IS SALT BAD FOR YOU?

The development in salt discourse, as key stakeholders begin asking the right questions on salt, and we ought to begin with the most primary question being asked, being: is salt bad for you? Now, in light of this question, it is worth noting that many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt. Over the years, there have been two main arguments for why salt is allegedly bad for you. The first argument states that salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided. Then, the second argument states that: with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Now, it is is worth noting that excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because if an excess amount of fluid accumulates in a compromised system (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate this fluid), it then overloads other parts of the body (such as by causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening). BUT, it is crucial to note that this is because of EXCESSIVE sodium consumption, meaning if you ingest far more than your body needs (typically through ultra-processed foods); and also excessive sodium consumed by a person with an already compromised system, that does not have the necessary means to metabolise the salt.

In any case, because of these two arguments, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it. But, unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments is less solid than it appears – especially when you consider how it came about.

In essence, since medicine revolves around making money, patient care is often structured to be as profitable as possible. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible on lifelong prescriptions. In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical. 

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). But, as we stated in the beginning of our discussion, the question on whether salt is bad for you, is quickly put to rest when we consider what happens when there is not enough salt in the body.

RE-CONTEXTUALISING SALT: RATHER THAN A CAUSE FOR ILLNESS, IT IS A NECESSITY FOR HEALTH

With this in mind, we then ought to correct the misconception in mainstream health discourse. As we’ve established, the general claim has for the longest time been that salt is detrimental to the human body. As alluded to earlier, salt consumption has been associated with health issues such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and kidney disease. This was part of a broader misconception that the science on food and macro-nutrients was long settled, and thus demands unquestionable compliance. Well, this is actually far from being true – especially when we examine the model that has long been used to dictate to people what healthy eating is – being the food pyramid. You might think that the food pyramid is a work of science that back in the 1970’s, scientists without vested interests, methodically reviewed to determine the healthiest diet, and then presented the food pyramid to the public. Unsurprisingly, this did not actually happen.

Instead, the backdrop to the story of the food pyramid begins in post war 1950’s America, when deaths from competing causes, namely war and infection had drastically reduced. And at the same time, rates of smoking were increasing. As a result, heart disease rapidly became the leading cause of death. And on this backdrop in 1955 President Dwight D Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. He was out playing golf in Denver when he felt what he thought was an episode of indigestion from a hamburger. And later that night, he worked with severe chest pain. So, his personal physician, not realising he was having a heart attack, gave him several shots of morphine and sent him back to sleep. It was only after an ECG was performed after he awoke at 1pm the next afternoon that it was understood that he’d in fact had a heart attack.

This was major news which struck a nerve with the US population. The life of their leader, due for re-election, was on a knife’s edge with heart disease, the new leading cause of death. The President and the American population was gripped by fear so, the hunt was on for the root cause of this deadly scourge. Unfortunately, scientists of the day did NOT seem to pay too much attention to Eisenhower’s heavy smoking. Especially considering that he was reported to be up to four packets a day; and indeed, this was in an age when doctors themselves promoted smoking (courtesy of big tobacco’s concealment of the dangers associated with excessive consumption of their product, while they also used doctors to market cigarettes).

And so, rather than examining the president Eisenhower’s habits, the scourge of heart disease was attributed to dietary saturated fat. But, how on earth did those scientists in the 1950’s come to the conclusion that saturated fat was the cause of heart disease and that ancient food consumed for millennia was supposed to be blamed for a modern disease? In essence, the answer can be traced back to research performed by the Russian Nikolai Anitschkow. It was in 1913 that he published a paper which has more than 100 years later been described as the birth of the lipid hypothesis – the theory that saturated fat can clog the arteries.

Nikolai had demonstrated that feeding rabbits (which are an obvious herbivore) a fat called lard, along with egg yolks or pure cholesterol dissolved in sunflower oil; led to increases in the rabbit’s blood cholesterol levels. And over time, arterial lesions similar to, but not identical to that of human heart disease developed. Now, there was a lot wrong with this study. For one, rabbits should NOT be eating lard anymore than people should be eating grass. But, nonetheless, this research planted the seed from which the diet heart hypothesis was born.

Then, Ancel Keys became almost singularly responsible for growing that seed of poor research into the twisted mess called the food pyramid. In essence, two years before Eisenhower’s heart attack, Ancel Keys had published a widely criticised graph plotting the average fat consumption in various countries against heart disease. In a study of 22 countries, Ancel Keys had actually carefully selected the data of six countries that support his claim on heart disease – which is essentially cherry picking, and was pointed out by the study’s critics. Inexplicably, however, he was able to establish significant influence within the American Heart Association. BUT, by 1958 the American Heart Association with Ancel Keys now at the helm, launched his study (despite its obvious flaws that were pointed out), and this went on to influence what the food pyramid looks like today.

So, what does this mean in light of the propaganda against salt? Well, all that we’ve discussed exposes the superficial nature of the science behind the food pyramid, and subsequently, how ingredients like salt are problematised. In fact, we can see a similar attitude towards saturated fats with salt based on the work of George McGovern. In essence, in 1977 George McGovern chaired the Senate nutrition committee that created the first US dietary guidelines, which advised a reduction in saturated fats and and salt. But, there was not a SINGLE STUDY proving that salt causes hypertension in humans until 1983, which is almost a decade after the dietary guidelines by George McGovern were made public.

But, this means that the prescription behind reducing salt intake, that is is still being used by the WHO today, was not based on studies on studies proving that salt was the cause of high blood pressure in humans; and was rather based on a study conducted on rats that were intentionally bred to be sensitive to salt.

THERE IS A DECEPTIVE TREND IN THE MEDICAL DISCOURSE ON HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

Meanwhile, there is also a highly deceptive trend when it comes to the medical discourse on high blood pressure, and the medicine used to treat it. In fact, frequently, when you dig into medical myths, you discover that many of the dogmas that underlie a popular drug are actually sales slogans that a marketing company created. Similarly, when you research alleged illnesses, you discover that they were NOT based on scientific fact. For example, a chemical imbalance from low serotonin was never linked to depression (in fact patients who commit suicide are found to have elevated brain serotonin). Also, acid reflux is due to too little acid in the stomach (as acidity gives the stomach’s opening the signal to close). However, in medical school, doctors are taught it is due to too much acidity. AND so-called “sleeping” pills are actually sedatives that block the restorative phase of the sleep cycle, which is why sleeping pills do not produce REM sleep, where the body is rested and performing its restorative functions.

In the case of high blood pressure, when the blood pressure craze took off, there was a rush to bring the blood pressure lowering drugs to market before their benefit was actually proven (outside of a few short term studies which showed a small benefit for people with very high blood pressures). That mindset in turn cemented itself, and so as the years have gone by, without evidence to support it (and contrary data being ignored), the blood pressure threshold keeps on getting lowered and more and more people are being put on blood pressure lowering medications! 

HOWEVER, excessively lowering blood pressure cuts blood flow to parts of the body that can’t function without sufficient blood flow. For example, blood pressure medications increase the risk of kidney disease, while the risk of suddenly passing out (from insufficient blood flow to the brain) is one of the most common side effects of blood pressure medications. And yet, studies have shown that neither is high blood pressure a symptom not a cause of arterial damage; nor is there evidence that aggressively lowering blood pressure saves lives.

So, why is this misconception on high blood pressure still promulgated? First, is money: meaning that research funding is available for these areas (for instance, from the drug manufacturers) hence being a safe area of research for academics to explore. Second is greed, in that this illustrates the “if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” phenomenon, where the pharmaceutical industry’s  desire to find more justifications for using its products means that it invents reasons for people to do so. And then there is also plain corruption: particularly where the so-called “experts” on guideline panels are paid to create recommendations that result in more and more people taking the drugs, a sadly common phenomenon in medicine.

THE TREND: BIG PHARMA HAS A HABIT OF CHANGING MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR PROFIT

If you recall our discussion on statins and cholesterol, you would note that there is a propensity for big pharma to influence medical standards in an effort to create a market for their products. More specifically, before Statins entered the market, which was prior to 1987, the normal total cholesterol level used to be 300. HOWEVER, big pharma moved the goalpost.

Part of how big pharma moved the goalpost on cholesterol, in order to create a market for statins, is that there was a questionable dichotomy created between good and bad cholesterol. More specifically, cholesterol is generally described as a waxy substance essential for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Cholesterol travels through the bloodstream in particles called lipoproteins, primarily as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). LDL, often called “bad cholesterol,” carries cholesterol to cells and arteries, where it can form plaques, narrowing the arteries and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. For decades, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been commonly referred to as “bad cholesterol” due to its association with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as heart attacks and strokes. Conversely, high-density lipoprotein, known as “good cholesterol,” transports cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for elimination.

HOWEVER, numerous studies have challenged this claim, including even a recent study involving more than 4 million people across China, which suggests that low-density lipoprotein may not be as harmful as previously thought—at least, not for everyone. Research led by Dr Liang Chen and colleagues reveals a more nuanced picture. They found that while high low-density lipoprotein levels are linked to increased mortality in some groups, they do not pose the same risk for others. In addition, they found that the relationship between low-density lipoprotein and mortality varies significantly based on an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk and overall health status. 

These findings suggest two things: first, the medical industry ought to reconsider the one-size-fits-all approach to cholesterol; and rather opt for more personalised treatment strategies. But secondly, these studies are exposing the fact that the dichotomy between bad and good cholesterol is not well evidenced, and is highly misleading. Furthermore, questions have begun to accumulate about this so-called wonder drug. More specifically, questions around statins have ironically related to the link between Statins, Cholesterol, and Heart Disease.

All this is to say that big pharma has long been involved in the practice of falsifies studies about illnesses, in order to sell a product. They did it for cholesterol and statins, and they have done it for high blood pressure, through vilifying salt, in order to sell patented salt.

WHILE NATURAL SALT WAS BEING VILIFIED, BIG PHARMA WAS DEVELOPING SALT BASED MEDICINE

In fact, when we look at salt directly, as was exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSv. DD., you begin to realise that while natural, cheap and accessible salt was being vilified, pharmaceutical companies were developing interventions that were based on salt!

This is why it is critical that the US has a Secretary of the Dept. of HHS who is bent on ending the FDA’s aggressive suppression of natural remedies that big pharma cannot patent! It is not just about debunking the falsified science, it is about making people aware of the natural remedies that are available for them to consume in enjoyment, without having to be made a permanent consumer of big pharma interventions!

THE MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS NOT A SOURCE OF TRUTH

But, part of the problem is that people have been led to think of the medical and pharmaceutical industries as consisting of people with a vested interest in proclaiming what is true. These industries have for long been given an UNDESERVED assumption of credibility, especially when they claim that their actions are backed by credible science, and that their interventions are safe and effective. And yet, these are people who are selling a product; meaning they are people who have an obligation to their businesses first than they do you. Meanwhile, only God is the authority on what is true.

Which is critical to note because while the medical industrial complex was claiming that salt is hazardous to health, the Master Jesus, in Mark 9:50 states categorically that “Salt is good”… and to “Have salt in yourselves”… This is why placing a premium on God’s Word is paramount for everything concerning our well-being. Afterall, God told us through the Prophet Hosea that His people perish for lack of knowledge. But thank God that when we pray in the Spirit as He instructs, He guides us on these matters and more.

THERE ARE CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES COMING TO THE FDA AND MEDICAL BUREAUCRACY

But, the Church of Jesus Christ has been praying, and this continued to present tremendous changes. For instance, in the second Trump administration, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary has announced MAJOR New Policy aimed at limiting conflicts of interest in the FDA. Dr Marty Makary highlighted that he has presented a new policy limiting who can serve as members on FDA advisory committees, part of efforts to counter the perception that the FDA has been captured by Big Pharma and other industries.

This is to say that in a move to mitigate perceived industry influence and conflicts of interest, the FDA has announced a policy change that restricts employees of FDA-regulated companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, from serving as official members on FDA advisory committees. This policy change is in line with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to “radical transparency.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The AAP Declared War on Vaccine Choice

AAP recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines

The American Academy of Pediatrics last month officially recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines—pushing for government-mandated shots regardless of faith. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for an end to all religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in ALL 50 States in the U.S. This is a very dangerous and telling admission that vaccines are not about protecting the population… it’s about controlling the population and stripping parents’ rights to make decisions for their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has abandoned science, betrayed parents & pushed dangerous child mutilation. They urged removing religious vaccine exemptions, promoted puberty blockers for kids & endorsed gender transitions.

RFK Jr’s CDC Kicks Out Tyrannical AAP After Push to Remove Exemptions

In a stunning reversal of power, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—the same group that recently demanded the elimination of all personal and religious vaccine exemptions nationwide—has been expelled from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine policymaking process. Dr. Susan Monarez, confirmed by the Senate in 2025 as CDC Director, now leads the health agency’s day-to-day operations under the oversight of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to an email from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the AAP, along with more than a half-dozen other prominent medical organizations, has been kicked out of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) workgroups, which play a central role in shaping the nation’s vaccine recommendations. The AAP’s authoritarian demand to erase centuries-old religious protections and force medical compliance as a condition for education was a dystopian overreach—one that now has cost them their seat at the table. The latest development comes on the heels of a June 2025 decision by HHS Secretary Kennedy to fire the entire ACIP—accusing them of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers—and replace them with a new group that includes vaccine-skeptical voices.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Profiting from Childhood Sickness

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children’s faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP’s members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing paediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner.

