“The Circular Credibility Problem in Medicine”, and to begin with, it is worth highlighting that there are numerous examples that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot be trusted in relation to vaccines and infections. The CDC has claimed, for example, that influenza vaccines reduce hospitalisations and mortality even though the randomised trials did not find this. But, the CDC did not also provide a single comment that its claims were based on deeply flawed case-control studies. Similarly, on the 17th of August, Maryanne Demasi published a very disturbing article showing that corruption and scientific misconduct at the CDC are not things of the past.

This was further evidenced by the fact that, in June, the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel met for the first time since being overhauled by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, in order to get rid of the financial conflicts of interest. Kennedy had promised that his new appointees would demand full transparency and scrutinise the evidence before making recommendations.

HOWEVER, if the documentation provided by the CDC to its advisory panel is flawed, it is difficult for the panel to make rational, evidence-based recommendations. And this is exactly what happened when the panel voted about whether to endorse Merck’s monoclonal antibody for babies against the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), nearly identical to Sanofi’s version, which was approved in 2023. What essentially happened is that the CDC assured the advisory panel committee there were “no safety concerns,” but (of course) there surely were. Professor Retsef Levi, who cast one of the two dissenting votes, noticed a troubling pattern across four major clinical trials conducted by Sanofi. In each, there was a consistent imbalance in “nervous system” serious adverse events, most often including seizures, in the treatment groups compared to controls – which (as a side note), is why control studies are so crucial, and often so ignored by vaccine developers.

In any case, Merck’s Dr Anushua Sinha downplayed the concerns, saying there had been “extensive analysis of the events” and that Merck’s investigators had deemed that none of the nervous system harms were related to its product. Now, this is not reassuring, because if a product developer tells me that its own investigations proved its product safe, I do not have good reason to trust them because they profit from the sale of that product, and thus have a vested interest in ensuring that the product hits the market soon than later, even at the expense of the safety of patients – as has been the modus operandi of the pharmaceutical industry. But, before we proceed, here’s more about the CDC’s credibility problem, which was compounded during the COVID era.

WHAT THE ACIP WAS NOT SHOWN: ADDRESSING A KEY ISSUE FROM THE JUNE 2025 MEETING

Let’s proceed to zoom in on the previously alluded to ACIP meeting, which was their first meeting in June 2025, after Secretary Kennedy disbanded the previous pro-vaccine and financially conflicted ACIP panel. Now, the public expectation concerning this meeting and ACIP panel (as a whole) was clear: and it was that this newly appointed committee would restore rigor, independence, and critical examination of evidence before recommending routine use of new pharmaceutical products. Well, one of the most significant items on the agenda (as we alluded to earlier) was whether to recommend Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody, called Cles-rovimab, for routine use in healthy newborns. Though marketed as a new product, it is nearly identical in structure and function to Sanofi–AstraZeneca’s nirse-vimab, which was approved in 2023.

The committee then ultimately voted 5 to 2 in favour of the recommendation. That vote followed a CDC presentation, which framed the safety data as reassuring, leading most members to conclude there were no outstanding safety concerns. But the question then becomes: Was that reassurance justified? And on what exactly was it based?

Well, in answering these questions, deliberate data misrepresentation techniques become exposed. First is that during its June 2025 meeting, ACIP members were shown a safety slide from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), focusing on seizures after administration of nirsevimab. The data were split into two age groups: infants aged 0 to 37 days and those aged 38 days to under 8 months. Each group showed elevated risk ratios for seizures (3.50 and 4.38, respectively), but both were labeled “not significant”; while NO pooled analysis was displayed – meaning the CDC slides did not combine the  multiple studies to create a single, larger dataset for analysis.

However, as Dr Maryanne Demasi later reported, combining the two groups into a single cohort yields a very different picture: in that it reveals a nearly four-fold increase in seizure risk, a result that is statistically significant; and yet that consolidated signal was never presented to the ACIP committee. Not only this, but the decision to stratify at 38 days – which is precisely the point in US schedules when routine infant vaccinations begin – this decision had no clear biological justification, and by dispersing the signal across two smaller groups, it effectively then erased the statistical significance. This then tells us that the CDC knew that if they presented these findings as one larger data, as opposed to splitting into two age groups, it would have revealed a statistically significant elevated risk ratio for seizures in infants, and so, they opted for a representation of the data that concealed the issue. This is what happens when regulatory and policy making authorities (like the CDC) are corrupt, and care more about vaccine manufacturers than the public – they will go as far as to misrepresent data just to get a vaccine approved. But that was just problem number 1.

