Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) – Bias and Credibility

Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Conservative - Fake News - Not CredibleFactual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias


Sources in the Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation are recommended on a per-article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) as a pseudoscience organization based on the promotion of false information regarding vaccines and GMOs that do not reflect the consensus of science.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Established in 2001, The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) is a non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy organization for patient rights and ethical medical practices. Vera Sharav is the founder of AHRP. 

Read more on the United States media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) is a non-profit 501(c)3 funded through donations. The website does not disclose donors or amounts.

Analysis / Bias

The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) presents a narrative more aligned with pseudoscience than evidence-based scientific consensus. For example, the article” Vaccine-Contaminated Mothers’ Milk is Poisoning Newborn Infants” claims that the COVID-19 vaccine contaminates breast milk, posing harm to infants, a claim that is not supported by mainstream scientific research or health authorities.

Contrary to the article’s claims, health organizations such as the CDC and WHO have stated COVID-19 vaccines are safe for breastfeeding women. These organizations base their guidance on scientific studies showing no harmful effects on breastfed infants from the vaccine. The article’s framing is sensational and alarmist, evident in its title and language. Phrases like “being poisoned” and “experimental COVID-19 injections” are emotionally charged and designed to evoke fear and distrust in vaccines. This communication style is a common characteristic of pseudoscientific discourse, where the aim is often to persuade through emotion rather than factual accuracy.

Furthermore, the article broadly generalizes that public health officials and the pharmaceutical industry have embarked on a vaccination campaign “without confirmed evidence of safety.” This statement overlooks the extensive clinical trials and ongoing monitoring that form the basis of vaccine approval and recommendations. 

In conclusion, the article from AHRP uses non-scientific language and unsupported claims, contradicting the established scientific consensus on COVID-19 vaccine safety for breastfeeding mothers. Therefore, It leans towards pseudoscience, not evidence-based facts.

Another article, “Weapons of mass deception: false claims, corrupted science” presents a critical view of the use of genetically engineered or modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. AHRP suggests that the debate over GMOs is often misrepresented as a conflict between science and superstition, with opponents of GMOs labeled as anti-science. However, it argues that much opposition is based on scientific concerns about environmental and health hazards. While the article from the Alliance for Human Research Protection presents a critical perspective, it’s important to recognize that there is substantial scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of GMOs.

Numerous scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences, World Health Organization, and American Medical Association, have concluded that GMOs are safe to eat and can provide significant benefits, such as improved crop yields, enhanced nutritional content, and reduced need for pesticides.

In general, AHRP promotes pseudoscience and sometimes relies on poor sources such as Children’s Health Defense, which has a poor record with fact-checkers.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None by a third-party fact checker. See the above examples.

Overall, we rate the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) as a pseudoscience organization based on the promotion of false information regarding vaccines and GMOs that do not reflect the consensus of science. (M. Huitsing 11/18/2023)


Last Updated on December 4, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media: