Over the past few days, the following topics attracted our attention:
Renowned US Doctors Are Calling for a Ban on mRNA Vaccines
Finnish Research: Psychiatric Needs Increase Following Gender Reassignment
EU Countries Push to Streamline European Legislation
Renowned US Doctors Are Calling for a Ban on mRNA Vaccines
Hundreds of doctors, scientists and activists in the United States are calling on President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ban mRNA vaccines. Those who signed the open letter explained that voters from the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) and health freedom movements helped bring the current administration to power, and that banning mRNA vaccines has been their central objective. They criticised the President and the Secretary for failing to take decisive action, despite ample credible evidence that mRNA products are harmful. They warn that continued inaction will erode support and carry a high political cost.
The signatories therefore demand that politicians ban mRNA and gene-therapy-derived technologies in all vaccines and terminate the PREP Act declaration covering COVID-19 injections, as no emergency exists. They further call for Congress to repeal the PREP Act entirely, citing constitutional conflicts, and for a ban on pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising. At the same time, they urge a review of healthcare policies that create incentives for medical coercion.
Among the signatories is, for example, the cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who believes COVID-19 vaccines have caused catastrophic harm and that their use should be discontinued. Dr Malhotra initially supported the government’s vaccination programme and publicly promoted the vaccines. As evidence mounted, he changed his mind and joined the critics, becoming convinced that mRNA vaccines have done more harm than good. The letter has also been signed by Robert W. Malone, who was involved in the early development of mRNA technology and who got vaccinated himself at the start of the pandemic, but soon changed his mind and began publicly criticising the rapid roll-out, questioning claims about efficacy and safety. Cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough has also signed. In an interview with the Freedom Research, he described how a research paper on COVID-19 vaccine safety - in which he was involved and which identified serious side effects - was censored. He has stated that those who have already had the disease are already immune and do not need the vaccine - a claim that was denied and labelled false at the time. He also explained as early as spring 2021 that he does not recommend vaccination for pregnant women, as there was no information on safety and efficacy, nor for those under 30, for whom the disease poses little risk.
In the letter, the signatories highlighted that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has been administered to more than 50 million Americans this year, including 7 million children. They state that there are still no studies proving that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation or death. Conversely, they point to a wealth of data indicating adverse health effects (see also here, here, here, here, here, here), including child deaths, of which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far acknowledged at least ten.
Furthermore, the signatories object to the appointment of Erica Schwartz to lead the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because she affirmed the safety and efficacy of mRNA technology during a Senate hearing. In the signatories’ view, it is not possible to conclude that measures implemented under an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) or ongoing PREP Act declaration are safe and effective (see also here). “No technology can be presumptively deemed safe or effective for medical applications for all people or all ages and health statuses,” the letter states.
The letter criticises the fact that people who have suffered health damage from mRNA vaccines have not received effective assistance, and that no up-to-date statistics on cancer prevalence have been compiled, despite rising concerns of cancer cases linked to mRNA vaccines. Instead, the Department of Health has signed contracts worth $1.24 billion with Pfizer for future mRNA vaccines, including paediatric vaccines, and has approved a new mRNA flu vaccine.
According to the signatories, the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in August this year is inadequate. Whilst it reduced the recommended childhood vaccination schedule from 17 to 11, the pneumococcal and HPV vaccines were at the same time moved into the universal core recommendation. The signatories find the inclusion of the HPV vaccine particularly surprising, as Merck recently reached a $50 million settlement with 200 claimants who alleged that the Gardasil HPV vaccine caused autoimmune disorders.
The signatories are convinced that mRNA products must be removed from the market. In their view, this is substantiated by numerous sources, including more than 4,550 peer-reviewed publications, Pfizer documents disclosed in legal proceedings led by lawyer Aaron Siri, the VAERS and V-safe databases, and data from other countries (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). These sources, they claim, document numerous deaths and serious complications, including an approximate 400 per cent increase in the miscarriage rate (see also here). The signatories draw attention to the fact that, according to the CDC, vaccination against the COVID-19 is no longer recommended for healthy pregnant women. At the same time, pregnancy remains among the FDA’s high-risk health categories for which vaccination is recommended. Moreover, even the new versions of mRNA vaccines are recommended for pregnant women, although, in the signatories’ view, their safety has never been properly studied or proven. Nor has the CDC’s recommendation to vaccinate children, with the exception of those labelled ‘healthy’, gone away; even a minor health issue can exclude the ‘healthy’ classification.
Finnish Research: Psychiatric Needs Increase Following Gender Reassignment
A peer-reviewed study led by Professor Riittakerttu Kaltiala of Tampere University Hospital in Finland and published in Acta Paediatrica found that psychiatric morbidity rose sharply after medical gender reassignment - more than sixfold among those undergoing feminising treatment and more than twofold among those undergoing masculinising treatment. The authors concluded: “Severe psychiatric morbidity is common among gender-referred adolescents and appears to be more prevalent in those referred after the recent surge in referrals. Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment.”
The study examined the prevalence of severe psychiatric morbidity among adolescents with gender-related concerns, including outcomes after medical treatment. Researchers followed 2,083 young people under 23 who contacted national gender identity services between 1996 and 2019, for an average of six years (maximum 25). Of these, 481 sought transition to female and 1,602 to male; 796 (38.2%) underwent medical gender reassignment. Results were compared with 16,643 matched controls. Gender-referred youth already showed a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (45.7% vs 15%) before treatment, and the gap remained two or more years later (61.7% vs 14.6%).
Psychiatric needs did not decrease after medical treatment. On the contrary, morbidity increased markedly in the treated group: among men who had undergone transition to female, it rose from 9.8% to 60.7%, and among women who had undergone transition to male, from 21.6% to 54.5%. The researchers therefore concluded that for some individuals “the medical procedure appears to be associated with a deterioration in mental health.”
The researchers accounted for previous psychiatric history and concluded that every gender-referred young person, regardless of medical procedures, carried higher ongoing psychiatric risk. This finding does not support claims that earlier transition produces greater mental-health improvement or that transition is beneficial or vitally necessary (Coleman et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Jelinek, 2025). Instead, the authors noted that gender dysphoria does not appear to be the primary cause of the psychiatric disorders observed, but rather a consequence.
A clear difference emerged between earlier and later referrals. Those referred after 2010 -when Finnish referrals rose tenfold - arrived with greater pre-existing needs: 47.9% had already required specialist psychiatric care before their first clinic visit. Their needs remained high two years later (61.3%), while the control figures were 15.3% before and 14.2% after. The researchers interpret this as evidence that, for some adolescents, mental-health problems may manifest as gender-identity concerns.
Overall, the long-term register data show that adolescents referred for gender-related issues had substantially more psychiatric disorders than controls, irrespective of sex. Those referred after 2010 were more severely affected than earlier cohorts. Among those who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric treatment needs increased after the intervention. Consequently, a growing number of adolescents referred for gender-affirming care already present with severe psychiatric morbidity. The researchers judge that this rise cannot be explained by improved diagnosis alone, as no comparable increase occurred in the control group.
EU Countries Push to Streamline European Legislation
Thirteen EU Member States have signed an Austrian-led initiative calling on the EU to cut unnecessary administrative burdens and simplify regulations. Existing rules should be systematically reviewed and thoroughly streamlined. New ones should be introduced only if absolutely necessary and after their impact on business has been assessed in advance, writes Euronews.
The non-paper has been signed by Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Greece, Finland and Slovakia. The countries urge Brussels to draft new EU legislation that is simple, workable, proportionate, evidence-based and supportive of innovation and investment confidence. Sector by sector, it should be checked whether existing rules are still needed, require updating, or merely create burdens without real value. “EU legislation cannot be an end in itself. Therefore, regulatory restraint to avoid over-regulation and the introduction of new administrative burdens is a condition for sound EU law-making,” the document states.
The 15 signatories also want new EU laws systematically assessed for their effect on economic competitiveness. New rules should be adopted at EU level only when objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved nationally. Legislation should create added value, respect Union competences, and be proportionate, coherent, legally predictable and favourable to a business environment where European companies can invest, innovate and grow. Proportionality is described as a principle whereby the financial and administrative burden must not exceed what is necessary, and the least burdensome effective option should be preferred.
The countries call for a European Year of Implementation and Consolidation focused on applying and simplifying existing legislation, evaluating cumulative burdens, harmonising enforcement, cutting duplicative reporting, and making only indispensable amendments. They want the EU to prioritise high-quality, enforceable and predictable rules over regulatory density. New regulations should include a mandatory review clause, for example at least every five years, to check whether objectives have been met. “It is of the utmost importance to avoid cumulative complexity that risks weakening the effectiveness and, as a result, the legitimacy of EU action, whilst also reducing the attractiveness of the EU Single Market as a place to do business and invest,” the document states.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has stressed the need for simplification in her second term. The Commission has accordingly presented several “omnibus” packages covering areas from AI rules to climate obligations. However, each Commission initiative seems to have added to the number of proposed rules and regulations.