The erosion of trust in the medical field, which has been ongoing since 2020, is thankfully dispelling the myth that organizations like the AAP are driven by a selfless desire to serve the greater good, rather than prioritizing the interests of their own members. The recent release of the AAP’s priorities, which were crafted by its own members, is likely to further fuel this mistrust, and although the approach may seem unusually harsh, it will ultimately contribute to the strengthening of public health by laying bare the motivations of those who stand to gain from the escalating rates of illness, and shedding light on the ways in which they profit from it.

AAP sets Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

The American Academy of Paediatrics is actively working to strip parents of their authority in deciding whether to vaccinate their children with commercially produced substances, largely sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that fund the AAP’s initiatives. This move is absurd except to the ultimate beneficiaries – including paediatricians and pharmaceutical manufacturers – exert substantial influence over the US Congress through hefty campaign donations. Notably, the AAP’s efforts to promote or facilitate chronic disease in children essentially guarantee a lifelong struggle with these conditions, thereby creating a steady stream of loyal pharmaceutical consumers. As profit-driven entities, pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to maximizing their revenues, with CEOs and executives tasked by shareholders to prioritize financial gains. By pushing for such policies, the AAP is effectively serving as a willing accomplice, enabling pharmaceutical companies to reap substantial benefits from the creation of a lifelong customer base.

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and 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 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). However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

AAP is prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures

The American Academy of Pediatrics is actively pushing to eliminate parental rights and religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations, but notably, their top ten priorities fail to address the alarming rise in obesity and autism epidemics that are wreaking havoc on children’s health. Despite the CDC sounding the alarm on the extraordinary proportions of autism cases, the AAP is solely focused on identifying and managing these conditions, rather than investigating their causes. Nowhere on their list of priorities is there a mention of tackling the root causes of the soaring rates of chronic illnesses in children. The closest they come is a vague reference to reducing the cost of insulin injections for kids. By prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures, the AAP is turning a blind eye to the devastating decline in health status among the very population they claim to serve, with diet and physical activity levels being glaringly overlooked.

Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary.

Parents are seen as an Obstacle to Return on Investment

Many parents are uncomfortable with the role of cells harvested from induced aborted fetuses, often still alive at the time of harvesting. Again, many AAP members may believe the rhetoric that this is untrue, but nonetheless it is factual. It is how we derive cell cultures to develop many vaccines, so the DNA of these dead unborn humans can still contaminate the injection. The AAP, as an institution, officially holds that cultural and religious concerns arising from this should be overridden. So, in the end, the AAP’s argument seems to come down to one of two possible drivers. Either (1) they have an ideological belief that they should simply be the authority or decision-makers on children’s healthcare rather than parents (a medical-fascist approach), or (2) they see their role as promoting an extremely lucrative market for their sponsors, from which they also directly benefit, and setting children up for an entire lifetime of chronic illness and pharmaceutical consumption. It is challenging to decide which is less noble. A third possibility is also possible. Most AAP members are simply going with the flow and have not actually stopped to think through the implications of their union’s policies. However, the motivation for willfully ignoring rational thought probably does come down to a mixture of money and ego, which goes back to the two potential drivers mentioned above. There are tens of thousands of doctors who disagree with these medical associations but are too afraid to speak out.”

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

In a diabolical new development, scientists have unveiled a controversial method for delivering mRNA vaccines using dental floss instead of needles. Dental floss, of all things, has become the latest delivery system for “vaccines,” bypassing injectables and entering uncharted territory in mRNA technology. In light of this, a study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reveals how researchers laced dental floss with mRNA components and flu vaccine ingredients. They then applied it to the gums of mice. What was said to follow was an immune response that the scientists claim could revolutionise how vaccines are administered in the future. But as with everything involving mRNA technology and vaccines, the stakes are high, and so are the questions.

But, let’s start with the invention itself. So, the scientists behind this invention were said to be a group led by a Dr Rohan S. J. Ingrole of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University. Meanwhile, Texas Tech University, which is based in Lubbock, Texas, also receives funding from self-proclaimed philanthro-capitalist Bill Gates himself, through a grant offered through the Gates Foundation.

Now, this new dental floss “vaccine” method is further said to take advantage of the gingival sulcus, which is the tiny trench between your gums and teeth. The researchers believe this delivery method offers a unique, highly permeable entry point into the bloodstream. The gumline’s permeability could allow for vaccine molecules to be absorbed directly into the body, bypassing the complications of traditional oral methods or injections. And while the concept may seem far-fetched, it’s rooted in research that’s getting increasing attention from the vaccine enterprise and its collaborators. This is primarily because the idea is that by using floss laced with “vaccine” components, medical researchers could provide an alternative to traditional “vaccination” methods, without the need for needles, specialised medical staff, or even consent from the public!

This is to say that if the floss-based “vaccines” become widespread, there’s a real concern about consent, transparency, and safety; because this technology could be used for mass “vaccination” campaigns without the public being aware that it is being administered! In fact, given how quickly government entities and corporations have adopted new health policies in the past (particularly during the COVID plandemic), this development is likely to serve as a conduit for efforts at mass vaccination!

Secondly, this invention also raises questions of how this technology could be adapted (or – more accurately – weaponised) to add mRNA “vaccines” to other basic necessities, such as toothpaste or even drinking water. This is considering that entities such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or the CDC) and even other public health bodies have pushed for easier, more accessible vaccination methods – again , like we saw during the COVID plandemic.

Well, in response to these concerns, which have been highlighted by others, even before the release of this study, the argument from supporters of floss-based mRNA delivery make a jarringly a-contextual argument. They state simply that floss-based “vaccines” could be delivered by mail, making them accessible to people anywhere without the need for a doctor or health professional to administer the shot; and that this could be convenient for mass vaccination campaigns.

The first problem with this is that it is utterly a-contextual in that it assumes that there is consensus of the plausibility of vaccines, and therefore, a corresponding need to access them with greater ease. And yet, vaccines are easily one of the most controversial inventions till date. Their claimed efficacy, benefits, and the impact they have had in enabling big pharma, while corrupting governments are a constant focus in the status quo – with examples ranging from autism discourse in the US, and Ursula von der Leyen Pfizergate scandal in the EU. But, then the second problem with the argument from supporters of the floss based mRNA delivery system is that they deliberately ignore how this mRNA delivery system opens up a massive door for coercion, whether overt or subtle. Because imagine receiving a package in the mail with instructions to simply floss your teeth to “protect yourself” from the latest health crisis. It may sound harmless to some, until you consider the implications of who’s making those decisions and how much oversight you’d really have over what’s going into your body.

And by the way, this indirect coercion is intrinsic to the vaccine enterprise’s modus operandi – affecting even the medical industry at large. For instance, Dr Daniel Neides, a respected educator at Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, has raised urgent concerns about the lack of vaccine education in medical schools.

He reveals a troubling reality: medical students are not taught about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Instead, they are required to memorize vaccine schedules to pass exams, with no discussion of the nearly $4 billion paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992.

Neides calls this a failure to provide the fair balance expected in medical practice. Neides also highlights conflicts of interest, noting that providers are often paid to complete vaccine schedules, which may pressure them to prioritize compliance over patient concerns.

What’s more, the use of mRNA technology for this floss-based delivery method comes with its own set of concerns. And this takes place against a backdrop where we’ve already seen the risks associated with Covid mRNA “vaccines,” and the long-term effects remain uncertain and far from positive… For instance, Dr Jordan Vaughn, a clinician overseeing 170,000 patients annually, testified before the Senate, revealing critical insights on the spike protein’s dangers. As a doctor and researcher, he has witnessed the devastating impact of COVID and mRNA vaccines on millions.

He revealed that the spike protein (or S1 subunit) is far from benign. It triggers inflammation, disrupts blood vessels, promotes clotting, and forms amyloid aggregates, impairing oxygen delivery and damaging organs. Patients that he’s seen reported experiencing heart racing, brain fog, shortness of breath, and severe fatigue. In his Alabama clinic, Dr Vaughn uses immunofluorescent microscopy to detect these aggregates in patients—teenagers unable to stand and adults suffering strokes without clear causes.

Furthermore, long COVID and vaccine injuries affect 10-15 million Americans. Dr Vaughn’s clinic has treated approximately 4,000 such patients, many young and previously healthy. Their struggles are real, life-altering, and often ignored by the system, while researchers develop more mRNA delivery systems.

WHY mRNA VACCINES ARE CATEGORICALLY HARMFUL AND DANGEROUS

But, here’s why mRNA interventions are categorically harmful and dangerous – irrespective of how they are delivered into the body. In essence, mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver modified mRNA, instructing cells to produce spike protein. Unlike traditional vaccines (which are also bad), as proven by how they have often caused or worsened the illnesses they claim to solve, the spike protein produced through the instruction given to cells from mRMA causes uncontrolled spike protein production for unknown durations, spreading to the heart, brain, vasculature, ovaries, and testes. In fact, the EMA’s assessment of Pfizer’s vaccine confirmed biodistribution beyond the injection site, contradicting claims it “stays in the arm.”

For instance, in 2021, Dr Vaughn treated a 69-year-old patient with unexplained shortness of breath after a second Pfizer dose. Tests ruled out typical causes, but anti-clotting therapy brought rapid relief. This case led him to study how spike protein induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, activates platelets, and damages blood vessels—explaining this case and thousands more.

Additionally, myocarditis signals emerged in spring 2021, particularly in young males post-mRNA vaccination. The DoD confirmed cases, studies detected spike protein in myocarditis patients, and autopsies linked fatal cases to vaccines. Yet, federal mandates intensified, sidelining these concerns. Subsequently, the CDC and FDA’s inaction—and vaccine promotion—eroded public trust. Meanwhile, the patients coerced by 2021 mandates despite prior infections or health risks, now face disability if they have not been killed by those vaccines already. And all this because Informed consent, which should be a cornerstone of medicine, was undermined – much like will be done with floss based mRMA delivery systems… But, the truth is that this is yet another step into uncharted territory, where science (or scientism) is rapidly evolving but leaving important ethical and safety considerations behind. Especially considering that no one asked for this, and natural immunity was always better.

FORCING mRNA HAS BECOME THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE’S OBSESSION

But, the reality is that not only is the vaccine enterprise aware of the dangers of mRNA vaccines, but forcing mRNA on the general public has become something of an obsession for them. For instance, you’d recall that in 2023, a team of researchers was reported to have developed what they call an inhalable vaccine against the COVID virus. It actually also makes it possible to deliver other messenger RNA therapeutics for gene replacement therapy. Now, for the so-called vaccine, the researchers demonstrated that two intranasal doses of the treatment, made with nanoparticles carrying mRNA Covid vaccine, is effective in mice. It also apparently demonstrates that an inhalable delivery system allows for minimally invasive and lung-targeted mRNA delivery, potentially applicable for numerous pulmonary diseases in addition to covid.

In their new study, the researchers showed that the shot isn’t necessary to provide protection. They state that there is no intramuscular injection, they just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally. They also state that based on their research, this method enables them to deliver different kinds of mRNA; meaning that it’s not just used for a vaccine, but potentially also for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. Therefore, they used a vaccine-based study to show how an aereosolised mRNA vaccine works, but admit that it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions… Well, this then explains the attraction of an aereosolised mRNA vaccine to the propagators of the covid debacle and vaccine enterprise at large; which is that an aerosolised mRNA vaccine is actually a tool to execute airborne interventions, such as gene editing; without having to deal with objections and dissent, or the responsibility to respect the bodily autonomy of people. Now here is how they detail aerosolisable lipid nanoparticles for a pulmonary delivery of mRNA.

Similarly, reports indicate that the vaccine enterprise and associates are spraying airborne mRNA on dense urban populations and rural areas with low vaccine uptake according to a commercial airlines pilot who has come forward to blow the whistle on chemtrails operations in North America and Europe. As the globalist so-called elite find it harder to convince humanity to submit to Covid mRNA shots and endless boosters, they are having to find deceitful new ways to force their mRNA.

According to pilots familiar with the scheme, the new airborne mRNA, known as Air Vax, is designed to deliver the vaccine right into people’s lungs, bypassing the need for injections – and the need for consent.

Then, on top of that, seemingly because it was not enough to try to forcefully vaccinate humans, the vaccine enterprise extended its efforts even to animals with the vaccination of cattle. As you can imagine, Bill Gates is also an advocate of vaccinating animals; in particular cows, and he says it is with the aim to eliminate the bacteria in their stomachs that produces methane. Meanwhile, nations like Australia and Kenya inclined themselves towards this agenda!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso