Over these past years, I have developed perspectives that often diverged from the mainstream narrative. Many times, I was censored for raising scientific questions that are now openly discussed.
The recent ACIP meeting (September 18–19, 2025) highlighted just how much things have shifted. For the first time, we saw open debate about issues that previously could not be mentioned within official committees. This was a remarkable moment in U.S. health policy.
At the center of it was Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist and former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon, who asked a direct and simple question:
“Why is this not pulled off the market like any other biologic or medicine that is found to have contamination?”
He was referring to the evidence of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines—levels reportedly up to 627 times higher than WHO standards, including SV40 promoter sequences. These are not minor details. They go to the heart of pharmacological rigor: pharmacokinetics, dosing, safety profiles, and the basic principles of biologics regulation.
The FDA’s representative, Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, admitted something that should trouble us all: the agency relies on manufacturer-supplied data and has not conducted its own independent post-production testing. She emphasized that the issue was being taken seriously, but the fact remains—no independent oversight was performed at the scale one would expect for a product administered to billions.
This exchange revealed a critical gap. Independent researchers—without funding, without institutional support—were the ones uncovering these issues, forcing regulatory agencies to acknowledge them. The silence from Pfizer when asked to comment only deepened the sense of unease.
So how did we get here?
For years, there was an assumption that these vaccines would work flawlessly. Cognitive dissonance drove institutions to double down instead of asking difficult questions. Now, with the entire ACIP membership replaced under RFK Jr.’s administration, the U.S. finds itself at a crossroads.
On one hand, the shake-up allows for long-silenced voices to finally raise their concerns. On the other, by removing every prior member, institutional memory and continuity have been lost—risking chaos in governance and credibility.
COVID’s Hidden Time Bomb: Rapid Arterial Aging
When most people think of COVID, they think of the lungs. But what if I told you the real time bomb might be in your blood vessels?
I worry that the U.S. may no longer be the unquestioned leader in global health. Other countries may take the mantle, especially if they maintain more stable regulatory structures.
But I also believe this is an opportunity. If regulatory agencies confront the shortcomings honestly, build transparency, and allow debate, perhaps trust can be rebuilt. The alternative is a slide into further distrust and international marginalization.
As for me, I continue to ask the same questions I did in 2021: Where is the mucosal immunity? Where is the rigorous pharmacology? And why were we not more careful before making such a gamble on a novel technology?
The future of public health depends on how honestly we can answer them.
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
