlson informed us.

Likewise, conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a “spiritual crisis” and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America-first non-interventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in the Middle East.

Was Charlie Kirk murdered – directly or indirectly – by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views in such an influential leader? We don’t know.

If anything, those seeking to prevent the ideas of peace from breaking out would wish to cover it up, as they have done in so many past political killings. As I recounted in my most recent book, The Surreptitious Coup: Who Stole Western Civilization?, the turbulent 1960s saw several killings of major US figures, including JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontationist mentality.

The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power – the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas they preferred to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course.

More than sixty years after the murder of President Kennedy, the vast majority of the American people do not believe the official story of how he was killed and why. Truth will eventually break through even when the wall of lies seems impenetrable.

If it is true that Charlie Kirk was preparing to shift his organization toward a foreign policy embraced by our Founders, the killing was even more tragic. But no army – or assassin – can stop an idea whose time has come. That may be his most important legacy. Rest in peace.

-----------------------

Source

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/who-killed-charlie-kirk/

The Fear-Mongering Rackets of the U.S. National-Security State

The Fear-Mongering Rackets of the U.S. National-Security State

by Jacob G. Hornberger

September 9, 2025

The end of the Cold War in 1989 provided a fantastic opportunity for a major reset in relations between the American people and the people of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and other nations that U.S. officials had long designated as official enemies of the United States. For almost 45 years following the end of World War II, U.S. officials had inculcated a mindset of deep fear among the American people — fear that the Russians, Chinese, and other communist nations were coming to get us.

It was all one great big racket designed to justify the conversion of the U.S. government from our founding governmental structure of a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of totalitarian-like governmental structure that wields omnipotent powers, such as the power of engaging in state-sponsored assassinations.

Fear-mongering, propaganda, and indoctrination are central to a national-security state governmental structure. The national-security state must convince the citizenry that there are scary enemies coming to get them so that the citizenry will continue to support and embrace the national-security state governmental structure and the ever-increasing power and taxpayer-funded largess that is necessary to sustain it.

The racket worked almost perfectly. Americans fell for it hook, line, and sinker. “The Russians are coming!” people cried. “The Reds are everywhere!”

One big exception was when President Kennedy achieved a personal “breakthrough” after the Cuban Missile Crisis by recognizing that the Cold War and the anti-communist crusade were nothing more than one great big racket. After he vowed to bring the racket to an end in his Peace Speech at American University in June 1963, the U.S. national-security establishment dealt with him in Dallas five months later.

Thus, the Cold War racket continued all the way until 1989, when the Soviet Union suddenly and unexpectedly dismantled itself. The Berlin Wall came crashing down and West Germany and East Germany recombined into one nation. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, Russian troops withdrew to Russia, and Eastern European countries gained their independence.

There was an obvious readiness among Russian officials to do a complete reset with respect to relations with the United States. They made it clear that they desired to establish a world of peaceful and friendly relations. The same held true for China, notwithstanding the fact that it was still headed by a communist regime. The same was true for Cuba.

This was a time of great optimism and hope for the American people and the people of the communist world. Why, for a few years afterward, there were even libertarian conferences being held in both China and Russia.

But the hope and optimism did not characterize the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Remember: They needed big official scary enemies to justify their existence. They knew that many Americans were advocating a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” which would have entailed a severe reduction in military-intelligence spending. There was even the danger that Americans might even begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

The U.S. national-security establishment was not going to let that happen, at least not without a big fight. A deadly invasion of Iraq, followed by 11 years of brutal and deadly economic sanctions against the Iraqi people, produced the “blowback” of the 9/11 retaliatory attacks. The national-security establishment was back to the races, this time replacing communism with terrorism as the new official enemy of the American people.

At the same time, however, they never gave up hope of restoring the Cold War to America. It had proven to be too lucrative a racket to simply let it go. If they could combine their “war on communism” racket with their “war on terrorism” racket, they could virtually guarantee that the national-security state governmental structure would remain a permanent and perpetual part of the U.S. government.

That’s why they used their old Cold War dinosaur NATO to begin moving eastward toward Russia, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact in the process. It wasn’t exactly consistent with the peaceful and friendly world that people had in mind at the end of the Cold War.

Moreover, once the U.S. national-security state became mired in forever wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. officials could see that China and Russia were prospering, especially given that they weren’t mired in such wars. They could also see that China and Russia were gaining popularity and influence around the world, while there was ever-growing animosity toward the U.S. and its forever deadly and destructive propensity toward war and aggression.

That’s when the U.S. government decided that it was time to “degrade” both China and Russia and initiate the continuation of the old Cold War racket. A vicious trade war and a brutal system of economic sanctions were launched against China, with the aim of diminishing the economic prosperity of that nation. Moreover, the old Cold War dinosaur NATO was used to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine, which provided U.S. national-security state officials with the opportunity to use Ukraine as a proxy or agent to give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” thereby “degrading” Russia through the loss of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and ever-increasing war expenditures.

Thus, what began with lots of hope and optimism at the end of Cold War I ended up with Russia and China being restored to the top tier of America’s official enemies as part of Cold War II.

According to a recent article in Politico, however, the U.S. government is now shifting its attention to Latin America, using its decades-old, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual drug war as its excuse. That shift in official enemies is clearly reflected by the new U.S. obsessiveness with Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The irony is that when Cold War I ended, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were so panicky over having lost Russia as their official enemy, they were suggesting that they could help fight the drug war as their new mission. And so here they are — with their new official enemies — drugs and drug lords in Latin America.

Don’t think for a minute, however, that they are giving up on Russia and China as official enemies. They are just hedging their bets by adding more official enemies to keep the American people agitated and afraid. In that way, Americans will continue to look on the U.S. national-security state to keep them “safe” and “secure” from all those scary official enemies.

---

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

---------------------------

Source

https://www.fff.org/2025/09/09/the-fear-mongering-rackets-of-the-u-s-national-security-state/