PETER MARKS & THE FDA’S COVER-UP OF THE HARMS OF COVID JABS

Now, proceeding to look further into Peter Marks’ works at the FDA, many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people. One of the ways people were made aware of this was through the recently leaked recordings showing how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division, being Peter Marks at the time, refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients, and even medical practitioners who were treating vaccine injured patients.

Here’s why this is important to note: generally, in looking through what transpired with the COVID-19 response, Anthony Fauci is commonly blamed for all that went amiss – and correctly so. However, we must not also miss the people who were also directly involved, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy; and one such person is Peter Marks. Peter Marks is the primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were (quote unquote) “safe and effective”).

He was also the person who kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID jabs (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). The parties involved in this process, which included, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause (who were the Director and Deputy Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, respectively); they reported that there were (at that point) no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Peter Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).

BUT, despite all of this, the media lied about Peter Marks. They stated that Marks was pressured to be anti-vax by RFK Jr. Yet, no single specific action is cited. Some articles even call Marks a hero, and he is praised by past FDA officials who now consult for drug companies or serve on their board. And funny enough, Peter Marks has now joined their ranks as one among those who embody the problem with the revolving- door corruption between the FDA and the corporations it is supposed to regulate – especially pharmaceutical companies.

FROM FDA REGULATOR TO ELI LILLY EXECUTIVE — THE REVOLVING DOOR OF CORRUPTION EXPANDS

More specifically, six months after his removal from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Peter Marks has officially joined Eli Lilly — the same company that has become notorious for particularly employing former FDA officials. In any case, Marks will serve as Senior VP for Molecule Discovery and Head of Infectious Diseases, working alongside Rachael Anatol, who is another recently ousted regulator. Meanwhile, his former FDA counterpart Patrizia Cavazzoni also quietly landed at Pfizer as Chief Medical Officer earlier this year.

IN FACT, nine of the last ten FDA commissioners have actually gone on to work for major pharmaceutical companies shortly after leaving public office. Within the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, officials routinely rotate between government agencies, global NGOs, and Big Pharma — advancing personal careers while deepening institutional entanglements across the syndicate. And to paint a picture of both this corrupt revolving door relationship and also just how global this syndicate is.

Dr Elizabeth Nabel, who is the former Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the NIH — Joined Moderna’s Board of Directors. Dr Scott Gottlieb, who is the former FDA Commissioner — Joined the Board of Pfizer to promote vaccines on TV during pandemic. Dr Stephen Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner — Became Chief Medical Officer at Flagship Pioneering, which is the venture capital firm that launched Moderna. Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, who is the United Kingdom’s former Deputy Chief Medical Officer and member of the Vaccine Task Force — he was appointed as Senior Medical Consultant at Moderna. Then, Dr Jeremy Farrar, the former Director of the Wellcome Trust — he was appointed as Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, Dr Soren Brostrom, the Director General of the Danish Health Authority — he was also elected to the Executive Board of the World Health Organization. Then, Dr Moncef Slaoui, who is the former Chief Scientist of Operation Warp Speed — he previously served as an executive at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and as a Board member at Moderna. Dr Julie Gerberding, who is the former CDC Director — became President of Merck Vaccines, later serving as CEO of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (the NIH). There is also Dr Luciana Borio, the former FDA Acting Chief Scientist and member of the Biden COVID-19 Advisory Board — she became a Partner at ARCH Venture Partners, which is a firm heavily invested in biotech, while (as we just alluded) Dr Patrizia Cavazzoni, the former Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) — Appointed as Chief Medical Officer at Pfizer, and Dr Peter Marks, the former Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) — has recently been appointed Senior Vice President for Molecule Discovery and Head of Infectious Diseases at Eli Lilly.

It is jarring how repetitive and global this revolving door corruption is; it is factually a syndicate that has gotten so bold in its endeavours, that it has become a network that erases the line between public health stewardship and corporate profiteering — which is a deeply embedded conflict of interest that undermines both trust and safety.

THE REVOLVING DOOR CORRUPTION IS INDICATIVE OF A BROADER ISSUE OF DIABOLICAL CORPORATIONS

Now here is why this revolving door issue matters beyond the specific individuals who are involved in it. A frequent criticism of corporations (which I believe also applies to governmental bureaucracies) is that their organisational structure encourages sociopathic behaviour – in fact, you would have heard me quote the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, when he warned that “Capitalism has metamorphosed”, in that while we used to have corporations that sought to make profit through contributing products and services that added a net positive to society, that has since changed for a handful of them, and now they seek to make profit at the expense of the best interest of society.

Well, this typically occurs because MEMBERS of these entities are shielded from legal or personal accountability for their actions, with any wrongdoings being attributed to the corporation as a whole. In contrast, the main form of accountability most members face is the pressure to advance the institution’s mission (e.g., to make more money), leading to the proliferation of increasingly unethical methods to achieve that goal. To illustrate this, consider this quote from Peter Rost, who is a former executive at Pfizer and one of the few pharmaceutical leaders to speak out against the industry: He stated that (quote):

“It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry [speaking about the pharmaceutical industry] and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organised crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry … The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves – well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway – look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank … However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen … to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation. It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of. When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay.”

Now, this genuinely sounds like a cry for help, from someone who fell into the pharmaceutical rabbit hole, only to discover later that they had become everything that they found morally reprehensible. Which clarifies, in part, how many of the people in this industry overlook what they know and are asked to do. But, on the other hand, we also know that there are those who are driven by their gain: be it power brockering or money. For instance, during the COVID plandemic, there was essentially zero daylight between Anthony Fauci’s agencies and the pharmaceutical industry; and this incestuous relationship was a significant part of the problem. But, here’s more on the propensity of pharmaceutical companies to function like the mafia or mob.

Furthermore, why this revolving door issue matters beyond the specific individuals who are involved in it is that it also points to a culture of disregard for morally acceptable or ethical conduct. In other words, pharmaceutical companies had a streak where they just did not fear consequences as much as they should, because they often got away with very heinous conduct – either through out-of-court settlements, or because of the work done through the pharmaceutical lobby. As such, this created a culture of outright corruption.

For instance, you’d recall that in May this year, the FDA Commissioner in this second Trump administration, being Dr Martin Makary, he publicly exposed a longstanding practice where agency inspectors accepted luxury limousine rides from the very pharmaceutical corporations they were tasked with overseeing. This underscores deep-seated conflicts of interest that have undermined the integrity of drug safety inspections, especially at overseas manufacturing facilities.

Now, the issue centers on foreign inspections, where the FDA’s oversight of drug production has historically relied on “scheduled” visits—essentially announced in advance. These setups, Makary argues, are “no inspections at all. They’re a joke.” Companies get ample time to polish their operations, hide violations, and even roll out the red carpet. Enter the limos: lavish rides provided by inspected firms, blurring the line between regulator and regulatee. While not outright bribes, such perks create an aura of favoritism, potentially softening enforcement. Makary’s exposure highlights how these rides were routine, eroding public trust in the FDA’s gold-standard claims. And this is not hyperbole; especially as the numbers paint a grim picture.

In particular, the FDA inspects thousands of foreign facilities annually, many in countries like India and China, which produce up to 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients for U.S. drugs. A 2023 Government Accountability Office report flagged delays and weaknesses in these checks, exacerbated by COVID-19 travel bans. But post-pandemic, the return to fieldwork revealed these ethical lapses. In response, the FDA announced an expansion of unannounced inspections in May 2025, aiming to catch bad actors off-guard—those falsifying records or concealing contamination risks. The policy also explicitly bans inspectors from accepting industry-provided transport, including taxis, limos, or for-hire vehicles, alongside lodging perks. “This is a key step… to ensure that the FDA is the gold standard for regulatory oversight,

WORLD’S FIRST INTERNATIONAL GOVERNING BODY DECLARES mRNA INJECTIONS BIOLOGICAL & TECHNOLOGICAL WMDS

But, while all of this happens, there are strong efforts that are pushing against the works of pharmaceutical companies, and the vaccine holocaust. Notable among them is that in a stunning and historic move, the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (or A.I.N.) International Tribunal has issued an ORDER and DECLARATION stating that “mRNA nanoparticle injections are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.” And, of course, this marks the first formal judicial declaration by any recognized international authority categorizing the COVID-19 mRNA products as biological weapons.

Now, also important to note is that, in December 2024, Canada’s Ministry of Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs (CIRNAC) formally acknowledged the Alliance of Indigenous Nations, its Treaty, and its International Tribunal—a judicial body composed of judges from every continent. In its official letter dated December 13, 2024, Canada affirmed that its relationship with the A.I.N. exists on a Nation-to-Nation basis, thereby recognizing the Tribunal as a sovereign legal authority under Indigenous and international law.

Also important to note is that the declaration by the Alliance of Indigenous Nations International Tribunal that the COVID vaccine is a biological and technological weapons of mass destruction aligns with our recent study by Zywiec et al, which demonstrated that the COVID-19 mRNA injections violate the Biological Weapons Convention, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, and the US Constitution. It also aligns with Minnesota Bill HF3219, which classifies mRNA injections and related products as weapons of mass destruction under Section 609.712, prohibiting their possession or distribution within the state.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

And now onto our main discussion regarding the multifaceted war on America’s sovereignty, and we ought to begin with the aspect of agroterrorism. And According to a press release from the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, Yunqing Jian, who is a University of Michigan research fellow, and her partner Zunyong Liu have been arrested by the FBI and charged with conspiracy, smuggling, making false statements, and visa fraud after allegedly importing a dangerous biological agent into the United States. The two Chinese nationals are accused of smuggling Fusarium graminearum—a fungal pathogen that causes devastating “head blight” in staple crops such as wheat, corn, and barley, and is classified as a potential agroterrorism weapon due to its capacity for widespread food supply disruption and severe human and animal toxicity. The fungus produces toxins linked to vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive abnormalities.

Zunyong Liu, who works at a Chinese university and conducts similar research, allegedly smuggled the fungus into the U.S. through Detroit Metro Airport, later admitting that he planned to use Yunqing Jian’s University of Michigan lab to conduct further experiments. Also notable in this development is that according to the complaint, Jian received Chinese government funding for her research on this pathogen and possessed electronic records documenting her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – which thus establishes a clear link between her and the Chinese Communist Party (also known as the CCP).

In light of this, the FBI described the case as a grave national security threat, underscoring the danger posed by foreign infiltration of American scientific institutions and the misuse of academic access to import potentially weaponizable biological materials; while Customs and Border Protection echoed these concerns.

THE U.S. NEEDS TO INTENSIFY THE VETTING PROCESS FOR FUNDS SENT TO FOREIGN ENTITIES

Now, what also stands out about this development is that the 2 Chinese nationals worked in a lab that received millions in funding from the US Government. And so, immediately, this means that America is not properly vetting money sent to foreign nations or foreign researchers; or perhaps needs to re-evaluate the existing funding after the work that was done through DOGE.The failure to do this could even mean that America ironically continues to fund projects aimed at undermining its sovereignty.

But, what is even more concerning about this financial aspect is that is is synonymous to what took place with the COVID debacle, in that Wuhan (where the covid virus was concocted) also received funding from the US government. More specifically, USAID funding was utilised to fund the research in Wuhan China that culminated in the COVID plandemic! Some of the research proposals in 2018 were the Wuhan Institute of Virology asking for money to create a virus with a furin cleavage site, specifically a SARS-like coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Well, that’s exactly what COVID-19 turned out to be.

WAS THERE A FAILURE TO ENFORCE TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GAIN-ON-FUNCTION RESEARCH?

However, vetting funding for research that may possibly be dangerous or weaponised against the US is just one part of the essential measures needed. To push the envelope, I would argue that the US needs to also intensify how it enforces the executive order signed by President Donald Trump on suspending gain of function research.

You’d recall that on the 5th of May, Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Improving the safety and security of biological research’, and the purpose of this executive highlighted that (quote): “Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens.  If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.”

It continued to state that “The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight.  It also actively approved, through the National Institutes of Health, Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries where there is limited United States oversight or reasonable expectation of biosafety enforcement.

This recklessness, if unaddressed, may lead to the proliferation of research on pathogens (and potential pathogens) in settings without adequate safeguards, even after COVID-19 revealed the risk of such practices.”

In addition to this, section 3 of the executive order, even proceeds to outline “Stop[ing] Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research.” It states that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (or OSTP), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) identified by the Director of OSTP, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies, to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding, to immediately: (i)   end Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries of concern (e.g., China) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627(c), or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies. So, the question is, where was the enforcement of this executive order in preventing or stopping the possibility of foreign nationals working on an agro-terrosim pathogen from fully developing it and trying to release it in the US?

Clearly, this law needs better enforcement capacity – especially because “so-called accidental leaks” are becoming a protruding trend in biological labs; and in some cases in very aggravatingly unacceptable ways. For instance, kindly have a listen as NIH Director Dr Jay Bhattacharya explains why he paused research on deadly viruses at Fort Detrick’s Integrated Research Facility following an intentional SABOTAGE of lab security, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

THIS ACT OF AGRO-TERRORISM PUTS GAIN-ON-FUNCTION RESEARCH ON THE SPOT

But, this act of agro-terrorism certainly puts gain-on-function research on the spot (once again). And, here, I must emphasise that while this approach to virology or alleged preparation for biological warfare seems noble, gain of function ultimately amounts to an indoctrination in the medical and scientific industries that serves a broadly dystopian, depopulation agenda. As you’d recall, this conduct of weaponising a pathogen is based on a philosophy that was fundamental to the formation of the WHO, and its approach to (quote unquote) health policy. We’ve discussed here on The War Room how the WHO was institutionalised. Its first director general at that time was Canadian physician Brock Chisholm, who served from 1948 to 1953. As the first DG, he obviously contributed significantly to the philosophy of the WHO, which is concerning because Dr Brock Chisholm very infamously advocated for “bacteriological warfare”! He told a meeting of teachers in Toronto in 1947, “that bacteriological warfare promotes any little group of people or any little nation to a degree of proficiency in offensive warfare which makes it a competitor of any of the greater nations.” he added that “It is obsolete now to gauge a nation’s war strength by its capacity to produce aluminium, guns, tanks and so on.”

This is why today, the WHO has increasingly been dictated by a much narrower vision, which identifies public health with biomedical science – much like was influenced by Dr Chisholm in 1948. This has meant that, according to the WHO, the response to epidemics is to be found in vaccines rather than communities; and if the community does not accept the vaccine, they must be made to do so. And yet, the failure of this approach was well-documented in West Africa in the 2013 Ebola outbreak. The WHO, and other international organisations, tried to impose interventions and failed. The outbreak instead came under control when local communities were engaged, as other experts had been urging from the start. And so, by the time the vaccines arrived, the outbreak was in its final stages.

All of this is to say that gain-of-function research is often presented as a noble necessary danger, but it is really part of this ideology that prioritises the weaponisation of pathogens, while claiming that this is a means to save lives, when (in reality) it is part of the health concerns. This is why vaccines do not save lives and often carry active viruses that harm people (like we saw with the polio vaccine) or present new health challenges (like the infertility from the tetanus and COVID jabs); this is also why lab leaks (or intentional lab leaks, in the case of COVID) are often where the practical issues with gain of function research arise. Just as an example, let’s revisit the COVID gain-of-function research issue. Not only did it involve USAID, but it was a deceptive plan that was a collaboration between the US and Chinese governments. Therefore, covid occurred because the legitimisation of gain of function enabled a corrupt ambition for population reduction using a system of gain of function research that was already available, without much concern for accountability.

THE BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL COMPLEX SUBSCRIBES TO PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING

The immediate question that should be asked in light of the agroterrorism pathogen smuggled by the Chinese nationals is whether there is a broader diabolical agenda at play – which is perhaps one of the most important questions to ask seeing that these critical arrests come as the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, Bill Gates, Ashish Jha, and Peter Marks warn of imminent bioterror threats. Why this matters is that the bio-pharmaceutical complex subscribes to predictive programming. This is to say they meet and talk about a potential threat, before it is imminently rolled out.

You would recall that there were covid and the food emergency simulations that preceded the announcement of an emergency of sorts. With respect to food, there was the Food Chain Reaction Game, by Cargill and company, and it was a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organisers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. And if you don’t think those dates are significant, then you might be missing important context.

In addition to this was also Event 201, which was the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. All of these efforts hinged on using simulations for social conditioning are really classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, which is the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. And with this tactic, especially considering the extent of social nudging that is involved, the solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. This probably reminds you of what Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, once notoriously said when he said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” (end quote). In fact, kindly have a listen to the following excerpt from Event 201, and note the discussions about the quick surge of the presented problem and the prescribed solutions to claimed mis and dis-information; which include employing social media organisations to be a part of what are essentially censorship efforts.

And so, noting this propensity in bio-pharmaceutical complex to use predictive programming (like it did with the food chai reaction game and event 201, it is deductible that the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, Bill Gates, Ashish Jha, and Peter Marks warning of imminent bioterror threats is aimed at doing the same thing – especially when we consider that in April 2024, the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense released what was titled “The National Blueprint for Biodefense: Immediate Action Needed to Defend Against Biological Threats”, which is a little-known but deeply alarming federally commissioned report. It outlines a simulated bioterror attack on July 4, 2025, using a genetically engineered Nipah virus that kills 280,000 Americans in a single day and devastates livestock. The virus, in the scenario, is modified for high transmissibility and retains a fatality rate exceeding 40%.

Like Event 201 just before COVID-19, this simulation appears to represent strategic planning informed by foreknowledge of an impending crisis—laying the policy and infrastructure groundwork for future emergency powers, AI-driven surveillance, and accelerated “vaccine” deployment. The report explicitly calls for centralizing national biodefense authority under the National Security Council, establishing a permanent White House directorate, and replacing decentralised detection systems with a unified, technology-driven infrastructure.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso