Posted on 06/18/2025 8:36:27 AM PDT by grundle
One of the most powerful figures at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admitted she refused the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine while pregnant, even as her agency promoted it as “safe and effective” for all pregnant women.
Dr. Sara Brenner’s explosive disclosure, made on May 15 at the MAHA Institute Round Table in Washington, D.C., is as revealing as it is troubling.
Brenner, a preventive medicine physician, has worked at the FDA since 2019. As the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner — and briefly its acting commissioner — Brenner was at the center of decision-making.
Prior to that, she was chief medical officer for diagnostics and was detailed to the White House to support the Biden administration’s COVID-19 response. She didn’t just participate in the pandemic response, she helped shape it from within.
“Knowing what I knew — not only about nanotechnology, about medicine, about the medical countermeasures — but also having a very strong and firm grounding in bioethics … there were many things that were not right,” she told the audience.
That someone with her seniority and access to internal data privately rejected the vaccine, while her agency promoted it to millions of pregnant women, presents a profound ethical dilemma.
Brenner’s concerns about mRNA safety
Brenner explained that her decision was driven by a lack of safety data, particularly around the biodistribution of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) — the tiny fat particles used to deliver the mRNA into cells.
“It was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products were … That was my primary concern, and that exposure I was very concerned about,” said Brenner.
She had reason to be cautious.
As a nanomedicine expert who built an M.D./Ph.D. program in the field, Brenner had spent years researching the “biodistribution, excretion, metabolism and toxicities associated with engineered nanoparticles.”
“Materials that don’t exist in nature — there’s a lot of unknowns,” said Brenner.
She warned that unintended toxic effects — especially in vulnerable populations like pregnant women — could not be ignored.
“Regardless of the medical product or the intervention, there’s always going to be the need to evaluate both the intended outcomes … and the unintended consequences,” she cautioned.
Warnings ignored
Brenner’s concerns echoed those raised in 2021 by Canadian immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle, who first exposed internal documents from Japan’s regulatory agency showing that LNPs didn’t remain at the injection site, but traveled throughout the body and accumulated in organs including the ovaries, liver, spleen and bone marrow.
At the time, Bridle’s warnings were aggressively dismissed. His reputation took a hit, and he faced institutional censure from the University of Guelph, where he was a professor, for speaking out against vaccine mandates.
Now, Brenner’s comments confirm that these concerns were not only valid — they were quietly shared at the highest levels of the FDA.
During the event, Brenner also revealed that her worries extended to breastfeeding and potential exposure to her child after birth.
A 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics detected vaccine-derived mRNA in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers for at least 48 hours — the very scenario Brenner had feared.
Yet the FDA made little effort to publicly investigate or address the findings, dismissing them with the vague reassurance that there was “no evidence of harm.”
No mandate for Brenner?
It’s unclear how Brenner managed to avoid the vaccine mandate that applied to all federal employees at the time. She didn’t say. Perhaps she received a religious or medical exemption — but she left that part out.
What she did reveal was that she had concerns — deep enough not to take the vaccine during her pregnancy. Yet she said nothing publicly, while her agency told millions of other women it was safe.
For many, that silence is hard to accept and it has left many asking why she didn’t warn other women about a product with “zero” clinical safety data in pregnancy.
No one but Brenner knows the full story. But the ethical contradiction is hard to ignore.
Silence inside the castle
Brenner acknowledged the immense pressure inside the FDA to stick to the official narrative.
“They don’t let you get very far out of the castle at FDA with your talking points,” she admitted nervously.
She described the period as a “dark night of the soul” for many civil servants, a time when even “very obvious things” took bravery to say.
She eventually found support through a group called Feds for Medical Freedom — federal workers advocating for informed consent, bodily autonomy and pushing back against government overreach.
A culture change?
Today, under a new administration, Brenner says the culture inside the FDA is shifting. She praised Commissioner Marty Makary and said transparency is finally becoming a priority.
“We’re moving very quickly to make it such that there will be more transparency … so that people can see and evaluate for themselves what the truths are.”
But Brenner’s remarks won’t undo what has already happened — especially to those who were vaccine injured or whose pregnancies were affected.
Her comments offer a rare glimpse into the internal dynamics of a government institution that issued sweeping public assurances while failing to acknowledge its own uncertainty.
“There was no acknowledgement of what was unknown. There were only statements and assertions that were really more like beliefs,” Brenner said of the FDA’s messaging during the pandemic.
That may be her most important admission.
This is more than a story about one woman’s personal decision. It is a story about institutional culture, regulatory failure and the consequences of silence.
Those who spoke up were punished. Those who stayed silent kept their jobs and reputations. And those who were forced to comply were often left to deal with the collateral damage.
When asked whether she believed she had made the right decision in refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, Brenner replied simply, “I believe so.”
Now that she has spoken, the question remains — who else knew, and said nothing?
My daughter was pregnant, and a nurse during Covid. She refused the shot and had to give up her job. She never regretted it.
This POS needs to be sued into poverty if not imprisoned for mass murder.
Shameful time when the political narrative took primacy over over real science. The FDA and CDC under Biden were run by commissars. History will link Lysenko and Fauci together forever.
How ironic.
Weren’t FDA employees exempted from the vaxx mandates?
Like the USPS….and Congress
“Science” became a religion.
A bad religion.
Governments bragged about how many/percentage of citizens they suckered into getting the COVID poison
This whole thing reeks
First- who believed that Biden won that election. Who believed it was he alone and not the vast and ancient network of people who are above and beyond the law
Who would take any order from them. They are third reich like Period. By all measures
What pregnant woman has to work. Well…most. That is out of order. Why don’t they get married after their prospective husbands can afford a family? Why do we accept as normal something that was out of order since biblical times until 30 years ago?
Anyone who cannot quit their job over an unethical order does not have enough assets to walk away from it.
This economy is so out of control that most are slaves
Say no. And walk away
I know of two young ladies that miscarried during Covid. I don’t know their shot status, but knowing the circumstances around each family I’m sure they were “vaccinated”.
at least she kept her job
that is the reason she kept her mouth shut
thats the important thing right?
i mean
priorities
“This POS needs to be sued into poverty if not imprisoned for mass murder.”
Agreed.
She didn’t say a thing, and kept taking the paycheck.
This is still going on and shows no signs of stopping. Sadly, it likely will never be past tense.
I don’t blame her.
So she was unusually well and fully informed as to the dangers of the nano particles in the vaccines.
Significantly, her focus was primarily on the nano particle delivery systems and not the toxicity and hazards of the spike proteins themselves.
We now know that the spike proteins are very toxic and can do destroy, irreparable and permanent damage to the brain, organ/nervous systems and especially immune systems.
So just the nano particle delivery systems toxicity and hazards were enough to scare her off from the shots.
Rest assured that she was not the only one in the government and media vax pusher system that used their high level position to reject the shot mandates with impunity
I’m sure she didn’t, but she never should have had to make that choice. Even if they didn’t want her on the front line, I am sure there were plenty of jobs where a nurse was needed. Is she back at it now,?
Here’s Oz pitching higher Medicaid requirements as a great healthcare bill, without their mentioning or touching the repeal of the PREP Act that made all the jab coercion possible!
https://rumble.com/v6uyxuf-dr.-oz-details-most-ambitious-health-reform-bill-ever.html?e9s=src_v1_upp
Easier said than done. Throwing one's career away, upending your life, jeopardizing your marriage and family is a hell of a choice in the face of bald-faced fascism. "No one was forced to get the shot" because no one was physically held down in a chair
What I did was this: My company tried to force me to get the shot because Biden put the pressure on companies to comply with the vaccine mandate if they had ANY government contracts, basically stating that by extension all of a companies employees are federal contractors. It didn't matter I did not work on any federal projects nor that I worked 100% remote, I had to get the shot.
Then I applied for a religious exemption. Which if you thing about it is so egregious that I had to justify my religious belief and explain them in detail I really should sue the company because they are holding onto privileged information that was garnered thru an unconstitutional order.
Anyway, after that there was no word as everyone was waiting on SCOTUS which came through for me.
My mindset was this "call their bluff and wait it out - make them fire me - why make it easier for them and quit"
The question is this. As I said above. Why is any pregnant woman dependent on her job
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.