‘Feeling the Heat’?: Pharma Spent Record $456.9 Million Last Year on Lobbying — With No Signs of Slowing Down

Highlights:

• Big Pharma set a lobbying record in 2025, with the pharmaceutical and health industry spending $456.9 million on federal lobbying — a 16.7% increase from 2024.
• Pharma’s spending shows no signs of slowing in 2026, with drugmakers and industry groups already reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures this year.
• Industry trade group PhRMA is a major force behind the spending, bringing in more than $520 million in 2024 and retaining more than 40 lobbying firms despite having just 30 members at the time.
• PhRMA’s decision to hire former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as its next CEO highlights the organization’s effort to bring high-level political and policy expertise to its lobbying operation.
• Industry lobbying extends beyond legislation to FDA decisions and executive-branch policy, with reporting pointing to efforts to influence drug approvals, pricing policies and regulatory decisions under the Trump administration.

Big Pharma set a new record for lobbying spending in 2025 — and 2026 is shaping up to be another year of big spending, as the industry seeks to influence U.S. healthcare policy.

The pharmaceutical and health industry combined spent $456.9 million on lobbying expenses in 2025, according to OpenSecrets, up 16.7% from 2024. According to The Boston Globe (citing STAT), it was the largest-ever single-year increase in lobbying spending.

This spending was part of what OpenSecrets called a “record” $868 million in lobbying outlays by the healthcare sector in 2025.

Big Pharma’s leading trade group — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) — led the way, spending nearly $38 million on lobbying last year, a 22% increase from 2024, according to Politico. PhRMA was joined by “nine of the 13 U.S. drugmakers on the Fortune 500,” who reported “their highest spending in at least a decade” on lobbying.

There are no signs of a slowdown. OpenSecrets data show the pharmaceutical industry has reported $245.7 million in lobbying expenses so far this year, part of the $459.3 million the health sector overall has spent in 2026.

PhRMA spent a reported $19.8 million in lobbying expenses in 2026, ranking third among business and trade organizations this year — a position it also held in 2025, when it spent $38.19 million.

Among drugmakers, Eli Lilly has spent over $7 million on lobbying this year. Pfizer has spent $6.62 million, and Merck has spent $6.58 million.

According to OpenSecrets, PhRMA’s record spending bucked the overall trend, in which “some of Washington’s biggest spenders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, cut back from their 2024 lobbying expenditures.”

Big Pharma ‘using its enormous profits to influence politicians’

The Congressional Times described the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying spending in 2025 not as an “aberration” but as “the apex of a sustained, institutionalized expenditure pattern stretching back more than two decades” in which the industry sought to capture policymakers and federal regulatory agencies.

Daniel O’Connor, president and founder of TrialSite News, said the lavish spending points to a broader issue of representation and industry influence in Washington.

“The problem is bigger than Big Pharma. Washington has built a system where money buys access, access buys influence, and influence can shape the rules governing American healthcare,” O’Connor said.

For Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Big Pharma’s big lobbying spending shows the industry may feel threatened by Kennedy’s presence in the nation’s top health post and the health freedom movement’s growing momentum.

“First, with Secretary Kennedy in office, more scrutiny is being applied to the drug industry than ever before. Second, with the growing health freedom movement, more focus has been directed towards the drug industry’s products,” Manookian said.

Manookian cited a 2025 poll showing 90% of American voters are concerned about the pharma’s corrupting influence. She said the “pharmaceutical drug industry is feeling the heat and using its enormous profits to influence politicians.”

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, agreed. He said the COVID-19 pandemic was the pharmaceutical industry’s “high-water mark in policy influence — but could also prove to be its downfall.”

“The industry might be panicking about growing public resistance,” Tucker said.

Pharma lobbying group a ‘behemoth of an organization’

To appreciate Big Pharma’s financial might, one has only to examine PhRMA’s financial health.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that despite having “just 30 members in 2024,” PhRMA “brought in more than $520 million in revenue” that year, citing the organization’s most recent publicly available IRS 990 tax form.

According to the Post, PhRMA — which the Post described as a “behemoth of an organization” — also has “more than 40 lobbying shops on retainer.”

With its current 34 members — including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi — PhRMA describes itself as an organization that advocates for “public policies that encourage the discovery of important, new medicines for patients by biopharmaceutical research companies.”

On Tuesday, PhRMA signaled its intent to use its influence to shape policy when it announced the hiring of former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as its next president and CEO, effective Nov. 9, according to Reuters.

Cantor, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2000 to 2014 and was majority leader between 2011 and 2014.

According to the Post, Cantor played a key role in helping shape healthcare policy and bipartisan legislative efforts related to healthcare during that period.

The Post cited Merck CEO Rob Davis, PhRMA board chair, who said Cantor’s “unique combination of global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”

For O’Connor, Cantor’s hiring is a sign of legislative capture in Washington. “Patients, independent physicians, scientists and smaller innovators cannot compete with that machinery,” O’Connor said. “PhRMA’s hiring of Cantor only underscores the power of Washington’s revolving door.”

Did Big Pharma pressure the Trump administration to oust health officials?

Press coverage of Cantor’s hiring suggests that he and PhRMA will focus on pressures to “lower prices” and “navigate the Trump administration’s drug-pricing policies and continued scrutiny from Congress about high drug prices.”

In February, STAT reported that “industry groups have also spent big on messaging tailored to the administration,” including “promoting American dominance in biopharmaceutical innovation.”

But does PhRMA seek more than a stronger focus on drug pricing policy or incentives for drug manufacturing and innovation?

None of this year’s top 10 most lobbied-for bills directly pertain to Big Pharma, researcher and author James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., told The Defender. But “a bill count captures only part of lobbying activity,” he said.

Lyons-Weiler said lobbying may also focus on executive-branch rules, regulations, program implementation and U.S. Senate-confirmed nominations. The “absence of an obviously pharmaceutical bill from a top-10 list therefore does not establish that the spending lacks pharmaceutical policy targets,” he said.

The February STAT report said lobbyists involved in “broader” efforts to influence the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have incorporated an “added political strategy” to their efforts.

These efforts include trying to influence the Trump administration on drug approvals, STAT reported at the time.

STAT cited Disc Medicine, a pharma company that “received an unfavorable decision” from the FDA — and promptly “hired its first lobbying firm” in January to “lobby lawmakers about ‘FDA approvals for rare diseases.’”

In an April interview, Kennedy said then-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary “made the correct decision” in rejecting the drug — but “everybody goes after him because the [pharmaceutical] industry’s so powerful.”

STAT also cited the FDA’s “flip-flop on Moderna’s application for its new flu shot.” The FDA rejected the application in February — but quickly reversed course. The reversal “seemed to only confirm the wisdom” of pharma lobbyists’ new strategy, STAT reported.

During a February interview with podcaster Theo Von, Kennedy said the FDA “was owned by Big Pharma and Big Food, and Marty Makary has changed that now.”

However, by May, Makary was ousted — as were other key FDA figures, including Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., who served as the agency’s top drug regulator, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who resigned from the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in April — for the second time.

Pharma pressure may have also led to Prasad’s first resignation, last year.

Prasad had signed off on the rejection of Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine two months earlier. But within two weeks, the FDA accepted Moderna’s application to license the vaccine. In June, an FDA advisory committee unanimously approved the shot.

Last year, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a leading biotech industry trade group, denied any knowledge of a leaked document purportedly containing the minutes of a meeting during which they plotted Kennedy’s potential ouster.

Manookian said these are signs that Big Pharma still holds tremendous sway. “I fear the Trump administration in general — not the Secretary of HHS — is far too deferential to industry, and the secretary’s hands are often tied in many ways.”

“At some point, Americans must ask: Is healthcare policy being written for patients — or for those who can afford the most influence?” O’Connor asked.

PhRMA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment by press time.

‘We Already Fought This Battle’: After Public Outcry, Pennsylvania Health Department Will Rethink Plan to Expand Powers

Following a wave of public opposition — including over 10,000 public comments — the Pennsylvania Department of Health has withdrawn its controversial proposal to grant itself substantially expanded powers during disease outbreaks.

The department had sought sweeping changes to Pennsylvania’s disease control regulations that would have allowed state health officials to impose stringent public health measures during outbreaks — including mandating masks, increasing vaccine surveillance and giving health officials access to students without their parents’ consent.

Commenting on the public response, state Sen. Doug Mastriano said in a statement:

“That is an extraordinary response, and a victory for the people of Pennsylvania. The citizens read what the government was proposing, remembered what happened during COVID-19 and spoke out, because we already fought this battle.”

Rather than proposing a bill and debating it in the General Assembly, the health department sought expanded powers by rewriting its regulations, typically a bureaucratic function.

But after the department submitted the proposal to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and opened it for public comment, more than 10,000 people and organizations submitted comments, the majority opposing the changes, according to Mastriano.

Among those who opposed the changes was a group of state senators who fired off a 40-page letter detailing their objections.

Late last week, the department said it would rewrite and resubmit the proposed changes at a future date.

Proposal followed COVID-era court loss

The health department began drafting the proposed changes in 2024, in part in response to a lawsuit it lost during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In November 2021, Pennsylvania parents sued the department over its attempt to institute a statewide mask mandate in schools.

In December 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the parents, ruling that the health department did not have the authority to impose a mask mandate. However, the court noted that the agency could change its regulations to give itself that authority in the future.

In 2021, Pennsylvania voters also approved two constitutional amendments via ballot referendum limiting the executive branch’s emergency powers, in direct response to executive and health agency mandates.

The proposal also came amid controversy over the state’s handling of an ongoing measles outbreak. By late September, the state had reported four “measles-associated deaths,” along with 792 confirmed cases and 155 hospitalizations as of Sept. 21.

The controversy began after the Pennsylvania Department of Health announced, on Aug. 25, its first two measles-associated deaths in 35 years. The department initially released few clinical details, stating only that the deaths were in unvaccinated Lancaster County residents.

Many people disputed the characterization of the deaths. The dispute intensified because one of the first cases involved a newborn who tested positive for measles but died with a lacerated spleen. The local coroner said the pathologist did not find that measles caused the death, while state health officials maintained their investigation supported labeling it measles-associated.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro blamed the deaths and the outbreak on declining vaccination rates and vaccine misinformation. He explicitly blamed U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and national health policy messaging under Kennedy’s leadership.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is working with state epidemiologists to create a standard definition for measles deaths, an effort that began before the controversy.

The CDC measles surveillance page lists only two recorded deaths in 2026, marked with an asterisk. The accompanying note says:

“This number is subject to change; CDC will update its reporting as additional information becomes available and relevant reviews are completed.”

The CDC did not indicate if the deaths were in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.

Roundup

In widely anticipated oral arguments today, the U.S. Supreme Court gave no clear signal as to whether it will side with Bayer, which is seeking to avoid lawsuits related to its Roundup weedkiller, or a lower court, which ordered Bayer to pay $1.25 million to a man who alleges Roundup caused his cancer.

At issue is whether pesticide companies are immune from lawsuits for failing to warn consumers about health harms if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t require the companies to include those warnings on their product labels.

Today’s arguments stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2019 against Monsanto by John Durnell, who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for years. Studies have linked glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Roundup, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Durnell sued Monsanto, which originally developed and marketed Roundup, for failing to warn users about the product’s cancer risk.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought the agrochemical giant Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018, has already paid more than $10 billion to resolve lawsuits filed against Monsanto before the acquisition. The company still faces more than 60,000 lawsuits in the U.S.

In 2023, a jury agreed with Durnell and ordered Monsanto to pay him $1.25 million. After Bayer appealed, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

On April 4, Bayer asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that federal law — specifically, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — preempts people from bringing state-law failure-to-warn claims against chemical companies, because the EPA doesn’t require Roundup to carry a cancer warning on its label.

The U.S. Department of Justice has sided with Bayer, arguing in an amicus brief that the Supreme Court should reverse the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.

If the court rules in Bayer’s favor, it would be nearly impossible to sue any pesticide maker for failing to warn consumers about health risks — even if the company knows about the risk — unless the EPA mandates a warning label on the product.

A favorable ruling for Bayer would reshape the national regulatory landscape and effectively limit one of the largest waves of tort litigation in American history.

Justice Brown Jackson cites 15-year interval between EPA product reviews

In today’s hearing, livestreamed on CHD.TV, the justices challenged both Bayer and Durnell’s attorneys’ views of the law.

Paul Clement, attorney for Monsanto, said the EPA has repeatedly concluded that Roundup does not require a cancer warning and that such a warning cannot be added without EPA approval.

The EPA assessed Roundup’s safety and decided what should be on its label when it registered the product for sale in the U.S., he said.

According to Clement, FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first gets EPA’s permission.

Ashley Keller, attorney for Durnell, disagreed. He said:

“After two briefs and a lot of podium time, Monsanto still hasn’t pointed to one word in FIFRA’s text that says the agency’s factual findings at registration create a requirement for labeling. That’s because the text repudiates that proposition in no uncertain terms.”

Keller pointed out that in a 2005 related pesticide case, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a pesticide can be registered and nevertheless misbranded, even if it uses the label the EPA approved at registration.

“Yet Monsanto now asks you for the opposite holding: that Roundup cannot be misbranded, as a matter of law, because the EPA found for the first time 50 years ago as a matter of fact that it is safe, based on information that Monsanto submitted,” Keller said.

Still, Clement maintained, people can’t bring a misbranding claim if the EPA approved the label.

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Clement’s stance, given that the EPA registers products every 15 years based on existing evidence.

“There’s a 15-year window between when that product has to be re-registered again and lots of things can happen in science,” during that time, Brown Jackson said.

She added:

“I’m just wondering why you think that you couldn’t have a situation where it would be perfectly rational for either the EPA or the states to bring to the attention of that manufacturer this new information and process a claim related to it.”

Citizens and activists hold ‘The People vs. Poison’ rally on court steps

Prior to the hearing, a large crowd gathered on the Supreme Courthouse steps for “The People vs. Poison” rally.

The rally featured over 30 speakers, including Vani Hari, an author and food activist known as the Food Babe, Informed Consent Action Network CEO Del Bigtree, several members of Congress, and Children’s Health Defense Senior Advocacy Manager Stephanie Locricchio.

Mark Doudlah, a sixth-generation Wisconsin farmer, spoke of how his father died of mantle cell lymphoma after years of pesticide-based farming. After his dad died, Mark transitioned Doudlah Farms to organic methods.

J.W. Glass, senior EPA policy specialist at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, cited evidence that the EPA’s pesticide safety process is “fundamentally broken.”

According to Glass, a Center for Biological Diversity analysis found that 98% of all pesticides sold in the U.S. that contain a probable or possible carcinogen carry no public health warning.

“For the sake of our families, for our children, for our earth, let’s hope this court today charts a different path. Let’s hope they look at the facts and not pesticide industry propaganda,” Glass said.

Watch the rally here on CHD.TV:

Sofie Dossi

@sofiedossi Day 1 at Coachella @missmejeans #MissME #MissMeFestival ♬ originalljud - 🎧

Help strengthen your lungs

Can you regain lung capacity with COPD? AI Overview Yes, you can significantly improve lung function, strength, and efficiency with COPD through specific breathing exercises, physical activity (like walking, biking, swimming), and pulmonary rehab, which helps you breathe better and manage breathlessness, though it won't cure the underlying disease. Focus on pursed-lip breathing, diaphragmatic breathing, and gentle aerobic exercise to make your lungs more efficient, build stamina, and strengthen breathing muscles, rather than resting, which can worsen the cycle of weakness.

RFk stands up!

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS Secretary

Editor’s note: In a post on X, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismantled claims made in a June 6 CNN article stating that the news team identified “258 randomized, controlled clinical trials of vaccines” and that “More than half of those studies — 153 — tested vaccines against placebos, and 127 of those studies used inert placebos.” Below is the full, unaltered text of Kennedy’s post.

Yesterday, I retired 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or ACIP, the @CDCgov external panel that wields the grave responsibility of adding new vaccines to the recommended childhood schedule. Over the coming days, I will use this platform to announce new members to populate ACIP. None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers. They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists who will make extremely consequential public health determinations by applying evidence-based decision-making with objectivity and common sense.

I will also be tweeting examples of the historical corruption at ACIP to help the public understand why this clean sweep was necessary.

The most outrageous example of ACIP’s malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children. Today, a compliant American child receives between 69 and 92 routine vaccines (depending on brand/dictated dosage) from conception to 18 years of age. This is up from 11 shots in 1986. ACIP has recommended each of these additional jabs without requiring placebo-controlled trials for any of them. This means that no one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing.

Many vaccine promoters have challenged this assertion. They are always wrong. Last week, @CNN, which has devolved into a shameless propagandist for Big Pharma, triumphantly announced that it had proof that my pronouncement that “there have been no placebo-controlled safety trials for any routine vaccines” was false. CNN gleefully proclaimed that it had found 257 placebo-controlled studies for routine vaccines.

So, allow me a moment to deconstruct CNN’s claims. Warning: this post may only be sufferable for science geeks like myself.

CNN is wrong. No routine injected vaccine on CDC’s schedule was licensed for children based on a placebo-controlled trial. In instances where a vaccine was used as a control, it too was never licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. That is not conjecture. It is a fact based on FDA’s clinical trial data. (See sirillp.com/noplacebo). As Secretary of @HHSGov, acknowledging this lamentable truth is part of my promise of radical transparency.

The 257 studies cited by CNN unwittingly reflect the lack of safety trials underpinning CDC’s schedule. Despite CNN’s worldwide effort to crowdsource trials with a placebo control (per @US_FDA/@CDCgov, an “inert substance”*), this list, on its face, reflects that 236 of the studies clearly did not use an “inert” safety comparator in a trial to license an injected routine vaccine for children on CDC’s schedule.**

For the remaining 21 studies CNN’s list claims used an inert injection, 9 plainly did not:

• RCT 251, 252 (Varivax) injected an antibiotic, neomycin – not inert.
• RCT 84, 97 (HPV-16 and 16/18) injected aluminum adjuvant – not inert.
• RCT 215 (Almevax) injected another vaccine – not inert.
• RCT 55 (Lyophilized PedvaxHIB) injected lactose, aluminum adjuvant, and thimerosal – not inert.
• RCT 197 (Salk vaccine) injected 199 solution, synthetic tissue culture, ethanol, phenol red, antibiotics, and formalin – not inert.***
• RCT 168 (Dow’s MMR) injected full vaccine minus virus, including all stabilizers, antibiotics, diluent, preservative, and buffers – not inert.****
• RCT 189 (Menveo) injected Tdap+saline or Menveo+saline – not inert.

For the remaining 12 listed studies which may have had an inert injection, none was a trial relied upon to license a routine vaccine on CDC’s childhood schedule:

• RCT 170, 171, 172 (MMR VaxPro), 228 (PCV11), 136 (Vaxigrip), 242 (Antitetanus), and 122 (Chinese flu shots) trialed vaccines never licensed in the U.S. nor relied upon to license a U.S. vaccine.
• RCT 124 (Fluzone IIV3), 102 (WVV/SPV), and 188 (Menveo) trials occurred after each respective vaccine was licensed, hence were not relied upon for their licensure.
• RCT 176 (Mumps vaccine) was not relied upon by the FDA to license the current MMR vaccine. (See MMR-II clinical trial report in link above.)
• RCT 53 (PRP-D) was for a vaccine withdrawn soon after its introduction and not relied upon by the FDA to license any U.S. vaccine.

While these 12 studies were not relied upon to license a routine vaccine on the CDC’s schedule, they do reflect that a placebo-controlled trial of a vaccine is possible. They also reflect what can be learned when a placebo trial is performed. For example: RCT 136 found the vaccine ineffective; RCT 122 found that “severe adverse effects occurred in 69 (0·6%, 95% CI 0·5–0·8) recipients of vaccine compared with one recipient (0·1%, 0–0·2) of placebo.”; and RCT 124 found “the rate of hospitalization was actually higher in the [Fluzone IIV3] vaccine group than in the placebo group.”

The unfortunate reality is that placebo-controlled trials, however, do not occur and have not been relied upon when FDA licenses vaccines for injection during childhood or ACIP recommends the shot for addition to the CDC’s routine schedule.

CNN would have reached the same conclusion had it reviewed the FDA documentation for each vaccine, instead of relying upon a random, crowd-sourced list from the internet. CNN’s list ironically proves the lack of adequate safety trials for routine childhood vaccines.

It is time to stop playing games, such as CNN’s false gotcha. We have gone from 3 routine injections by age one in 1986 (the year the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed) to 25 routine injections by age one in 2025 (which now does not include Covid-19 vaccine). Because of the 1986 Act, every one of these products, save one, was developed by companies knowing they would almost never be liable for serious harm. During this same period, chronic diseases in our children exploded, most of which are caused by immune system dysregulation. If we are to identify the exposures that are causing this epidemic of autoimmune diseases, we need to rule out products given dozens of times to young children, specifically to modify the immune system, as potential culprits.

Our infants and children deserve the best safety trials possible to keep them safe. We should care as much about every child who could be injured by one of these products as we do every child who could be injured by an infectious disease. We must protect all children.

Notes:

* fda.gov/media/130326/download… (“Placebos, defined as inert substances with no pharmacologic activity, are commonly used in double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.”); fda.gov/media/71349/download… (“the placebo control design, by … including a group that receives an inert treatment…”); cdc.gov/vaccines/glossary/… (“Placebo: A substance or treatment that has no effect on living beings, usually used as a comparison to vaccine or medicine in clinical trials.”).

** While the above addresses injected vaccines, CNN’s cited list also includes 10 trials for rotavirus vaccine, given by oral drops, but none of these trials used saline only drops. Instead, RCT 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213 (Rotarix) contained dextran, sorbitol, amino acids, dulbecco’s modified eagle medium, calcium carbonate, and xanthan; RCT 211, 212 (RotaTeq) contained polysorbate 80, sucrose, citrate and phosphate; and RCT 206, 214 (Rotavac) included neomycin sulphate, kanamycin acid sulphate, trehalose, lactalbumin hydrolysate, human albumin, potassium dihydrogen orthophosphate, dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate, and trisodium citrate dihydrate. The list also included three trials of an inhaled flu vaccine; the controls in RCT 104 were OPV+saline or LAIV (a vaccine), hence neither inert; in RCT 106 the control “consisted of normal allantoic fluid harvested from uninfected eggs stabilized with sucrose–phosphate–glutamate”; and, in RCT 109, the control was “intranasal spray of egg allantoic fluid containing sucrose-phosphate-glutamate.”

*** Note that the current polio vaccines used in the U.S. are a different product than the polio vaccine developed by Jonas Salk in the 1950s—which was discontinued in the 1960s—including because the currently-used polio vaccines are “grown in vero cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells cultivated on microcarriers.”

Hence, the Salk trial was not relied upon to license any current polio vaccine. fda.gov/media/75695/download…; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6740101/; https://‌admin.phe-culturecollections.org.uk‌media/1222‌49/‌vero-cell-line-profile.pdf; atcc.org/products/all/ccl-81.aspx#characteristics….

**** Dow Chemical’s MMR vaccine used different strains than any licensed U.S. MMR vaccine and also, after 14 days of safety review, this trial vaccinated all participants.

Selling at Amazon

I been toying with being an associate at Amazon, being that I've been buying from them for over ten years now. I have a business account for my Electrical Business, and my personal account. I did buy a few things through Facebook ads and Tic Tok, but was left disappointed as one item, a bar of shampoo to darken your hair (I'm grey as hell) never showed up and the company will not respond to my emails.

Gaming for Everybody

Tina Hamilton Council At Large.

Help Bring Nicole McKnight Home

I am reaching out to anyone and everyone who reads this to consider doanting whatever you can to help with funeral expenses for a dear friend of mine's daughter. Nicole was found dead in her California apartment on Wednsday, January 11rh. Her young son, next to her, stroking her hair. There is an active investigation and we are awaiting the toxicology reports for a final determination of death. An autopsy was already preformed and now we need to fly her home here Pennsylvania for a proper funeral. ANY amount, even five bucks, helps and would be greatly appreciated!

Just A Reminder

Yuo know I've been sick lately battling COPD and in need of a lung transplant, so I have not been up to posting much anywhere, but THIS shit caught my attention, after being at the Wawa at Bishop & Baltimore and looking at bare shelves. Never in my 60 years on this planet have seen this.

 Joe Biden in my opinion stole the Presidency. Well, not him, he's too damn stupid, but a well orchestrated attack involving the CCP or whomever in multiple states including right here in Delaware County, had who I believe as our duly elected President, tossed out and Joe the clown inserted. So tell me, where is the Chain of custody here Democrats of Delaware County?