Jeremy R. Hammond

Mainstream narratives frame the debate. I challenge the framework. US foreign policy, market interventionism, and “public health”—analyzed outside the false left/right paradigm. Subscribe free ↓ jeremyrhammond.com/newsletter/

@MikeKon219 But you literally provided 0 such studies.

@jeremyrhammond Your choice to ignore the dozens of safety studies, especially in combination with all suggesting safety and efficacy

What they don't tell pregnant women is that maternal immune activation risks harm to the fetus. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22mater…

@paultiseo @SteveCl58542482 Actually, how it works in a free market economy is if you have a good product, you don't need government subsidies and legal immunity.

@jeremyrhammond @SteveCl58542482 It's literally how public service works economically. To call it gibberish is just typical anti-vax facile dismissal because there's no arguing the basic truth.

The reason mRNA technology requires taxpayer funding and liability protections is because the vaccine industry couldn't get away with it in a free market.

@MikeKon219 If the vaccine caused fetal death, the women were excluded in this study. Offspring health outcomes were not considered, only birth weight and size.

@jeremyrhammond Here is one.. there are more.. no increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes... Infants less infections and hospitalizations pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC94…

@MikeKon219 Your sample size is 0.

@jeremyrhammond These are just a small sample.. you can do your research if that interested

@MikeKon219 This did not compare health outcomes of children born to mothers who were vaccinated during pregnancy with those born to mothers who received no vaccines.

@jeremyrhammond There were multiple studies during Covid comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Vaccinated pregnancy had better outcomes pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC97…

@MikeKon219 I asked for one.

@jeremyrhammond How many safety studies do you need, in addition to other active and passive safety monitoring systems? Worldwide use for decades with most. Outcomes data greatly favoring vaccines for moms and babies

@paultiseo @SteveCl58542482 Economically illiterate gibberish does not equal a "plausible reason".

@jeremyrhammond @SteveCl58542482 I get your anti-vax-necessary take, but there are other, more plausible reasons: that the product's value is too broad for a traditional transaction to capture, and that it becomes a public service, such as national defense or roads.

@IamTheTrashMan @itsajin You just provided a list of zero studies demonstrating a mortality benefit of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

So are you talking about all cause mortality? The Cochrane systematic review (Graña et al., 2022) of 41 RCTs found that the Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) vaccine probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09–0.67; high-certainty evidence). Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines. Graña C, Ghosn L, Evrenoglou T, et al. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022;12:CD015477. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD015477. Studies cited earlier on decreased mortality from COVID 19: PMID: 35324878 - Tenforde et al., MMWR 2022 mRNA vaccine effectiveness against invasive mechanical ventilation or in-hospital death was 90% overall (88% for 2 doses, 94% for 3 doses) among adults hospitalized during March 2021-January 2022. Protection remained 94% during the Omicron period with 3 doses. PMID: 35974428 - Nasreen et al., Clinical Infectious Diseases 2023 Canadian multiprovincial study of 2.5 million participants showed vaccine effectiveness of 83% after first dose and 98% after second dose against both hospitalization and death. Effectiveness was 98% ≥112 days after second mRNA dose. PMID: 34417165 - Chung et al., BMJ 2021 Ontario study of 324,033 symptomatic individuals found vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission or death was 70% ≥14 days after one dose, increasing to 91% at ≥35 days, and 98% ≥7 days after two doses. PMID: 37741761 - Fu et al., Vaccine 2023 Analysis of 10.4 million patients from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative showed that even a single dose of mRNA vaccine offered protection against death across all variant periods (Pre-Delta, Delta, Omicron), demonstrating sustained survival benefit. PMID: 40749700 - Hansen et al., Lancet Infectious Diseases 2025 Danish nationwide study of JN.1-adapted vaccines showed effectiveness against death of 76.2% for BNT162b2 and 95.8% for mRNA-1273 up to 4 months post-vaccination, despite variant mismatch.

@ronyan1 This is a narrow-minded perspective.

@jeremyrhammond Measles cases completely crashed after vaccine uptake became widespread. You don't get bad outcomes from the disease if you don't have the disease in the first place. Other causes of reductions in disease outcomes are good, and vaccination is also good. ✅✅

The decline in measles deaths in the 20th century mostly occurred before the vaccine—but the New York Times wants you to think otherwise. #HealthFreedom jeremyrhammond.com/2026/04/28/new…

@DrNice2026 Liar. Try reading articles before trying to rebut them, dumbass.

@jeremyrhammond The MORBIDITY due to measles and the burden of the disease was relieved with broad vaccination. Mr. Hammond cannot admit this.

@MikeKon219 Show me a study comparing offspring health outcomes between mothers vaccinated during pregnancy and mothers who weren't. Your link doesn't contain any.

@jeremyrhammond What you don't mention is that vaccines are studied during pregnancy specifically, and recommended vaccines show improved outcomes and good safety. healthychildren.org/English/ages-s…

@Chrystalos So much bullcrap in your comment -- where to start? Well, yes, public vaccine policies do violate the right to informed consent, as demonstrated in the article that you didn't bother reading before trying vainly to rebut it.

@jeremyrhammond So much bullcrap in this comment- where to start: There are no policies that violate your right to informed consent. You just made that up. Shame on you. Nobody is ever "forced" to get vaccinated. And your spellings are incorrect. It's "derogatory", "deception" and "coercion".

"Anti-vaxxer" is a deragatory label mainstream media use to dismiss advocates of the right to informed consent. Public vaccine policies result in the systematic violation of this right. The "public health" establishment's goal is not to provide information for people to be able to make a truly informed choice but to achieve the policy goal of high uptake. When deception fails, states resort to coersion. Informed consent cannot occur under conditions of deceptino and coersion. Learn more about how the government violates this fundamental human right 👇 jeremyrhammond.com/2019/04/27/how…

@provaxtexan Nope. The IOM observed that some children are more susceptible to vaccine injury than others. It also acknowledged the possibility of vaccine injury manifesting as symptoms of autism in susceptible subpopulations of children.

@jeremyrhammond Nope you are the one saying certain children are succeptabile to autism caused by vaccines. You are the one who needs to set that criteria or admit you don't even know if such children exist

"Vaccines do not cause autism." That’s what we’re told. Studies have proven it. Well, I’ve investigated that body of literature over the course of many years, and here's the truth: No studies have been designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to CDC or AAP recommendations can contribute to the development of autism in susceptible subpopulations of children. Consequently, it is not logically possible for the hypothesis to have been falsified. I succinctly illuminated that reality in a special presentation for twp.ai/9OUfrr’s show "Doctors & Scientists" with Dr. Brian Hooker. Highlighting two particularly useful examples, I also revealed how studies are designed to find no association. "This is such an important presentation. Jeremy is a good friend of CHD, a good friend of mine, and you really need to watch this." — Dr. Brian Hooker Watch my presentation "A Tale of Two Studies" on twp.ai/9OUfrr 👇 twp.ai/4hpQfn

@BurgerLab12 It's true that I advocate the right to informed consent.

@jeremyrhammond I'm not in mainstream media, or any media, and you're an anti-vaxxer. Mostly because you suffer from the MindVirus of our time - that Libertarianism can be more than a virtue of society (as it absolutely should be), and can be a functional political/ economic system

@SteveCl58542482 @paultiseo Yes, I know why the government granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity: to protect "public health" policy and shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical companies and onto the taxpaying consumers.

@jeremyrhammond @paultiseo Internet (ARPANET), GPS, MRI scanners, lithium-ion batteries, mRNA vaccines — all built on government-funded basic research, later turned into everyday products by private industry. And you know why vaccine manufacturers were granted immunity. It’s not rocket science.

@KStateTurk My screenshots are from the first and second article appearing in the list of search results. You didn't look at them, did you. x.com/jeremyrhammond…

@jeremyrhammond My screenshot was from the second article that YOU cited. You didn't read any of them did you? Like I said a massive self own.

What is the health care system designed for? Is it designed to produce a healthy population? The data answer that question for us. No, that's not what the system is designed for. It is designed to produce dependency on pharmaceutical products. A big obstacle to solving this problem is that people blame it on free market capitalism. But the real problem is the ABSENCE of a free market in health care — all of the government interventionism into the market. This includes the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which granted broad legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers and shifted the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from Big Pharma and onto the taxpaying consumers. The goal of public vaccine policy is a high vaccination rate — not a healthy childhood population. I explained why those two goals conflict with each other in this discussion with Nico Lagan: 👇 twp.ai/4hpPhs

@nj4rfk You are just replying to my observation about Grok's error by sticking with Grok's error.

The issue is not that Grok has identified these fallacies, but that your text is relying on them. The question is as usual whether this flaw is intentional or not? Nobody should be using LLMs for thinking, obviously. However, in this case Grok is processing your text as a competent reader. As such, it shows a several ways how exactly your text is misleading.

Most have given up trying, but some people are still trying to defend Israel's genocide in Gaza—by denying it's happened. #ForeignPolicy jeremyrhammond.com/2026/04/23/add…

Learn more about how the CDC has served Big Pharma by employing a marketing strategy of fear and deception to increase demand for flu shots. 👇 twp.ai/4hpQlT 5/5

What happend was that those at higher risk of death were disproportionately pooled into the "unvaccinated" cohort. See, it wasn't that elderly people were less likely to die during that flu season if they got the flu shot. Instead, elderly people so sick or frail that they were likely to soon die were less likely to get the flu shot. 4/5

The CDC has previously claimed that studies show that flu shots are highly effective at preventing influenza-related deaths among the elderly. That was curious because the observable trend in the data was an INCREASE in flu-related deaths as vaccination coverage increased among the elderly. 1/5