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

The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso