Search This Blog

Friday, February 27, 2026

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield Wants mRNA COVID Vaccines Removed From the Market

 Dr. Robert Redfield wants mRNA COVID vaccines removed from the market due to "too many unknowns".

This is, and has been, the problem. The US Department of Health should withdraw the vaccine nationwide,  seek more data on the side effects and overall effectiveness of this vaccine, and then recommend its use, if found to be beneficial to the American people.

Keep politics out of the medicine-health-industrial-complex.

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Commissioner Robert Redfield speaks during a White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Nov. 19, 2020. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
From the Epoch Times

Former CDC Director Calls for Removal of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines



Zachary Stieber
Senior Reporter
&

Jan Jekielek
Senior Editor
|Updated: 
‘There’s too many unknowns,’ Dr. Robert Redfield said.

COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna should be pulled from circulation, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official said in a new interview.

“I really would like to see the mRNA vaccine use curtailed, and personally, I'd like to see it eliminated, because I think there’s too many unknowns,” Dr. Robert Redfield told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview released on Dec. 9.
Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19 utilize messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. They were the first mRNA vaccines to receive clearance when regulators authorized them in late 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Redfield, 74, was the director of the CDC from March 2018 through Jan. 20, 2021, the end of President Donald Trump’s first term.

Redfield said he’s been treating patients who have so-called long COVID, as well as people suffering from vaccine injuries. He said he still favors a protein-based COVID-19 vaccine from Novavax but no longer advises receiving the mRNA shots even though he thinks they prevented deaths among seniors early in the pandemic.

“I don’t advocate the mRNA vaccines anymore, because as you get to the idea of vaccine injury, when I give you an mRNA vaccine, what I do is I turn your body into a spike protein production factory,” Redfield told The Epoch Times. “And spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein.”

ased on the current data, it is unclear how much spike protein one produces following vaccination and how long it is produced, Redfield said.

“My long COVID patients seem to get better quicker than my vaccine injury patients,” he said. “And some of us wonder whether or not that mRNA that has caused that injury ... is still not transcriptionally active in producing new mRNA, in other words, with new spike protein.”

Patients with vaccine injuries have slowly been improving, and it’s important for people to realize they can ultimately recover from the injuries, Redfield said.

Spike protein generation and persistence has drawn attention from a number of experts, both inside and outside the government.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, a top Food and Drug Administration official, in the fall withdrew emergency authorizations for the COVID-19 vaccines. In one of the documents outlining narrower, updated approvals for the vaccines, Prasad wrote that “there is growing clinical evidence that spike protein which is generated as a result of or in the course of vaccination may persist for some time in a subset of individuals,” which could result in what is described by some as long COVID.
Charlotte Kuperwasser, a professor of developmental, molecular, and chemical biology at Tufts University School of Medicine, in a presentation to a federal vaccine committee in September, referenced studies that have found mRNA in various parts of the body weeks, months, and even years after vaccination. After the presentation, CDC advisers said the agency should adjust COVID-19 vaccine recommendations to an emphasis on individual factors, which the agency did.

Post-Vaccination Deaths

Redfield is aware that federal regulators recently determined that at least 10 child deaths were related to COVID-19 vaccination. Officials have not released details such as the causes of death, but Prasad said in a memo outlining the investigation that it was motivated by the awareness of FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and other leaders of reports about the heart inflammation that the COVID-19 vaccines are known to cause.

“I had confidence that Marty Makary would go in and open up what we know about the vaccine injuries that are occurring, and make them available to the American public so they can re-evaluate the value of the COVID vaccine,” Redfield said.

He said later, “The recognition that they now seem to attribute at least 10 children’s deaths from the mRNA vaccines is a breath of fresh air.”

Spokespeople for Pfizer and Novavax did not respond to or declined to comment on the development, and a Moderna spokesman pointed to a company statement from September in which Moderna said that global surveillance data demonstrate the safety of its vaccine for children and that safety monitoring systems in the United States and other places “have not reported any new or undisclosed safety concerns in children or in pregnant women.”

Redfield also said he does not think there was ever a reason for children to receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines, given that most children suffered no or limited symptoms from COVID-19 and data indicated the vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission.

As a senior, though, the doctor still gets vaccinated on a regular basis.

“I have been vaccinated myself, eight times. The COVID vaccine has one of the biggest challenges. It doesn’t last,” he said. “So I get vaccinated every six months—but with the protein vaccine—because I’m still at risk. I’m at risk for hospitalization and death if I get COVID.”

Former CDC Director Calls for Removal of Covid mRNA “Vaccines” From the Market

By Dec. 10, 2025

  • Former CDC Director Robert Redfield no longer recommends mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, citing “too many unknowns” and calling for their removal from the market due to concerns about lasting harm.
  • He identifies the spike protein produced by these vaccines as “immunotoxic,” triggering a strong, pro-inflammatory response in the body, which he links to slower recovery from vaccine injuries compared to long COVID.
  • Internal agency findings acknowledge potential long-term activity, with evidence presented to the FDA and CDC that spike protein and vaccine mRNA can persist in the body for months or years post-injection.
  • Redfield criticizes vaccine mandates and the vaccination of children, arguing the shots were unnecessary for a low-risk group and failed to prevent infection or transmission, while citing confirmed child deaths linked to vaccination.
  • The situation is framed as a cautionary tale about rapid medical innovation, drawing a parallel to historical failures like thalidomide and underscoring a need for greater long-term safety evaluation and transparency.

As concerns grow over the long-term effects of mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines, a former top U.S. health official has called for their removal from the market, citing alarming evidence that the spike protein they produce may cause lasting harm.

Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2018 to 2021, told Epoch TV‘s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview on Tuesday, Dec. 9, that he no longer recommends Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA shots. This stemmed from what he called “too many unknowns,” particularly regarding the immunotoxic spike protein they instruct the body to manufacture.

His warning comes as mounting clinical reports suggest these vaccines may contribute to persistent health issues resembling long COVID – raising urgent questions about their continued use. Redfield explained that mRNA technology effectively turns the body into a “spike protein production factory.” Unlike traditional vaccines that introduce inert viral components to trigger immunity, mRNA shots deliver genetic instructions that compel cells to generate the spike protein indefinitely – a process whose duration and intensity remain poorly understood.

“The spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein,” Redfield said, noting that his patients suffering from vaccine injuries often recover more slowly than those with long COVID. Some researchers speculate that lingering mRNA activity may continue producing spike protein long after vaccination, potentially exacerbating inflammatory conditions.

The lingering shadow of mRNA vaccines

The spike protein’s dangers were acknowledged even within federal health agencies. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Chief Medical Officer Dr. Vinay Prasad cited evidence in internal documents that spike protein can persist in some individuals post-vaccination, possibly contributing to chronic symptoms. Similarly, Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser of Tufts University presented findings to a CDC advisory panel showing detectable mRNA in tissues months or even years after injection – prompting the agency to revise its recommendations toward individualized risk assessment.

Meanwhile, the FDA has confirmed at least 10 child deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccination, though details remain undisclosed. Redfield praised FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary for investigating these fatalities, calling the admission “a breath of fresh air” amid longstanding institutional reluctance to acknowledge vaccine-related harms. The erstwhile CDC director emphasized that children – who face minimal risk from COVID-19 itself – never needed vaccination, especially since the shots failed to prevent infection or transmission.

BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine warns that injecting children with COVID-19 vaccines poses unnecessary risks, as the virus itself presents minimal danger to young, healthy immune systems. Moreover, the vaccines carry documented risks of severe side effects, including heart inflammation and long-term autoimmune damage.

Moderna defended its vaccine’s safety for children in a September 2025 statement, citing global surveillance data. Pfizer and Novavax, meanwhile, declined to comment.

The debate over mRNA vaccines echoes historical tensions between rapid medical innovation and long-term safety. Like the rushed approval of thalidomide in the 1950s – a drug later found to cause severe birth defects – the emergency rollout of COVID-19 vaccines prioritized immediate crisis response over thorough risk evaluation.

Now, as post-pandemic scrutiny intensifies, Redfield’s warnings underscore the need for transparency and accountability in balancing public health imperatives with individual well-being. His cautionary message serves as a reminder: In medicine, as in science, certainty is rare and vigilance is essential.

 Dr. Robert Redfield reiterating that “long COVID” is actually vaccine injury caused by mRNA injections 

Federal Judge Rules That Use of AI Is Not Privileged

 


A dramatic change in confidentiality may be coming in the Courts.

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

SDNY Judge Rules Defendant’s Own Use of AI Tools for Strategizing Not Privileged

By Kit Yona, M.A. | Reviewed by Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on 

Attorney-client privilege exists to protect the relationship between a litigant and their legal counsel. Whether it’s a legal strategy, privileged materials, or legal advice shared between a defense counsel and their client, attorney-client privilege grants a reasonable expectation of confidentiality from the government compelling the sharing of privileged communications. Just make sure the information you share is with an actual attorney who is also a human being.

As evidenced by a memorandum released on February 17, 2026, by Southern District of New York (SDNY) District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, AI-generated documents do not fall under the attorney-client privilege, at least in this instance. Judge Rakoff denied the privilege claims asserted by Bradley Heppner, who had used Anthropic’s Claude generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform to devise a legal defense plan in anticipation of litigation after being indicted by a grand jury in November 2025 on charges including fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying corporate records.

A key takeaway in the court’s ruling against protecting Heppner’s AI-generated materials is that he did so of his own volition and not as an instruction from his attorney. This undermined his argument for including the AI documents seized by federal agents under both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The ruling sets yet another precedent in the interactions between the legal system and generative AI platforms.

Privilege Requires a Trusting Human Relationship

Defense attorneys and their clients need to be able to discuss sensitive aspects of the case without fear that prosecutors will subpoena any privileged information shared. This is the basis behind the attorney-client privilege, which protects the following from mandatory disclosure:

  • Communications between a client and their attorney
  • Communications intended to be confidential and kept so
  • Communications for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice

Attorney-client privilege is often paired with work-product protection, which is an offshoot of the relationship. The work-product doctrine is designed to shelter the attorney’s mental processes as they examine, analyze, and prepare their client’s defense.

Heppner wasn’t exactly in desperate need of help with his legal matters. Heppner, the founder of the financial services startup Beneficient, was indicted by a grand jury for allegedly looting more than $150 million from GWG Holdings, Inc., where he served as chairman. Charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiring to commit wire and securities fraud, giving false statements to auditors, and falsifying corporate records, Heppner hired counsel from Quinn Emanuel for his defense. However, he decided to do a bit of research on his own as well.

A grand jury subpoena signaled that Heppner was almost certainly facing arrest soon. This prompted him to access the public AI tool Claude. Heppner had “conversations” with the generative AI tool in which he requested the creation of a defense strategy against the likely charges he’d be facing and suggestions on how to argue against the facts presented. Seizures made as part of a search warrant of Heppner’s home uncovered electronic devices containing Claude’s responses.

Heppner filed to have the results ruled protected work products and also covered by the attorney-client privilege. The government agreed to a “Privilege Protocol Stipulation” that kept the AI documents in question segregated and not examined until the matter was resolved.

Not on the Advice of Counsel

Heppner’s motion argued that his input into Claude included information he’d received from his counsel. He also stated that he planned to share the documents with his defense attorneys and to use the results to request case-specific advice. This, he claimed, made his use of generative AI and the results yielded covered by the attorney-client privilege.

Judge Rakoff’s memorandum from February 17 expanded on the court’s decision to orally grant the federal government’s request a week earlier, which made the results from Claude exempt from either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Claude is not a lawyer and will issue a disclaimer when asked for legal advice. Because Anthropic’s terms of service (TOS) clearly state that all user input and AI prompts may be used to further train Claude, any interactions with the platform have no expectation of confidentiality or privacy. The TOS also notes that Anthropic has the right to share any user input with authorities.

The largest issue that Heppner’s action was unable to overcome was the fact that his actual defense counsel did not instruct him to use Claude to craft a legal defense. Since his living, breathing attorneys hadn’t advised him to share his user data with an AI model, the output from Claude had no attorney-client privilege. This also torpedoed any work product protections, as it was not produced by his actual legal team.

Given the alleged evidence the government claims to have against him, being thwarted in an attempt to suppress his AI prompts may not be the deciding issue. Still, having a jury hear about his chat with Claude isn’t likely to help.