I've examined four recent articles.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and outspoken critic of mainstream vaccination strategies, published four in late 2025, with focus on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, childhood immunization schedules, and public health policies. Drawing from peer-reviewed studies, legal filings, and critiques of health authorities, he argues for greater scrutiny, transparency, and potential withdrawal of certain vaccines.

In "BREAKING: Our CENSORED Study Showing mRNA Injections Induce Severe Genetic Disruption Linked to Cancer and Chronic Disease Is Now Peer-Reviewed and Published," co-authored by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, the post details a study that allegedly faced censorship before its eventual publication.

The research, conducted by a team including McCullough, analyzed RNA profiles from 10 patients experiencing new-onset adverse events or cancers post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, compared to 803 healthy controls. Using bulk RNA sequencing and advanced analyses like DESeq2 and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis, the study found "massive gene dysregulation" affecting thousands of genes.

Key findings include mitochondrial dysfunction, ribosomal stress from modified mRNA bases (e.g., N1-methylpseudouridine), proteasome overload due to persistent spike protein, and oncogenic activation via MYC upregulation and suppression of tumor suppressors like p53 and KRAS. Both adverse event and cancer groups showed shared issues like chronic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, with the cancer cohort exhibiting additional genomic instability and potential integration of vaccine mRNA or plasmid DNA via LINE-1 activity. The authors claim these disruptions persist for months to years, increasing risks of cancer, immune disorders, and inflammatory conditions. A direct quote emphasizes: "mRNA vaccines can induce gene expression profiles consistent with tumor formation and chronic disease.

"The post frames this as a victory against the "Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex" and "PubPeer mob," alleging coordinated censorship that withdrew the preprint from MDPI and ResearchGate despite high readership. Originally one of the most-downloaded preprints, it was published in the World Journal of Experimental Medicine (DOI: 10.5493/wjem.v15.i4.113869). McCullough and Hulscher call for immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccines and RICO investigations into academic censorship. This narrative underscores broader concerns about scientific suppression, though critics might argue the study's small sample size limits generalizability.

The second post, "BREAKING: CDC Sued for Pushing Illegal 72-Dose Childhood Vaccine Schedule," reports on a federal lawsuit filed by pediatricians Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, alongside Stand for Health Freedom, against the CDC.

The suit accuses the agency of promoting a schedule exceeding 72 doses without cumulative safety testing, labeling it an "illegal and unconstitutional hyper-vaccination program.
"Arguments center on the absence of long-term studies evaluating combined effects, despite Institute of Medicine warnings in 2002 and 2013. The CDC and FDA are faulted for not conducting such research, violating the Administrative Procedure Act through "arbitrary and capricious rulemaking." Constitutional claims include First Amendment violations (silencing dissenting doctors) and Fifth Amendment breaches (infringing bodily integrity). The post highlights retaliation: Thomas's license suspension shortly after his vaccinated-vs.-unvaccinated study, and Stoller's revocation for exemptions based on genetic risks. It notes the Health and Human Services (HHS) has failed to submit biennial vaccine safety reports to Congress since 1998, as required by law.

If successful, the lawsuit seeks to reclassify childhood vaccines to Category B (shared decision-making), mandate vaccinated-vs.-unvaccinated safety studies, and protect physicians granting exemptions. Nicolas Hulscher, MPH describes this as a potential "major victory for families seeking vaccine exemptions and for physicians fighting to practice real individualized medicine." No specific data on harms is presented here, but the post ties into broader vaccine skepticism, emphasizing ethical imperatives for evidence-based mandates. This aligns with growing calls for personalized medicine, though public health experts often defend schedules for preventing outbreaks.

Post three; Focal Points: "Former CDC Director Mandy Cohen Pushes States to Bolster Immunization Requirements" critiques an essay by Cohen in the New England Journal of Medicine (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2517029), where she urges states to strengthen mandates amid federal changes under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

McCullough argues Cohen's stance relies on "false assumptions," such as vaccines halting transmission and providing durable protection without risks.

Cohen warns that loosening requirements could revive diseases like measles and polio, citing spikes in pertussis and regional measles clusters linked to rising exemptions. She frames vaccination as a "covenant" for community immunity, advocating modernized registries, side-effect transparency, and trust-building via local channels like pediatricians and clergy. A quote from Cohen: "Vaccination is not an imposition on freedom; it is freedom’s defense — proof that our care for one another is still larger than our fear of each other.

"McCullough counters that Cohen ignores historical disease control without vaccines (e.g., tuberculosis via sanitation), vaccine side effects (ADHD, autism, seizures), and modern treatments. He cites a 2023 University of Pennsylvania study showing 71% of Americans doubt COVID-19 vaccine safety, and accuses the CDC of misclassifying vaccinated measles cases. Labeling her views "authoritarian," McCullough ties them to his book Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality, promoting faith-based acceptance over choice. The post calls for subscriptions to support "medical freedom," reflecting tensions between collective health and individual rights in post-pandemic policy.4. Study on Infant Vaccination and Mortality Risk

Finally, "BREAKING STUDY: Infant Vaccination Increases Death Risk by Up to 112% vs Unvaccinated" discusses research by Drs. Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker analyzing Louisiana data on 1,225 infant deaths.

The study links 2-month vaccinations to higher mortality odds in the following month, comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated infants.

Using immunization and death registries, findings show +60% to +68% higher death odds for those receiving five or six vaccines (e.g., DTaP, HepB, Hib). Individual risks: Rotavirus +74% (p=0.0005), DTaP +42%. Subgroups face amplified dangers: females +112% for six vaccines, Black infants +68%. Combination products like Vaxelis® showed +153% overall risk. Hulscher states: "Not only do the vaccinated experience far higher rates of chronic disease... but they now also appear to die at higher rates.

"The authors demand replication across states as an "ethical imperative," challenging claims that harms are undetectable. This builds on vaccinated-vs.-unvaccinated comparisons, though methodological critiques (e.g., confounding factors like healthcare access) are common in such studies.

These posts coalesce around themes of vaccine risks, institutional bias, and calls for reform. McCullough's platform amplifies studies suggesting genetic, oncologic, and mortality harms, while decrying censorship and mandates. They advocate withdrawals, investigations, and personalized approaches, citing data gaps and historical precedents. However, these views contrast with consensus from bodies like the WHO and CDC, which affirm vaccine safety through extensive trials. As debates intensify—especially with RFK Jr.'s influence—independent verification remains crucial. Parents and policymakers should consult diverse sources for balanced decisions.

To hear more from Dr Peter McCullough check out our exclusive podcast 'Dr. Peter McCullough Fighting for medical freedom through Scientific Data Analysis' interview Ep 318

Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.