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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ISSUES WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER FROM DEMETRE DASKALAKIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE URGENT NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AT THE CDC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Healthcare as one of the 7 areas that globalists seek to manipulate, and we ought to start with some historical context, regarding how the COVID plandemic enabled globalists to test a militarised healthcare system.

Now, in former US president Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961, he stated that “…in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many understand what he was referring to. We’ve seen the cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretences. We’ve also seen the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatised soldiers that it spits out. Evidently, war, to some, has become big business! And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream (in other words – if they can weaponise the laws), the MIC will continue to grow.

In light of this contextualisation of the MIC, one would think that other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex; in that this MIC seemed a far more diabolical industry. Well, that was until the covid pandemic, but not forsaking a number of prior controversies. But this is really to say that among its many lessons, the Covid plandemic era has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you essentially get the same result. Meaning that not only is the “medical-industrial complex” every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, but, it is also every bit as real a problem, precisely because they are different sides of the same coin since the military industrial complex informed the weaponisation of the healthcare system in the COVID era. So, how did this happen?

Well, during the Covid era, one can infer interesting parallels to military operations. For instance, by early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the Covid “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared in March 2020, after the Covid response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) was ceded to the National Security Council. Civil liberties – including the freedoms of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, or to obtain legal relief – were rendered null and void. In addition, top-down diktats on how to manage Covid patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. Meanwhile, the mandated protocols also made no sense: they ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics; they shamelessly lied about well-known interventions, while their mandated protocols killed people.

What was also interesting to note during that time is that those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to de-license, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And the subsequent violence was no different.

But, speaking of lies about well-known interventions, you’d recall the ivermectin debate, that president Trump was involved in during that period. Well, as more evidence came out supporting Trump’s claim of the comparative benefit of using ivermectin in comparison to vaccines and all other protocols that were mandated, the FDA in the Biden era, even tried to back-peddle on their dismissal of ivermectin. In particular, the FDA claimed their Ivermectin smear campaign was only related to people self-medicating w/ a veterinary formulation of the drug.

However, in a 2021 interview with the American Medical Association, FDA Director John Farley discouraged physicians from prescribing Ivermectin, calling it a ‘tragic choice’. He stated that (quote): “Making that choice to choose Ivermectin over a vaccine can be a tragic choice that can lead to them getting very sick, getting admitted to the hospital, or even dying from COVID.

This ultimately means that the concerning tenets that have driven the military industrial complex were incorporated into the healthcare system. During covid, globalist debuted this militarised so-called healthcare response, and thus in seeking to manipulate healthcare, want similar control. Why else would there be a WHO pandemic treaty and IHR that try to centralise power to dictate health policy on the Director General, except to great a legal justification for a militarised top down approach to global healthcare?

MEDICINE BECAME BIG BUSINESS: THE COMMERCIALISATION OF SICKNESS AND INFIRMITY 

Now, in light of the parallels between the military and the medical industrial complexes, we alluded to the fact that in light of the operations of the military industrial complex, war has become big business. Well, as far as institutional capture is concerned, the medical establishment has done the same, especially with cancer. You’d recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ how not only is cancer man-made, but it is also big business, a multi-billion dollar industry. It involves getting people to get cancer, to be poisoned with chemotherapy, and large amounts of money spent on continuous research for a cure that apparently does not exist (which is a lie). And the biggest proof of this intentional weaponisation and commercialisation of cancer is that, simply put, cancer did NOT really exist more than 50 years ago but started booming with the introduction of processed food loaded with massive amounts of sugar and chemicals.

So, you’ve just heard the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. warn about the artificial and genetically modified food that causes cancer. Well, another crucial cause is exposure to carcinogenic systems. Now, a carcinogen is any substance, agent, or process that can induce cancer. They can cause cancer by damaging DNA or interfering with cellular processes (hence cancer is known as an attack on healthy cells by a cancerous cell). Examples of these carcinogens include asbestos, benzene, radon and even tobacco smoke.

This is critical to note because it exposes a detrimental irony when it comes to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is also a carcinogenic system! It is inherently a harmful concoction of chemicals that was initially created as a weapon, and then suddenly became rebranded as a highly profitable health intervention.

There you have it, this same chemical agent that was used to kill people is now being used to allegedly treat cancer. And ironically, despite the modifications on it, chemotherapy can also function as a carcinogen! More specifically, chemotherapy drugs are designed to target and destroy rapidly dividing cells, including cancer cells, but they can also affect healthy cells that divide quickly, like those in the bone marrow, hair follicles, and digestive tract. However, some chemotherapy agents, particularly alkylating agents, have been linked to an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia or other secondary cancers. And the risk of developing a second cancer after chemotherapy is influenced by factors like the type of chemotherapy drugs used, the dosage, the duration of treatment, and the individual’s overall health. ALL of this is to say that (IRONICALLY) chemotherapy also functions as a carcinogen, meaning that it is a cancer causing agent.

And so this details the institutionalisation of the commercialisation of sickness and infirmity. The medical industrial complex sees sickness as an opportunity to form a market or customer base; and so, this industry interventions that it knows are harmful or not effective in the long run, and merely brands them as an acceptable panacea. What makes this a problem of institutional corruption, as opposed to mere isolated cases of unethical business conduct is that this is standard practice in the medical industry – all while legitimate or just better cures are hidden.

Take Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who we recently discussed. So, in an interview with Tucker Carlson he detailed that there actually is a medical breakthrough in fighting cancer. However, because of politics, the Deep State and Big Pharma it’s being suppressed. Meaning that there is an intervention for which he has the data and research to prove has been helpful, yet special interests block it – pointing to systemic institutional corruption in the medical industry. Meanwhile, Dr Mark Hyman also told Tucker Carlson about the keto diet’s ability to fight cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and more. And so, literally eating certain good organic foods, is a comparatively far better option to chemotherapy.

MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS: THE MEDICAL CARTEL’S TOOL FOR WEAPONISING LAWS

We then also have to address how the medical industrial complex weaponised laws, through formal legal avenues and also through the establishment of organisations that serve special interests. For instance, we’ve spoken about the audacious incident where the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have filed a federal lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr for withdrawing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women.

The cartel also demanded a federal judge reinstate the COVID shot recommendations (again for children and pregnant women)—and block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed them. Then, they also argued that Kennedy’s directive violates (quote) “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel, and undermines their ability to push the shot to patients and secure insurance coverage. This revealed a jarring display of the audacity of the medical industrial complex to use laws to fight or undermine progress. Because they obviously know that there are serious ramifications from the COVID jabs, but were adamant to use formal legal structures to block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed those jabs from the recommendation list.

Similarly, we’ve been told to “listen to scientists” for years, while their credibility was tied to medical societies and associations that vouched for their alleged credibility. BUT… the dark and corrupt history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption.

Thankfully, the corruption of these medical associations is being exposed on the regular today. For example, files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (also called WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical. The American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine.

And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.” Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Meanwhile, WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine. In any case, the WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.

Then there is also the American Heart Association. This association exposes systemic corruption in the medical industry in that it also serves to propagate false and detrimental health directives. You’d recall that we had a discussion of the hoax behind the claim that humans need to consume very little saturated fats and salt, which heavily implicated Ancel Keys, who had the backing of the American Heart Association. Well, even in the status quo the American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves less than 6% of total calories from saturated fat. This is to say, that for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat – the same saturated fat that has now been proven to be essential for your health and to play an essential role in the functionality of your body!

Well, this unaccountable attitude towards accurate nutritional science in the present (as well) is actually less surprising when you consider that the AHA has been operating as a corrupt, anti-health lobby institution for the medical industrial complex, and even food companies. For instance, this year, the American Heart Association sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering unhealthy items such as candy and soda—part of the MAHA initiatives.

Well, when you follow the money, you understand why the AHA has these inclinations. Not only is it funded by many pharmaceutical corporations, but General Mills and Pepsi Co are both forum members of The American Heart Association.

The question then is, why have these associations averted scrutiny for all these years? Well, for one the people who back them, like the Rockefellers have deep pockets: they not only pay for their operations, but pay to insure they either receive positive coverage (think the mainstream media and vaccines), or pay to ensure they remain under the radar. The second reason is that these organisations play on the liberal inclinations of society, in a world where identity politics are also expected to govern organisational culture. For instance, (and this is not a joke), the American Medical Association declared WEIGHT measurement, through the Body Mass Index (or BMI) to be RACIST, of all things – which obviously fit well in a culture of “body positivity”, and negative reinforcement for unhealthy habits.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso