THE EPSTEIN FILES EXPOSE A 20-YEAR ARCHITECTURE BEHIND PANDEMICS AS A BUSINESS MODEL

In addressing the On January 30th release of the 3.5 million Epstein files, in light of the upholding of principles of justice (post file release), and a number of strategic concerns about the release of the files themselves, on of the points we highlighted was that speculation about Epstein’s potential co-conspirators or clients has made the Epstein files discussions a bipartisan contest on which party has the most Epstein-linked persons, as opposed to dealing with the facts that are provable and well evidenced, and using them to ask questions or formulate strategies that amount to formal legal recourse. We further highlighted the responsibility of starting efforts towards formal legal recourse with what is known and well-evidenced, and use that to galvanise policy and action toward direct accountability. Well, continuing in that same light, we ought first to address how the Epstein files aid in questioning the integrity of institutions.

Now, while the Epstein files have reignited scrutiny around specific relationships, their deeper significance lies in how they intersect with a much longer and largely unexamined timeline. Public records, institutional initiatives, and financial instruments indicate that the conceptual foundations of pandemic preparedness as a managed financial and security category began to take shape in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as philanthropic capital, global health governance, and risk finance increasingly converged. Following the 2008 financial crisis, this framework rapidly accelerated – expanding through reinsurance markets, parametric triggers, donor-advised funding structures, and global simulations – years before COVID-19 made the architecture visible to the public.

This is to say that when drawing on internal emails, financial agreements, text messages, and planning documents contained in the Epstein Files – particularly from the 2011–2019 period, when many of these systems moved from conceptual to operational; well, the record shows that pandemics and vaccines were already being treated as standing financial and strategic categories! As such, investment vehicles, donor-advised fund structures, simulation programs, and reinsurance products were not improvised in response to crisis; they were rather refined and expanded within an architecture whose foundations PREDATE the COVID-19 era by more than a decade! Which means that exercises such as Event 201 make clear that coronavirus pandemics were not hypothetical abstractions, but explicitly modeled scenarios that were integrated into financial, philanthro-capitalisstic, and policy planning well before COVID-19 emerged.

Now, the people building these structures were not public health officials reacting to emerging threats. They were financiers, private-office strategists, pharmaceutical executives, and convicted intermediaries working inside boardrooms at JPMorgan, drafting scope documents at Bill Gates’ private office, coordinating across offshore jurisdictions, and brokering career placements into vaccine teams and pandemic reinsurance units. And this distinction matters because preparedness is supposed to be a public good. However, pre-alignment of profit, power, and narrative control around a predicted crisis categorically is not, which is what the documents in the files reveal; they essentially show how easily such alignment drifts from public service into systemic exploitation.

EPSTEIN’S ROLE IN FRAMING THE STRUCTURE OF GATES’ PHILANTHRO-CAPITALISM

In light of this Pandemic planning, it becomes not only clear that Epstein was part of the foundational conversations that would later manifest as the COVID debacle, but there is also the revelation that Epstein had a role in framing the structure of Bill Gates’ philanthro-capitalism model. In more detail, in July 2011, Epstein sent an internal email to Jes Staley, with Boris Nikolic, Bill Gates’ chief science and technology advisor, now copied. The email describes the proposed donor-advised fund in more developed terms. Buried in the operational language is a phrase worth reading twice: and it states that “A silo based proposal that will get Bill more money for vaccines.” Here, Epstein was not talking about “more research” or “emergency capacity” or even “public health resilience” Rather, he was focused on money for vaccines, which is the language of capital formation, and not charity.

Then, three weeks later, on August 17, 2011, Mary Erdoes – who was the CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management – she emailed Epstein directly with a set of structured questions in advance of an upcoming meeting. She cc’d Jes Staley. Her questions were precise and clear on what the key focus was. In the email she asked: What role will the Gates Foundation play vis-a-vis other donors? What is the profile of potential donors, including tax status? How important is anonymity? Is pooling of investments a core feature? What is the potential funding amount? And, What is the timeline for launch?

Epstein’s reply to these questions was evidently sent within minutes, and was sweeping. He replied that there would be no foundation input on investments. Donors choose from custom portfolios or predefined silos – which is a mutual fund concept. The fund would also be “mostly initially American” but, he adds that they should be ready with an offshore arm — especially for vaccines.

He further projected making “billions of dollars” in the first two years and “tens of billions by year 4.” The timeline, he says, “depends only on JPM’s ability to organize, legal, structure, internet presence, and staffing.” And so, the bottleneck is neither Bill Gates nor the donors; it is rather the bank’s capacity to build what Epstein has already designed. Additionally, according to Epstein, the fund would exist in perpetuity, with succession controls. It would also not function as a thematic spend-down, nor as a time-limited initiative. Instead, it would be a permanent vehicle designed to outlive its creators. And he adds that the fund would also have “access to the current Foundation’s pools of targets” while also “looking for both new opportunities with metrics for success.” AND SO, in a single email, Epstein essentially sketched a vehicle with global reach, offshore flexibility, perpetual duration, and direct access to the Gates Foundation’s pipeline.

THEN, eleven days later, on August 28, 2011, Epstein sent a follow-up email to Staley and Erdoes outlining the donor-advised fund concept in even greater detail. The structure he describes is not a typical charitable vehicle. It is a financial platform (or, in other words, philanthro-capitalism).

SO, he states that the fund would be tied “initially just to the Gates program.” The minimum gift is one hundred million dollars. The projected scale is one hundred billion dollars within two years. And the structure would include advisory boards, investment committees, grant committees, administration mirroring a mutual fund, valuation services for illiquid or “funky assets,” and investment management farmed out to Highbridge – which is a JPMorgan-affiliated hedge fund. BUT, then comes the line that acknowledges the contradiction at the center of the entire apparatus: ANd here, Epstein states that (quote): “The tension is making money from a Charitable Org. Therefore the money making parts need to be arms length.”

This means that the architect of this philanthro-capitalism structure was a man convicted of sex crimes against minors, and in the correspondence contained in the Epstein files we see he explicitly acknowledging that the vehicle is designed to generate profit under the legal cover of charity. His proposed solution is not to eliminate the profit motive but to obscure it through “arm’s length” separation. And that is how Bill Gates brokered his ability to influence global health policy, which you see in how GAVI functioned.

was all a script and profit making apparatus disguised as charity and preparedness. Which is what God’s Prophet to the nations, and the President of Loveworld Inc, the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome LONG exposed it all to be – a script, and a failed one at that, as it collided with God’s Master Script.

WHY THE DONOR-ADVISED FUND MODEL FEATURES IN PLANDEMIC PLANNING

But, something we ought to highlight in this discussion is why the donor-advised fund model featured in these emails of plandemic preparedness/philanthro-capitalism. In essence, donor-advised funds are not illegal. They are widely used charitable vehicles that allow donors to receive an immediate tax deduction while retaining advisory influence over how their contribution is invested and eventually distributed as grants. Which is probably why Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard all operate donor-advised funds.

But, what makes them relevant here is three things, namely: scale, opacity, and timing. What this means is that: when donor-advised funds are designed for perpetual duration, offshore flexibility, hundred-million-dollar minimums, and investment-first logic – when their stated purpose is not merely charitable giving but the generation of returns through vehicles like hedge funds and structured products – they blur the line between philanthropy and financial engineering in ways that public oversight rarely penetrates.

Additionally, the tax benefit is immediate, white the charitable distribution can be deferred indefinitely. And the investment returns generated in the interim accrue inside a tax-exempt structure. And so, when Epstein wrote that (quote) “the tension is making money from a charitable org” and also proposed “arm’s length” separation as the solution, he was essentially describing not an abuse of the system but the system working exactly as designed – which is at a scale most regulators never anticipated.

Then thirdly, the reason that donor-advised funds feature in the emails is because of their enablement of public-private partnerships. Donor-advised funds are increasingly interacting with, and even sometimes directly funding, public-private partnerships, through offering a mechanism to channel private capital into public projects. And while this sounds like a convenient structure for those corresponding with Epstein, it comes at the expense of agency for those affected.

EPSTEIN FILES FURTHER PROVE THE WHO IS A SATELLITE ORGANISATION FOR GATES

Another of the emails from the files reveals that the WHO does in fact serve as a satellite organisation of the Gates Foundation. In an email with the subject line “Preparing for Pandemics”, we see correspondence between Gates and Epstein, in which Gates says to Epstein (quote): “Let’s discuss next steps, for example how to officially involve the WHO and CDC”. This means the presence of these bodies, the corruption embedded in them and the WHO’s failed attempt to accumulate more power through the pandemic accord are also an inorganic and COVID itself.

In fact, Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has amassed influence, particularly in relation to the World Health Organization (WHO). The foundation is a major donor to the WHO, often ranking as the second-largest contributor after governments like the United States (when it was still in the WHO). So much so that, between 2010 and 2023, the Gates Foundation provided about 9.5% of WHO’s voluntary contributions, with total grants to the agency reaching billions over recent decades. 

Well, this financial leverage has allowed Gates to exert significant sway over WHO’s priorities, effectively shaping its agenda to align with the foundation’s focuses. This has even been described as the foundation having effectively “taken over” aspects of WHO’s direction, especially when public funding shortfalls leave the organization reliant on private funding. But, ultimately, Gate’s approach of philanthrocapitalism has enabled Gates to wield outsized power without accountability over the WHO.

The essence of this portion of our discussion is to highlight that the recent exposure of information relating to how Epstein influenced various sects of government and international organisations is diluting the assumed integrity of these institutions. However that should not be an end in itself; what ought to come next are subpoenas for them to account for what is detailed in the files, and direct accountability. Which then brings us to questions on the UN’s institutional integrity.

THE UN’S SENIOR ADVISER ON INFORMATION INTEGRITY STRUGGLED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIMS

So, part of what prompted this focus on the UN is that on Friday, the 6th of February, Charlotte Scaddan, the United Nations Senior Adviser on Information Integrity within the Department of Global Communications, appeared via teleconference as a witness before Australia’s Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. This parliamentary inquiry, established in 2025, examines the prevalence and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy policy in Australia. The committee has also held multiple public hearings, with this session in Canberra featuring testimony from various stakeholders, including international perspectives on what are said to be global efforts at addressing information challenges.

Now, Charlotte Scaddan’s presence and testimony was especially notable. First, she leads UN initiatives to implement the Global Principles for Information Integrity, which claim to promote healthier information ecosystems while protecting human rights. Her role involves advising on policies to mitigate risks from disinformation, particularly in areas affecting UN mandates like climate action. This occurs against a backdrop in which the UN has increasingly focused on climate-related disinformation, viewing it as a barrier to effective environmental policy and international cooperation.

Well, during the hearing in Australia, questioning turned to the scientific basis underpinning claims about climate change. Some lawmakers and representatives among the committee participants pressed for specific, verifiable evidence – such as precise references to studies, page numbers in reports, or direct empirical data – to support assertions that certain statements constitute misinformation. But, Charlotte Scaddan was notably unable to immediately provide such citations or raw data points when challenged on the logical or evidentiary foundation for labeling particular views as undermining what she asserts is established climate consensus (which is a crucial point on its own; and one that we’ll address shortly).

In any case, this exchange highlights a broader tension in debates over “information integrity”. On the one hand, those who propose strong measures against so-called climate misinformation argue that overwhelming scientific agreement – drawn from sources like IPCC reports – provides sufficient grounds to identify and counter false or misleading claims that could delay urgent action. In line with this, the UN’s approach emphasizes protecting the integrity of information to support evidence-based policymaking, especially as so-called disinformation campaigns target researchers, journalists, and solutions like renewable energy transitions.

However, on the other hand, the inability to produce immediate, specific empirical references raises serious concerns about accountability. In particular, designating any statement as “misinformation” carries significant implications: in that it can justify censorship, deplatforming, or reputational damage. As such, to label something objectively false or misleading demands clear, reproducible evidence – and not abstract appeals to authority, prevailing opinion, or claimed broad consensus alone. In fact, true scientific integrity relies on falsifiability, transparent methodologies, and openness to challenge. AND SO, when those tasked with information integrity cannot promptly substantiate their positions with hard evidence, it undermines confidence in the process.

Now, this is crucial to note in light of present questions on institutional integrity because the UN’s framework is one that conflates dissent with danger if “undermining consensus” becomes the primary criterion for misinformation. And this is considering that consensus in science is valuable but provisional; history shows paradigm shifts often begin as minority views dismissed as fringe. And so, replacing rigorous, verifiable proof with institutional declarations of truth invites authoritarian tendencies, where global bodies dictate acceptable discourse rather than encouraging open debate grounded in data.

Furthermore, the incident in the Australian Senate is particularly telling of the validity of present questions to institutional integrity given Charlotte Scaddan’s position. As a senior UN official responsible for global information integrity efforts, she theoretically represents an institution that advocates for countering disinformation to enable progress on existential threats (and I say her role is theoretical because empirical evidence suggests that those who claim to counter disinformation are often the disinformation themselves). But, despite her theoretically information integrity inclined role, when Charlotte Scaddan was directly confronted with demands for the evidentiary backbone of her efforts, the response fell short of what one might expect from an alleged expert in the field. And so, one must begin to question: if the so-called experts struggle to cite specifics under scrutiny, how reliable are their judgments about what constitutes misinformation?

CLIMATE ALARMISTS HAVE A TENDENCY TO MANUFACTURE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS

Now, Charlotte Scaddan was adamant on insisting that there is consensus among scientists on climate change; in fact, you’ve also probably heard the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change”, or that the scientists agree that the earth is warming up at unprecedented levels. But, what often remains unclear about this claimed consensus is (1) firstly, What exactly do the climate scientists agree on? And usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real” or “the earth is warming up”- which, by the way, is a response that lacks credibility and substance.

Then what is also unclear is (2) secondly How do we know the 97% agree? In fact, how was that even proven? Now, what you’ll discover is that almost NO ONE who refers to the 97% claim has any idea of whether this claim was proved. And in our previous discussions we’ve discussed that among the studies that were used to justify the lie behind the 97% consensus claim, the popular one which was a paper authored by a John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, which is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. In the paper, Cook was able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). And what this really means is that there is no quantifiable 97% consensus among climate scientists.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Weaponising the law in pursuit of trying to use these 7 areas for their agenda; and what it means that at the centre of the projects being pursued by the globalist is Bill Gates, through his philantro-capitalism. Let’s begin with the weaponisation of laws.

Once again, God’s Prophet to the Nations and the President of Loveworld Inc, being the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., re-echoed the warning against the satanic plans of globalists, in which they intend to use various other methods to try to control nations, looking at 7 areas that these respective globalist figures intend to manipulate. A key medium for their manipulative efforts is the weaponisation of the law, and there are important reasons why this is the case.

The first is that laws are a socialisation agent; and one that is often ignored. When we talk about socialisation agents, the tendency is to think about the most social aspects of society and thus restrict the definition of socialisation agents to entities like one’s family, school, social group, and similar considerations. But laws are actually a massive socialisation agent – when you consider the relationship that society and government has with the law.

For our collective clarity, when we speak of socialisation agents, we speak of those individuals, groups, or institutions that influence how a person learns and even internalises what are presented as the values, norms, and acceptable behaviours of their society. As a result, these socialisation agents play a crucial role in shaping an individual’s social development and (more broadly) their understanding of the world.

Here’s how laws are socialisation agents: the values, norms and behaviours of a society do not exist in a vacuum, and are thus often susceptible to some influence and change – positive or otherwise. Driving this change are the interests of certain groups, or at times even the government. And how the government influences or changes these societal values, norms and behaviours is by systematically nudging people to begin to think and act a certain way through legislating a new set of values, norms and behaviours.

So, this is quite significant because when a law is implemented, there are usually subtle or overt propaganda efforts that purport the legitimacy of that law. For example, the UK government keeps claiming that the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and so when they say that enough about the Online Safety Act, that begins to be what people associate with it. This measure is also significant because it preys on the more liberal inclinations of certain sects of society and the impressionable minds of a younger generation without pre-existing ideals. Again, in the UK, the end of life Bill failed to pass years ago with an older more conservative society, but it passed in newer more liberally inclined one, where even younger members of society claimed they wanted so-called merciful deaths for their aging relatives.

Now, as stated earlier, we see this socialisation capacity of the law play out positively and negatively: on the one hand, we saw people in liberal democracies where the freedom of movement was supposed to be guaranteed, be systematically nudged to suddenly accept being imprisoned in their homes in the name of “flattening the curve”, because the law dictated that it was illegal to move at will. On the other hand, we see governments enact laws against the gender mutilation of children to systematically nudge society away from assuming the inherent correctness of sex changes. And so, the point is not that all laws are bad and manipulative, but it is to highlight that law is very much a socialisation agent, and that governments use it as such. And knowing this, globalists also want to use laws to try to enforce a new set of values, norms and behaviours in society – which paints a picture of how systemic their vain ambitions are. And here’s the President of Loveworld Incorporated warning about the weaponisation of laws, and emphasising our role as the Church in this time.

The second reason globalists have this diabolical ambition to weaponise laws is because – in addition to laws being socialisation agents – they often come with the expectation of general application. This is because laws typically demand compliance, and in order to enforce that compliance, it should be expected of all if not the majority of people. Therefore, weaponising laws for globalists is about trying to use the law to guarantee a massive impact of their pursuits – ensuring that their diabolical efforts are of general applications, with few exceptions.

Here’s an example, if you regularly watch ‘The War Room’, you would know I do not regard international law and actual law because it has no enforcement capacity. For the most part, all it tends to be is a bunch of agreements that nations may choose to organise resources and enforcement capacity to achieve, usually through incorporating some aspects of the international agreement into an act from the legislative body – otherwise, international law is inconsequential. At best they could either sanction nations to try to disincentive certain conduct, or offer trade benefits to encourage it – but, again, otherwise, international law is inconsequential.

Now, I think the globalists caught on to this reality, because they then weaponised domestic law, capacity and enforcement towards a diabolical, international law-related agenda, which is the pandemic accord and the international health regulations. More specifically, the amendments to the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by-passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land; but also that they capture domestic enforcement mechanisms to enact their agenda. And so, this desire to make laws of general application, while also capturing domestic enforcement capacity is another reason why globalists want to weaponise the law for their 7 fold agendas.

Then the final consideration on why globalists want to weaponise the law, is that they wish to evade accountability, and so they want to make governments legislate things in their favour. There are two key examples that attest to this. First is 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. This 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.

Second is Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

BILL GATES: AT THE CENTRE OF GLOBALIST PROJECTS THROUGH PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM

This then brings us to the second part of our discussion, in which we address the fact of bill Gates being at the centre of the  globalist plans exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., and this being done through his modus operandi of philantro-capitalism. In essence, through his philantro-capitalism, Bill Gates transformed himself from a tech villain into one of the most seemingly admired people on the planet. Even as allegations of misconduct have recently tarnished his public image, the beneficence of the Gates Foundation, celebrated for spending billions to save lives around the globe, is taken as a given. But as investigations have revealed, Gates is still exactly who he was at Microsoft: a bully and monopolist, convinced of his own righteousness and intent on imposing his ideas, his solutions, and his leadership on everyone else. At the core, he is not a selfless philanthropist but a power broker, a clever engineer who has innovated a way to turn extreme wealth into immense political influence—and who has made some people believe that they should applaud his acquisition of power, and not challenge it – something that the president of Loveworld Inc. and God’s Prophet to the Nations has exposed.

But, like the media, Gates also uses gaslighting inorder to sanitise and justify his diabolical philatro–capitalism dealings. For instance, Gates once exclaimed in an interview that he has been taken aback by the volume of (what he calls) “crazy” and “evil” conspiracy theories about him and Dr. Anthony Fauci spread on social media during the COVID-19 plandemic – which is an interesting attitude towards people demanding accountability from people like him, who had imposed a tyrannical order, during the pandemic.

THE COST OF BILL GATES’ PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM ON RECEPIENT NATIONS

Now, there is a notable reason why Bill Gates has pursued philantro-capitalism, which answers the question of what is the cost of being a recipient nation of his schemes, falsely presented as philanthropic works. In particular, Gates’s billions have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but also ineffective. In many places, Bill Gates is hurting the very people he claims to help.

Now, you’d also recall that Bill Gates has openly articulated his belief the world needs billions less people. Everything he does, supports, and funds, actively promotes achieving his psychotic death wish for those he considers useless eaters. Gates funded Event 201 in October 2019, laying out the master plan for the Covid plandemic, while at the same time funding the vaccines for a disease that supposedly didn’t exist yet. Of course, he was also front and centre in pushing billions across the globe to be injected with this untested toxic DNA altering concoction. It is now unequivocally provable these vaccines killed millions immediately, millions more slowly and methodically, and stopped millions more from ever being born by drastically altering the fertility of young people who had ZERO risk from covid, but were forced to be injected by the authorities and their bought off lackeys.

Let’s zoom into Gates’ claims that his involvement in the health affairs of nations is about a rational and humane decrease in human population. He claims that they are merely making information and products for better health available, which in turn encourages families to decide to have fewer children. This is a weird argument and it’s sad that not a lot of people have said this to Bill Gates and his team at the Gates Foundation. First, this claim by Bill Gates presupposes that parents who choose to have more children typically lack knowledge and products that promote their health and wellbeing, which also sounds like the people Gates is supposedly talking about have a perpetual inclination to making bad decisions that leave them in worse conditions – no! Being fruitful and multiplying is not a consequence of poor health education and products.

Secondly, one would expect that when health becomes better, parents would want to have more children because the health facilities required for adequate care are more available. And so, this tells us something about the Gates’ Foundation proposed solutions for health – they likely contribute to population decline, especially when we look at vaccines and how they have destroyed the reproductive capacity of many around the world, if not killed the vaccine recipients completely.

Well, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

Well, when the emergency-authorised mRNA vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, most of humanity was apparently unaware that they were not vaccines in the traditional sense of inactivated or attenuated pathogens that would induce an immune response (which, as we’ve previously discussed, is not sound or scientific logic). In any case, the new injections were the genetic code for instructing the body to create a foreign, toxic protein. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg understood this, and he starkly contrasted with the public when, during an internal meeting with com- pany executives on July 16, 2020, he stated that (quote): “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modify- ing people’s DNA and RNA to directly code in a person’s DNA and RNA. Basically, the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.” Well, Zuckerberg clearly violated what was the Facebook code of conduct on talking about vaccines during that period in saying this.

Because most of humanity did not understand what they were being injected with, the creators of this injection apparently perceived it necessary to erect something akin to a religion that deified the vaccines. This came naturally to them because many perceived that, with their new messenger RNA vaccines, they were using God’s language to direct the cellular machinery of the human body to do their bidding. And I’d like to just highlight here that (in saying this), it is not my creative interpretation or articulation of the events that transpired. In actual fact, proof of this god-complex can be found in that: in his 2006 book, titled The Language of God, former NIH director Francis Collins begins by quoting former US president Bill Clinton when he announced in early 2000 that the human genome had been sequenced. In fact, about 88 percent had been sequenced at that time, but as the leader of the Human Genome Project, Dr Collins was apparently keen to make the big announcement sooner rather than later. And so, at a press conference in the East Room of the White House, with Dr Collins standing next to him, president Clinton announced, (quote): “Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.” (end quote). Evidently, when president Clinton said they were “gaining ever more awe” as they were learning the language in which God created life, clearly he meant they were learning to modify and alter people’s DNA. And I say this because the “modified” mRNA produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna has been chemically altered to have this effect – as Zuckerberg was caught on camera warning. But, here is Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan explaining the signs of DNA integration seen in the COVID jabs..

THE SELF-PROCCLAIMED INFALLIBILITY OF THE ORCHESTRATORS OF THE SCIENTISTIC CULT

Then there is the self-procclaimed importance and infallibility of those who were persons orchestrating the scientific religion. In essence, from the outset of the pandemic, those who were said to be working “at the speed of science” to create a new vaccine were presented as high priests of molecular biology and vaccinology. They used lots of Latin and Greek words that lay people couldn’t understand. Anthony Fauci was presented by the adoring media as the Pope of the COVID-19 vaccine program. He frequently stated the mantra “follow the science,” which consisted of his edicts, issued like papal bulls, that no one was allowed to question. On June 9, 2021, Dr. Fauci implicitly invoked the doctrine of papal infallibility when he proclaimed, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.”

Then, those who did question Fauci in public forums and on the internet quickly ran afoul of an army of censors who worked for various internet policing organisations. Doctors who advocated treating COVID-19 with repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were branded as heretics and excommunicated from the college of physicians and from the rest of society. The medicines they recommended were banned as anathema that could not, under any circumstances, be dispensed, even to a patient dying in hospital to whom nothing else was being offered.

Well, this informs us of the religious cult leader-like inclinations of those who were at the helm of the COVID response. They played on the ignorance of many,allocated power over others to themselves, while making any dissent to their proclamations appear as an act of heresy. But, interestingly, Carl Sagan spoke about this potential danger years before we saw it at the scale with which it was displayed during the COVID era; while Dr Judy Mikovits ties the developments during the COVID era directly to the cult of scientism.

Now, this is a good time to state categorically that science itself is not inherently bad. In fact, scientism (as was referenced by Dr Judy Mikovits) is far different from science. Scientism is about declaring falsehoods to be true under the guise of science. Therefore, telling someone to (quote)  “trust the science” is the hallmark of a religious cult, and actually flies in the face of the scientific method which requires you to test the science.

This differentiation should even make it clear what other phenomena fall within the scope of scientism and not science – such as the climate change hoax, which has also produced a cult, as was articulated by Australian Senator, Malcolm Roberts, in 2023.

GOD ALLOWS QUESTIONS, AND YET THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE DOES NOT

Tied to the claimed infallibility of the persons behind the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion is the contempt for questions and the freedom of choice. Now, to underline the gravity of this audacious position, I’d like to highlight when we observe the Scriptures, like the moment when Abraham interceded for Lot and his family in Genesis 18, and when Moses interceded for the children of Israel in Exodus 32, God Almighty allows people to ask questions! In fact, God also respects the freedom of choice, because He is love and love connotes choice – so much so, that in the first Chapter of the Gospel of St John, he lets us know (in verse 11) that the Lord Jesus came to His own, but was rejected by them; and then in the successive verse St John proceeds to say that to those who received Him, Hesus gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. In other words, He came to His own people, they chose to reject Him, and He subsequently focused on those who received Him. In fact, even today, salvation is not by compensation: there are people we may preach to, who will reject the message.

Well, despite this, the members of the scientific religion saw themselves as far more infallible and omnipotent, thus completely negating men’s free will and option to question or dissent to the status quo. So much so, that a massive censorship industrial complex extending from federal agencies to every major digital tech platform was constructed over the last nine years, and went into full effect in 2020. This largely happened out of the public eye. Even five years ago, it was barely known. The cases of banned accounts and throttled postings seemed isolated and often just an unfortunate exercise of editorial zeal.

BUT, the FOIAs and court discovery have unearthed tens of thousands of pages of evidence, proving that the problem is neither isolated nor random but rather gargantuan and systematic. It involves dozens of federal agencies, non-government organisations working as contractors, universities on contract either directly or indirectly, and even embedded employees at social media companies. The censorship network is so elaborate at this point that it is truly an industry—and an illegal one, at that! And, at the very core of its existence is both the government’s desire for control, and the reality that the scientific cult has, for the longest time, presumed people to be too stupid to think for themselves. And we saw the Biden-Harris  administration leverage this form of thinking, in building a censorship industrial complex that serviced the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion.

THE SCIENTISTIC RELIGION ALSO REQUIRES BLOOD SACRIFICE

In case the discussion thus far seemed like a stretched analogy, let’s make the parallels between religion and scientism (as well as the vaccine enterprise) even more explicit. Now, as you’d already know, any religion and cult notably requires blood sacrifice. Well, it certainly is no different for the scientific religion that has tried to sensationalise vaccines as an irrefutable good intervention.

In fact, this parallel of blood sacrifice can be traced to the use of aborted foetus tissue in the development of vaccines. A lot of vaccines that are presented as simple clear solutions ACTUALLY contain fetal tissue that was taken from aborted babies – so much so, that human fetal cell lines are used to culture a number of vaccines today. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6. In more detail, WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus. And MRC-5 (also called Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

In addition, Human Embryonic Kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture. And the PERC-6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion. Now, the newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.

Then you might ask, which vaccines utilised aborted fetal materials? There is a long list of them; and it includes: the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine/MMR. There is also the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccine (the DTaP/TdP). There is the varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine and the shingles (zoster) vaccine. The hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines; the rabies vaccine; and even some coronavirus vaccines! And so, this is clearly a long established practice in the vaccine industry.

And you’d recall that this was highlighted from the testimony of Stanley Plotkin, under oath. This is the same Stanley Plotkin who is widely regarded as a leading author and contributor to vaccinology; and has been a consultant to Moderna, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid vaccine.

THE SCIENTISTIC RELIGION IS AIMED AT SELLING A DEFECTIVE AND DETRIMENTAL PRODUCT

Of course, the sacrifice of lives does not end with the foetuses used in the development of vaccines. It is also the lives harmed and destroyed in the rollout of various vaccines – which has been happening for years, since the very first vaccine, which is the smallpox vaccine. In 1798, the smallpox vaccine hit the market. Once it hit the market, it was observed to frequently cause smallpox outbreaks (rather than prevent them) and to cause a wide range of debilitating and complex injuries that many of the doctors had never seen before (and many of which I believe were examples of “blood stasis”). Curiously, rather than recognising this was a mistake, most of the medical profession endorsed the smallpox vaccine, and governments around the world mandated it as cases kept on increasing, leading to a downward spiral that was eventually broken by mass public protest against those mandates.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killed a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (ence-phalitis) or brain damage (ence-phalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations!

But, now, in addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period: First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (we note this when observing the example of how the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).

Then the second issue that stood out is that public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since it was said that no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, this medical doctrine rested on a faulty premise because effective treatments did IN FACT exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections). And so, the scientific religion and vaccine enterprise has always operated with a willingness to sacrifice lives, while covering it up as acts of necessity, which is why aborted foetuses are used even today for the development of vaccines.

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