A U.S. Army doctor has testified that she is working with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to investigate whether COVID-19 vaccines caused deaths among American military personnel. The reported inquiry comes years after vaccination became a condition of continued service and thousands were discharged for refusing it. No findings definitively establishing that vaccination caused the reported deaths have so far been released. Nevertheless, the testimony brings renewed attention to a fundamental question: when governments demand compliance with a medical intervention, how fully do they accept responsibility for investigating subsequent harm and protecting the rights of those affected?

According to Politico’s September 3 report, U.S. Army physician Theresa Long described her assignment during an August 14 deposition in a federal court case in Virginia. Long, who is board certified in aerospace medicine and holds a master’s degree in public health, said Hegseth had assigned her to serve as Kennedy’s senior medical military adviser.

She testified that she was examining 2,544 unverified reports of deaths among service members submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Long also claimed to know of twenty-eight vaccine-caused deaths but provided no supporting case details in the account published by Politico. Previously, in 2021, she was reported as saying the military had ignored her warnings about the injections. Long said she hoped to complete her research within a year.

The Military Mandate and Recognized Vaccine Risks

Thus far, neither the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) nor the Pentagon have directly confirmed Long’s assignment. At this stage, therefore, her testimony is simply evidence of what she told the court; it is not, by itself, proof that vaccination caused the deaths she described.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the U.S. military mandate were substantial. Politico reports that nearly 9,000 service members were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccination. The Pentagon’s own account records that mandatory vaccination began after the August 2021 licensing of Pfizer’s vaccine and ended in January 2023 following legislation requiring its repeal.

For those facing discharge, refusal carried a direct threat to their careers and livelihoods. While military service involves obligations that differ from civilian life, this does not remove the need to justify medical requirements, assess individual circumstances, and communicate uncertainty honestly.

Questions about harm also concern adverse effects already recognized by regulators. Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of its surrounding lining) are acknowledged risks of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In June 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required updated warnings for the Pfizer and Moderna products. For the 2023-2024 formulations, estimated rates of these conditions during the first seven days after vaccination were approximately twenty-seven cases per million doses in males aged 12-24, compared with eight cases per million doses across recipients aged six months through 64 years.

The FDA also described persistent abnormalities on heart scans in some people who developed vaccine-associated myocarditis. Improvement occurred in some, but not all, patients. The long-term significance of these findings remained unknown.

Pentagon Findings and Disputed Data

A report issued by the Pentagon in March 2026 supplies further context. It found increased myocarditis and pericarditis incidence within 21 days of vaccination, with no continuing increase beyond that window. It additionally found increases in 14 of 17 specific health conditions subsequent to COVID-19 infection, and lower incidence of eight other conditions following vaccination.

Long is also questioning the Defense Department’s explanation for an apparent spike in medical diagnoses among service members in 2021. The department attributed the spike to an error affecting earlier comparison data, an explanation Long disputes.

Ultimately, while the reported investigation offers an opportunity to establish the facts, its value will depend on the quality and openness of its work. Service members who report vaccine injuries deserve thorough medical assessment, while those discharged for refusing the injections deserve a full explanation of the policies that ended their careers. Any government willing to enforce a medical requirement for vaccination must be equally ready to explain its decisions, investigate the consequences, and provide appropriate redress where harm or injustice is established. Service members and their families deserve no less than this.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image source

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.