A second design choice further compounded the problem. In essence, the CDC’s analysis applied a self-controlled risk interval with only the first 7 days designated as “risk” and days 8-21 treated as the “control” period. This simply means that any seizure occurring on day 8 or later in an infant was thus counted by the CDC against the background rate, even though such timing could plausibly reflect a product-related effect. Not to mention, standard pharma-covigilance practice calls for testing multiple windows, not a single narrow cutoff. In any case, these analytical decisions mattered. The vote to recommend cles-rovi-mab passed 5-2. BUT… had the ACIP members been shown the pooled seizure risk alongside the consistent trial-level imbalances in nervous system events, shifting just two votes would have changed the outcome.

Then, finally, as Dr Demasi emphasised, the concern is not confined to just one brand of the RSV vaccine. Given the structural similarity between nir-sevi-mab and cles-rovi-mab, the seizure risk is likely a class effect. This means the omission of the pooled analysis did not just obscure a statistical detail. Rather, it withheld information with direct implications for every RSV monoclonal antibody now in use. AND YET, these findings emerged only through independent reanalysis. Without Dr Demasi’s work, they may have remained unknown – not only to the public, but even to ACIP members casting their votes. And so, I hope you are beginning to appreciate what I stated at the beginning of our discussion, which is that: with all the structural and personnel changes that are being implemented by the Trump administration, if we do not fix how medical literature and data from studies are collected and represented, we risk perpetuating the same problems only with new structures and personnel at the helm.

LIVES ARE DESTROYED WHEN THE CDC SPEWS MISLEADING DATA

But, as you would imagine, there is more than information integrity at risk when the CDC churns out misleading data about vaccines. To be more blunt, this practice of misleading data actually makes the CDC culpable for the deaths of many. And this is considering that as the ACIP deliberated without access to full trial data, an even more alarming pattern was already unfolding in the real world. In particular, a warning sign was already visible in the clinical trials: in that infant deaths in the treatment groups were twice as frequent as in the control arms – which is a signal that should have triggered immediate scrutiny.

Meanwhile, it emerges that this was not even the only red flag kept from the ACIP committee, because an analysis of real-world data from the FDA’s adverse event reporting system (FAERS) reveals an even starker reality: since Sanofi’s Beyfortus (nirsevimab), which was approved and added to the US infant immunization schedule in 2023, there have been 1,012 adverse event reports – including 37 infant deaths, which (by the way) is a concentration rarely seen in paediatric vaccine safety profiles. And yet, all of this is happening because the CDC is a highly politicised organisation, that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical corporations – even to the extent that it is willing to cover up the deaths on infants, all so it can continue to parade vaccines as a safe necessity. The CDC has really earned its reputation for notoriety.

THE FOUNDATIONAL FLAW IN VACCINE SAFETY SCIENCE

But, let’s dig deeper into the faulty nature of how medical literature and safety studies are conducted and presented. A bombshell admission from within the ACIP committee has exposed a foundational flaw in vaccine safety science. During a discussion on MMRV and Hepatitis B vaccines, committee member Dr Retsef Levi pointedly questioned the confident “safe and effective” declarations made in the absence of gold-standard evidence.

Now, Dr Retsef Levi’s statement cuts to the core of a decade-long demand from transparency advocates: which is a demand for an answer to the question on why none of the vaccines on the CDC’s routine schedule have been licensed based on placebo-controlled trials using an inert saline placebo. This revelation is now forcing a public defense of this practice. A recent PBS article quotes experts arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists, as the so-called “standard of care” is the older vaccine. Let’s directly respond to this. Simply, the problem with this is that this logic creates an unsolvable circular problem, where new vaccines are only tested against older vaccines, and NOT a true placebo, which then means that the original safety benchmark for the first vaccine in a class of vaccines is never established against a neutral control. As a result, the entire schedule rests on a pyramid of relative comparisons, with no absolute baseline for safety. And yet, this is what they are propping up as the gold standard of vaccine safety science – just relative comparisons to previous vaccines, which probably also had inherent flaws, as taught to us by the history of the smallpox vaccine. In any case, that is the response to the claim made in the PBS article, arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists.

VACCINE DEVELOPERS ALSO DETEST PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS

Then the second argument in the PBS article trying to defend why NONE of the vaccines on the CDC’s routine schedule have been licensed based on placebo-controlled trials using an inert saline placebo, tries to dismiss using unvaccinated populations (like the Amish) as controls, claiming that their lifestyles are too different. The simple response to this is that this obviously leaves a critical question unanswered: which is that if we cannot ethically conduct a gold-standard trial and cannot use existing unvaccinated groups, how can we ever truly know the long-term health impacts of the entire vaccination schedule? And again, this brings me to something I alluded to earlier, which is that vaccine manufacturers detest control studies. They fight hard against comparing vaccinated groups against those who are not vaccinated: this is why they have fought hard to cover one of the biggest control studies conducted in light of the childhood vaccine schedule – being the study from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

More specifically, you’d recall that on the 9th of September, attorney Aaron Siri testified before the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the hearing titled: “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.” In his sworn testimony, Siri revealed the results of a long-hidden study from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI. This is the largest vaccinated vs unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (looking at 18,468 participants). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.

The study’s official title is (quote): “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.” The measures and outcomes of this study come directly from the testimony of Aaron Siri, who presented these findings under oath in the US Senate, as unfortunately, the study is not yet publicly available (again, considering that it was largely hidden for the longest time).

The key findings from the Henry Ford Health System study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders. In light of these findings, Aaron Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant. And even more striking is that, in conditions where unvaccinated children had zero cases (and this is looking at conditions like brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics), there were hundreds of cases among the vaccinated group!

RELATIVE COMPARISON IS A DANGEROUS STANDARD IN MEDICINE

Finally, and to expand further on why the defence of relative comparison to a previous product cannot stand, we ought to address this standard of relative comparison in light of the issues with medical devices. The FDA often prioritises having a faster pathway for what are said to be low-to-moderate risk medical devices through what is called the 510(k) process. How this works is that for many Class II (or moderate risk) devices, approval is based on demonstrating “substantial equivalence” to a legally marketed “predicate device”, and a predicate device is a legally marketed medical device used as a benchmark – in other words, the 510(k) process is a relative comparison standard.

Well, they claim that this is good to fast track medical devices, especially those that are said to be moderate risk. But did you know that based on this standard or relative comparison, people have received joint replacement devices made of metal that poisoned their blood stream from the tiny metal pieces that would be released through friction? Did you know that pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators are injuring hundreds and killing others? In fact, in April 2024 (alone) the FDA recalled medical devices that mechanically pump blood to the heart because they caused hundreds of injuries and more than a dozen deaths. And so, the medical device industry is proof that relative comparison is a ridiculous standard to enforce in medicine.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, the vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

In addition, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

Similarly, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

FLORIDA SURGEON GEN: ALL VACCINE MANDATES IN FLORIDA WILL BE ENDED

And now onto our main discussion regarding the acceleration of the vaccine reckoning, and we ought to begin with the announcement from the state of Florida. Once again, on September 3rd, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo announced a plan to eliminate all vaccine mandates in the state, including those required for schoolchildren to attend public schools. This move, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, positions Florida as the first state in the US to attempt a complete rollback of vaccine requirements.

Now, Dr Ladapo, has also been known for being a vocal vaccine skeptic, but, it was particularly notable that – as a government official, and in the course of his announcement – he denounced vaccine mandates as “immoral” and likened them to “slavery,” arguing that they infringe on individual and parental rights. He went so far as to ask rhetorically (quote): “Who am I, as a government or anyone else, to tell you what you should put in your body?” and he asked this crucial albeit rhetorical question emphasizing personal choice over state-imposed requirements. Continuing, he declared that the Florida Department of Health would work to repeal all vaccine mandates, stating, “All of them. Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.”

Of course, for many, this was a welcomed announcement because Florida currently requires vaccinations for schoolchildren against diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, and hepatitis B. Some mandates fall under the authority of the state health department, which Ladapo said would be repealed immediately, while others require legislative action from Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature. Governor DeSantis expressed support for the initiative, announcing the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In addition, supporters expressed that the decision is a triumph for medical freedom; for instance, Dr Robert Malone,who warned about mRNA vaccines and has been recently appointed to the new and vaccine critical CDC’s advisory committee, well, he praised Ladapo as a “measured scientist” aiming to reform the system. In addition, posts on X from many Floridians and Americans reflected similar sentiments, with some users celebrating the announcement as a defense of bodily autonomy – which appears to be the main theme following the announcement from Dr Ladapo; in that not only did Dr Ladapo articulate the overreach in allowing governments to tell people what to put into their body (or children’s body), but also the great response from citizens is that many people want their inalienable freedom of choice and right to bodily autonomy to be respected. And so, as far as a government mandate is concerned, I’d say this is reflective of what a healthy execution of the government’s duty to care should look like: it is one where people can exercise the freedom of choice, and the government does not have power to mandate policies that encroach on this inalienable freedom and complementary rights. But let’s revisit the moment of the announcement.

Also quite notable is the alluded to announcement from Governor Ron DeSantis concerning the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Governor DeSantis said the new working group will recommend state-level integration of Make America Healthy Again principles.

Under Kennedy, the US Department of HHS is reportedly “taking bold, decisive action to reform America’s food, health, and scientific systems to identify the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic to ultimately Make America Healthy Again.” DeSantis thus added that the commission will focus on complimentary principles including “individual medical freedom, informed consent, parent rights and also market innovation.”

THE OPPOSITION TO ENDING FLORIDA’S VACCINE MANDATES REVEALS THE VALIDITY OF THE MOVE

Now, as expected, the so-called public health experts swiftly condemned the decision to end all vaccine mandates in Florida, warning of potential outbreaks of preventable diseases. For example, Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated, “Today’s announcement by Gov. DeSantis will put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.” Similarly, Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), called the move “frightening,” noting that unvaccinated children could endanger immunocompromised individuals. The American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, ironically, the opposition to ending Florida’s vaccine mandates actually reveals the validity of this move – especially considering the people and organisations opposing it.

First, the CDC is quite literally the centre of vaccine controversy (as we have been discussing recently), ranging from the blatant disregard for scientific evidence and financial corruption – therefore, their support for vaccines does not hold the weight that Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the CDC thinks it might. Which then brings us to Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, following her remark that ending vaccine mandates in Florida will allegedly “put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.”

So, for some context, the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

Secondly, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

THEREFORE, their contribution to Florida ending vaccine mandates has nothing to do with health and the well-being of children, but everything to do with money and a disregard for human rights and the protection of inalienable freedoms like choice. And so, considering that bodily autonomy is a massive theme in discussions about ending the vaccine mandates in Florida, I would thus argue that the AAP’s opposition to ending vaccine mandates serves to validate the move more than to lessen its credibility.

Then, still in opposition towards Florida’s ending of the vaccine mandates, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

Secondly, the dark and corrupt Rockerfella-linked history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption, when it comes to the medical industry, as you’d recall from one of our previous discussions here on ‘The War Room’.

Ultimately, critiques on moves away from vaccination might seem plausible to the unsuspecting mind, until you actually consider that those offering the loudest critiques do so, not out of genuine concern, but out of concern for their pockets, and those of the pharmaceutical companies funding them.

THIS IS THE TIME TO DOUBLE-DOWN ON SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SHOWING THE HARMS OF VACCINES

But, now, to push the envelope further, I would like to argue that it is time to double down on scientific findings showing the harms of vaccines in general because the evidence exists in abundance now, and we need to capitalise on the events in the status quo that we referenced in the beginning. For instance, with mRNA jabs, the largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to-date, provides robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death via multiple organ systems. We found that 73.9% of the deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by the shots. This study has endured relentless censorship in its journey to final publication.

Among the 240 deaths adjudicated as related to the vaccine, the primary causes of death were: Sudden cardiac death (at 35%), Pulmonary embolism (12.5%), Myocardial infarction (12%), Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) (7.9%), Myocarditis (7.1%), Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and Cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%). This means that the consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggest there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death.

Similarly, another autopsy paper focused solely on myocarditis deaths—proved that COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis can be fatal. In all 28 autopsy-confirmed cases, the vaccine was causally linked to the death, with most deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination. In more detail, applying the Bradford Hill criteria, the researchers confirmed a strong causal relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and fatal myocarditis, particularly in young, previously healthy individuals. These results shatter the false narrative that vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare and benign—as they show that it can and does result in sudden cardiac death.

Therefore, the temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis – this all suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis.

THIS IS ALSO THE TIME TO REFUTE THE SCIENTISTIC CULT, AND MAKE ROOM FOR DISSENT

Since 2021, critics of the new generation of mRNA so-called “vaccines” have been bewildered by the immunity of this enterprise to empirical data showing that the products are neither safe nor effective. And many of the critics did not seem to realise that they are challenging beliefs that are not rooted in scientific evaluation, but in claims from the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion. This is why the plausibility of vaccines rests on claims of their claimed almost miraculous emergence with the smallpox vaccine, while also being sustained by unqualified heroic deeds about how vaccines got rid of some of the worst diseases in human history. Well none of this is true (as we have discussed previously) and yet, to say this is regarded as heresy! And the reason lies with how the vaccine enterprise and the medical industrial complex have leveraged religion.

In actual fact, when we look back at the 2020 – 2022 period, we can observe the workings of this scientific religion. For instance, after being locked down and systematically terrorised by the mass media for most of 2020, most of humanity anxiously awaited the vaccine that was heralded as their savior and liberator. As vaccine investor, enthusiast and self-proclaimed philanto-capitalist Bill Gates repeatedly stated in the spring, the world would only be able to go back to normal (quote) “when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.” Now, this was an uncanny thing for anyone to say, considering that the freedom of people does not rest on the proclamations of mere man. But, the proclamation that “almost every person on the planet” needed to be injected with a novel substance (about which they knew nothing) seemed like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel. And yet, that was the script: that entire playbook (from predictive programming through Event 201 – to the utter erosion of human rights, the destruction of economies, closure of businesses, learning institutions and closure of Churches) all of this was part of their script, and what can be called their claimed sacred document.

Well, when the emergency-authorised mRNA vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, most of humanity was apparently unaware that they were not vaccines in the traditional sense of inactivated or attenuated pathogens that would induce an immune response (which, as we’ve previously discussed, is not sound or scientific logic). In any case, the new injections were the genetic code for instructing the body to create a foreign, toxic protein. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg understood this, and he starkly contrasted with the public when, during an internal meeting with company executives on July 16, 2020, he stated that (quote): “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modify- ing people’s DNA and RNA to directly code in a person’s DNA and RNA. Basically, the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.” But, people could not say this openly, because the vaccine enterprise and scientistic cult has made dissent something akin to heresy. However, in this time when we are seeing the vaccine reckoning accelerating, we ought to capitalise on this by forcing discourse on those who tried to hide behind the “trust the science” slogan.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are engaged, and held accountable. Which brings me to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

In simple terms, Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she works/worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

By the way, ARPA-H is also modeled after DARPA, meaning that an alleged health research body is modelled to function as a military body – which is why I’ve often argued that the COVID plandemic policies were a militarised response, and not a health response. Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

This information came to the fore after Susan Monarez was nominated by Trump for CDC Director, many of his voters argued that she is not consistent with the vision for which Americans who voted for Trump expect to see implemented. Furthermore, people who were implicated in the consolidation of the COVID plandemic and the tyrannical pandemic preparedness efforts, are likely incompatible with the ambitions of an administration that is against such an abuse of power. Therefore, Susan Monarez, who also worked in the Biden-Harris administration, was likely going to be against a lot of what the Trump administration stands for anyways. Which is even exemplified by the fact that Susan Monarez was (in part) fired as CDC Director for trying to keep mRNA shots on the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and claiming that “vaccines save lives”.

And so, I think both these points (especially from the point of view of what voters want) (once again), as far as the Trump administration is concerned, Susan Monarez was removed because her works and inclinations are incongruous with what the VOTERS behind the second Trump administration want – and this is the catalyst that led to other CDC leadership like Demetre Daskalakis resigning: it is because they shared in Susan Monarez’s works and inclinations, which were against what voters wanted from the second Trump administration.

So, having covered this recapitulation or contextual background for today’s discussion, we ought then to proceed to analyse the letter that has become a notable feature in the present discourse pertaining to the CDC.

