On November 19, 2025, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled "Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Modified mRNA Influenza Vaccine." This article purportedly reviewed the results of Pfizer's Phase 3 clinical trials testing its experimental, mRNA-based, gene therapy injections for Influenza, which Pfizer presents as an alternative to traditional Influenza vaccines.

Two weeks later, on December 5, 2025, the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 8-3 to end the recommendation in the CDC's pediatric vaccine schedule that all American children receive the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) vaccine at birth. This recommendation would bring the CDC's HBV vaccine recommendations closer to those in numerous other developed nations, countries that have both better overall pediatric health than the United States and no surplus pediatric HBV deaths.

To the casual observer, neither of these events may seem very noteworthy. However, in the post-Covid world of medicine, vaccinology, and politics, both fueled controversy that shows no sign of ending soon. Why?

The New England Journal of Medicine article of Pfizer's self-conducted study of its own product has been extensively analyzed by independent reviewers. It has been identified as an object lesson in the scientific fraud that is endemic in vaccine research, development, and marketing. Detailed review of the study has revealed multiple systematic techniques of deceptive research methods, omission and concealment of unfavorable data, and outright misrepresentation of results. 

The ACIP panel's decision, which represents a minor change in the previously sacrosanct – if ever-expanding – CDC pediatric vaccine schedule, has been met with an onslaught of hair-on-fire, alarmist proclamations by the vaccine industry and its minions of impending disease and death in American children. These claims are unsupported by the existing scientific data and bear little relationship to objective reality as a whole.

The reasons these two events have sparked such controversy are:

The New England Journal of Medicine article – now thoroughly deconstructed – exposes the brazen, systematic dishonesty of both vaccine development and the clinical trial process as a whole. 

Meanwhile, the results of the study, once fully uncovered and comprehensively reviewed, shatter the viability of the mRNA gene therapy platform as a substitute for conventional vaccines.

The unhinged response to the ACIP decision reveals the entire pediatric vaccine schedule to be a house of cards, built on falsehoods, that cannot withstand any criticism, reform, or revision whatsoever.