THE ISSUES WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER FROM DEMETRE DASKALAKIS

So, when Demetre Daskalakis resigned as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, his letter to leadership carried a tone of finality and moral conviction . In the letter, he declared “Enough is enough,” explaining that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s leadership had made it impossible for him to continue. As alluded to earlier, those on the left (and certainly the far left) have praised the letter as being principled, but when read closely it is less a defense of science than a portrait of the very rhetorical habits that drove the public to distrust the CDC in the first place: particularly rhetorical habits that include appeals to authority, catastrophic predictions, ad hominem attacks, and factual distortions.

Consider his charge that he can no longer serve in an environment that (quote) “treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.” First, this is a false dichotomy; in that it frames the choice as binary: either one accepts the CDC’s so-called “scientific reality,” or one is accused of designing policies to harm. Yet the last five years have shown what most Americans already know: which is that what CDC has called “science” has often been neither transparent nor replicable, but political judgment dressed in a white coat. And this includes associates of the CDC and the plandemic response, when we consider that when asked in a hearing, Fauci conceded that six foot distance during covid was not based on scientific evidence, and was rather a product of this thinking that this was a reasonable idea.

In any case, Demetre Daskalakis further accuses the new HHS of narrative enforcement, when, in reality, the CDC has become infamous for the same on his watch. Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates were not the inevitable products of neutral science — they were policy choices, frequently contradicted by the very data the CDC refused to release. Kennedy did not cause that collapse of trust. Power overreach and failed policy did.

And in light of our reference to Fauci, I found it funny that when his credibility was being ruined by his lies and back-tracking statements (like we just saw), in 2024, Fauci did not hesitate to make it clear that the CDC was the responsible party for the implausible guidelines articulated during the COVID plandemic – thus perhaps, inadvertently proving that the CDC is response for the collapse of trust towards it – not the second Trump administration of Robert F Kennedy.

But still, Daskalakis (in his letter) appeals to institutional sanctity. He states that (quote) “unvetted and conflicted outside organizations seem to be the sources that the Department of HHS uses over the gold standard science of the CDC.” [PAUSE] But, now, the claim that the CDC represents “gold standard science” rings hollow. The agency’s failures are well documented: think of the contaminated Covid tests, the shifting guidance on masks that left the public whiplashed, how the CDC withheld vaccine safety data buried in VAERS and VSD, and the FOIA evasions that stonewalled independent scrutiny. AND SO, to describe this record as “gold standard science” is an appeal to authority wholly unsupported by the evidence!

Then, furthermore, the catastrophism in Daskalakis’s letter is both striking while also ringing hollow. So, he warns that Kennedy’s policies will (quote) “bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer.” (end quote) Now, this is a combined fallacy: being both a false dichotomy and slippery slope. And this is because questioning the safety of excipients, the timing, number, or necessity of vaccines does not condemn the country to Darwinian misery.

In fact, mortality from infectious diseases like measles, pertussis, and diphtheria had already declined long before mass vaccination, thanks to sanitation, nutrition, and reduced exposure to livestock reservoirs. The fact of loss of protection due to waning immunity is not found in his resignation. But, in addition, balanced debate about risks and benefits does not mean “returning to the dark ages.” It means practicing science as it should be — open, skeptical, and transparent and with full accountability on scientific claims.

Then, finally on the catastrophism where Daskalakis claims that Kennedy’s policies will bring people “to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive”, this rhetoric becomes openly and unnecessarily hostile. And this is considering that in this letter, the new Kennedy-appointed and vaccine-critical ACIP members are dismissed as “people of dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor,” and Kennedy himself is cast as an “authoritarian leader.” These are ad hominem attacks, not arguments. They dismiss individuals rather than engage with data or reasoning. But, in contrast, here is what I think should be highlighted: the actions taken against people like the recently fired CDC Director Susan Monarez are not based on ad hominems from the Trump administration, but careful considerations of their failures and how incompatible they are with the mandate received. This is a crucial contrast, because these actions from the Trump administration reveal efforts towards institutional reform, and not the authoritarianism that people like Kennedy are accused of.

But then, the gravest claim in the letter by Daskalakis states that (quote) “eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated.” Meanwhile, Daskalakis gives us no quotations, policies, or documents to support this claim. AND YET, Ironically, the accusation is not only unsubstantiated but inverted. Kennedy has consistently warned against coercive health policies and corporate capture, both of which he argues worsen inequality. To portray the Trump administration’s emphasis on transparency and medical freedom as eugenics is a straw man — really, a distortion intended to silence rather than to debate.

But goes further, blaming Kennedy for violence. In particular, he states that (quote) “I am resigning because of the cowardice of a leader that cannot admit that his and his minions’ words over decades created an environment where violence like this can occur.”  So, this refers to a shooting at CDC. Again, no hint of evidence has been offered by Daskalakis or anyone else to connect Kennedy’s words to the crime. It is a post hoc fallacy, in which he is exploiting tragedy to smear a political opponent: it is shameless and ripens the fruit of his letter to rot.

DID THE BIDEN-ERA CDC EMPLOY A SATANIST TO MAKE HEALTH DECISIONS?

Then, finally, regarding the contents of the letter by Daskalakis, well, perhaps most jarring is his claim that Kennedy’s HHS has sought to (quote erase) “erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research to support equity.” This rhetoric here is catastrophic, baseless, and false. In reality, under Dr Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH has made HIV a top research priority. Far from “ceasing HIV programming,” Kennedy’s administration has pledged to tackle the epidemic with fresh eyes, free from the pharmaceutical capture that distorted earlier approaches. To suggest otherwise is not just hyperbole; it is disinformation.

But, now, if you’re wondering why discussion about the CDC necessitates references to transgender people, well, Dr Demetre Daskalakis was appointed to a senior CDC role as part of Biden’s push to diversify federal health leadership (in pursuit of DEI policies and standards)! He served as the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. And, notably, he claimed to have expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community – which is an aggravating thing to publish, because what does he mean “expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community”?! Outside of HIV/AIDS, I do not think that diseases like e-coli, influenza, or chickenpox manifest differently on people based on sexual orientation.

But, of course, DEI appointments were not really meant to be backed by credibility. People just had to be or say things that make them employable under DEI standards. But here’s more about the concerning person that Dr Demetre Daskalakis is, and why it has even led to questions concerning whether the Biden-Harris-era CDC employed a satanist to make health decisions that were affecting Americans?

THE URGENT NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AT THE CDC

But, let’s proceed to discuss the need for institutional reform. First, we’ve spoken about the fact that one of the fatal flaws of the CDC is that it always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID). It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies that president Trump and RFK Jr have been working to enact.

But, the twist is that the CDC interestingly has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer, which states that (quote): “CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

But, in actual fact, the CDC is prone to financial corruption through a legal loophole. One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to (quote) “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

HOWEVER, this problem is not just evident in the CDC Foundation, but also in the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or the ACIP). In particular, a Congressional report confirmed that the CDC’s ACIP has been compromised since the 1990s! In particular, in the year 2000, a House report revealed that 7 of 10 ACIP rotavirus advisers had direct conflicts; not only this but members voted on vaccines while holding pharma stock or patents; every member received a conflict-of-interest waiver—”freely”; the ACIP also approved Rotashield before FDA licensing—and the pharmaceutical was later pulled for harming infants; and finally, since the year 2020, the ACIP had rubber-stamped mRNA shots despite mass injury and death. But, this issue of jarring rubber stamps for vaccines occurred even in 2018, as you’re about to see in this excerpt from an ACIP meeting.

Evidently, this shows that the CDC (and its ACIP) are implicated in the staggering financial conflict of interest at the heart of America’s vaccine schedule! In fact, Dr Paul Offit, who is a frequent CNN medical analyst and leading voice for vaccines, sat on the very committee (being the ACIP) that voted to add a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule.

While on the committee, Dr Offit had his own rotavirus vaccine in development. By voting to mandate the entire category, he virtually guaranteed a market for his own product—a competitive lock-in. The vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies—a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then what happened next is that his vaccine, developed with partners Stanley Plotkin and et al., it replaced the failed one; all while he remained on the committee. Then he and his partners sold that vaccine to the pharmaceutical company Merck for $186 million – to which he told Newsweek that he had “won the lottery.” But, in actual fact, Dr Offit did NOT win the lottery; he voted himself rich. Which means that this is NOT just a conflict of interest; it is a catastrophic breach of public trust. And this is because the very experts that were tasked with safeguarding children’s health were making decisions that directly led to a massive personal windfall, after a voted-on product HARMED children. And so, evidently, this is the rot at the core of the system that has necessitated institutional reform in the CDC. It is not just that there is corruption, it is that those who are corrupt are so emboldened that they are even making hundred million dollar deals to profit from this corruption!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso