CONTEXTUALISATION: THE SEPTEMBER 22ND ANNOUNCEMENT

 “The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol)”, and we ought to begin with some contextualisation, looking at the announcement on the 22nd of September. Well, speaking from the Roosevelt Room, President Donald Trump and US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr announced bold new actions to confront the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) epidemic in America, which has surged nearly 400% since 2000 and now affects 1 in 31 American children.

First, the US Food and Drug Administration (or the FDA) will act on a potential treatment for speech-related deficits associated with ASD. The FDA is publishing a Federal Register notice outlining a label update for leucovorin for cerebral folate deficiency, which has been associated with autism. This action establishes the first FDA-recognised therapeutic for children with cerebral folate deficiency and autistic symptoms.  The change will essentially authorise treatment for children with ASD, with continued use if children show language, social, or adaptive gains. Following the label update for ASD, state Medicaid programs will be able to cover leucovorin for the indication of ASD, in partnership with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Finally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will launch confirmatory trials and new research into the impact of leucovorin including safety studies.

Now, it is very key to note that leucovorin is not a cure for ASD and may only lead to improvements in speech-related deficits for a subset of children with ASD. In addition, leucovorin would have to be administered under close medical supervision and in conjunction with other non-pharmacological approaches for children with ASD (e.g., behavioral therapy).

Then the second point of contextualisation to highlight from the announcement on the 22nd of September is that HHS stated that it will also act on acetaminophen. In essence, the FDA responsibility was to issue a physician notice and begin the process to initiate a safety label change for acetaminophen (or Tylenol and similar products). HHS would also have the responsibility of launching a nationwide public service campaign to inform families and protect public health.

TRUMP OPPOSES HEPATITIS B VACCINE FOR BABIES, & WARNS OF METALS IN VACCINES

Now one of the striking details mentioned by prescient Trump in the course of the tylenol-autism link announcement is that he questioned the rationale of giving an infant a Hepatitis B vaccine, as well the many dangerous metals, like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. Now, he proceeds to advocate for spacing out vaccines, as opposed to eradicating them in their entirety, which is not as fundamentalist and accurate a response to vaccines as I would argue is necessary. However, his remarks are considered in the context of a world and American society where people still have the freedom to exercise the choice to take a vaccine even when they are told about their harms. But, I am hoping to see and praying for this more fundamentalist and emphatically anti-vaccine approach to become more intrinsic to US health policy, because, we have spent a lot of time challenging the rationale behind vaccine science, and also disproving their claimed efficacy (including here on The War Room, and LN24 International at large) for us not to advocate for progressing towards a direct refutation of the necessity or plausibility of vaccines.

Nevertheless, here is why it still matters that Trump is perhaps the first president in US and world history to raise concerns about the Hepatitis B vaccines of the first day out of the womb, and also the presence of metals like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. First, central to the vaccine agenda and hoax, as far as it relates to children, is the idea that the many vaccines that parents are being compelled to allow for their children are somehow necessary. Following his rationale, within hours or when a child is born, a child is subjected to pharmaceutical intervention: more specifically, a new newborn’s eyes are smeared with erythro-mycin ointment, and a newborn is given the Hepatitis B shot.

However, erythromycin ointment is to prevent gonorrhoea or chlamydia infections of the eyes; and so, why would a newborn need this if the mother does not have these sexually transmitted illnesses? Furthermore, Hepatitis B is also a sexually transmitted disease, and from IV drug abusers, and so why would a newborn need this if parents are healthy and do not have Hepatitis B? Especially since parents are tested for these illnesses! In essence, the logic behind the alleged necessity of these interventions is really about treating newborns for illnesses they do NOT have – because there is literally nothing causal and therefore expressly necessary that would warrant these pharmaceutical interventions. Therefore, in questioning the rationale behind giving newborns the Hepatitis B jab, President Trump is exposing the deceptive reasoning behind it, and subsequently disrupting the vaccine enterprise’s profit stream that is built on the backs of babies.

Secondly, metals in vaccines are actually a massive health concern. Dr Toby Rogers PhD exposed the fact that the FDA and CDC approved aluminum as ‘safe & effective’ in vaccines, based on a study of only 4 rabbits that was riddled with issues – and yet, this is the study that the FDA and CDC rely on. In this study, they promptly lost the results from one of the rabbits. So the study is actually based on just 3 rabbits. But, the results in the rabbits were nevertheless of great concern.

In essence, the rabbits were killed after 28 days and the Aluminum Adjuvants are still there. At the endpoint, Aluminum retention in the body and organs was 94% for Aluminum Hydroxide and 78% for Aluminum Phosphate. The theory and narrative told by the FDA and CDC has always been that the body excretes the Aluminum through the urine and is therefore harmless. BUT, Dr Toby Rogers explained that nothing could be further from the truth. Injected heavy metals actually stay in the places in the body you would expect, which include the kidneys, the liver, the heart, the lymph nodes, the bone marrow and  the brain.”

And so, clearly the study by the CDC and the FDA was terrible to begin with but also produced results that were concerning. BUT, despite this, the FDA and CDC declared the presence of metals in vaccines to be safe and effective. It is beyond absurd because the science is so terribly bad that anybody who reads that study would not want to inject their children with Aluminum Adjuvanted vaccines. And that’s just one ingredient amongst hundreds in these vaccines, as far as metals are concerned. Here’s more from Dr Toby Rogers.

RFK JR: TYLENOL NOT JUST LINKED TO AUTISM, BUT ALSO ADHD AND LIVER TOXICITY

Then, in a recent announcement this month of October, and in doubling down on the tylenol issue, Secretary Kennedy announced that Tylenol is NOT just linked to autism but also ADHD and liver toxicity in children. Let’s kindly revisit that moment.

THE POINT OF CONTENTION: IS ACETAMINOPHEN A CAUSE OR DRIVER OF AUTISM?

So, all that we’ve discussed and heard thus far contextualises the contribution from the White house as far as tylenol (and vaccines) are concerned. Which then brings us to the point of contention. Now, for clarity, what is NOT the point of contention (at least for the purpose of our discussion is that the FDA recognises that acetaminophen is often treated as the only tool (or most recommended tool) for fevers and pain in pregnancy, as other alternatives (e.g., NSAIDs) have well documented adverse effects; which is why the FDA is also partnering with manufacturers to update labeling and drive new research to safeguard mothers, children, and families – this is not the point of contention we will focus on, because acetaminophen certainly has health risks (which we will highlight as we proceed), and these are health risks that do not warrant a defence, and rather necessitate a shift away from a reliance on pharmaceutical drugs as a means of pain or fever relief – especially in young children.

Then, what IS a point of contention that we ought to address for the purpose of our discussion, looking at the The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol) is one that began with a crucial concession from the White House concerning acetaminophen, and it is that the FDA recognises that there are contrary studies showing no association between acetaminophen and autism.  Thus, given the conflicting literature and lack of clear causal evidence, the HHS stated on the 22nd of September that it wants to encourage clinicians to exercise their best judgment in use of acetaminophen. As such, the point of contention lies with the conflicting literature, and this is precisely what we’ll talk about, by asking the question of whether acetaminophen is a root cause of driver in the autism or neurodevelopmental health issue discussion.

To begin our focus on this point of contention, I’d like to prove not only that tylenol had already been a focus in the autism debate years before the announcement from the White house in September, but I’d also like to prove that the studies even years back were showing that tylenol played the role of increasing chances of autism after vaccination, as opposed to being a primary cause itself. Kindly watch this excerpt from a 2023 interview conducted by the Children’s Health Defence.

Once again, President Trump raised the alarm about the dramatically rising prevalence of autism, and he emphasised that it must be caused by something in the environment. He mentioned acetaminophen and hyper-vaccination as prime suspects. Now, while president Trump and HHS Secretary also spoke about the suspect of large vaccine bundles administered to infants, their medical advisors (which include Drs Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, Mehmet Oz, and Dorothy Fink) focused their remarks exclusively on Tylenol, and almost did not mention vaccines.

But, here is what I’d like for us to collectively reconsider. First, there have been studies that examined Tylenol among the potential causes of autism, including studies by the McCullough Foundation, led by Dr Peter McCullough, who is among the people at the forefront of performing an exhaustive investigation of autism. These studies have found little evidence to warrant regarding Tylenol as a prime suspect in autism causation. In fact, it would seem that interest in the purported Tylenol-Autism link has recently been piqued within the same institutions that have long vehemently denied that autism is linked to childhood vaccination.

Thus, the totality of circumstances suggests that Tylenol is more of a red-herring than a true suspect. Now, this is not to say that tylenol is an exceptional pharmaceutical product, rather, it is to say that studies do not support it emerging as a primary cause of autism. In fact, I find it interesting that the recent study pointing to Tylenol is from Havard – the same institution that brought us the brain death definition to cover up for the disastrous second heart transplant that took place in Brooklyn, New York; and has resulted in the murder of many patients who are claimed to have been so-called brain dead.

Secondly, since it became a widely used, over-the-counter drug in 1960, Tylenol has been the only recommended medicine for relieving pain and reducing fever in pregnant women and infants. Generation X (which are those born between 1965-1980) was exposed to Tylenol in utero, and their  mothers often gave it to them to lower their fevers from frequent earaches. And yet, in a 1970 birth cohort, autism was virtually unknown. BY CONTRAST, the trend of dramatically increasing autism began in the late eighties, following the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This Act granted liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, which was followed by a rapid proliferation of the number of shots on the childhood schedule.

So, what does this mean? I think it means that tylenol – at best – is a driver (or worsening agent) of neurodevelopmental issues, but not the root cause. Let’s begin with Prenatal Exposure. The most comprehensive review to date, by Prada et al, evaluated tylenol use during pregnancy: 27 studies found a positive association with neurodevelopmental disorders (in particular ASD/ADHD). Then, 9 studies showed no link, while 4 studies suggested protective effects. But, we also ought to consider that autism was never or rarely ever diagnosed at birth. In every study, it emerged years later—typically ages 2–8, the very same window when children are loaded with many vaccines. Meanwhile, none of these papers we referenced accounted for vaccination as a confounder. This shows prenatal Tylenol exposure may predispose children, but the neurological injuries are detected during the vaccine years.

Similarly, when we look at Postnatal Exposure to tylenol, a study by Schultz et al (in 2008) found that children given Tylenol after MMR vaccination were about six times more likely to later be diagnosed with autism. In those who regressed (meaning who lost previously acquired skills), the risk was nearly fourfold, and in those with clear post-vaccine complications, the risk spiked to over eightfold. By contrast, ibuprofen showed no association. In addition, Yengst et al (in a 2025 study) found that in a Medicaid cohort of over 674,000 children, repeated episodes of fever, ear infections, or other “Tylenol-triggering” illnesses were linked to a two and a half-fold higher risk of autism. Among girls with multiple fevers, the risk climbed to nearly fourfold.

Taken together, these studies reveal a consistent pattern: which is that autism risk intensifies in the post-vaccine period, when febrile reactions are most common, and tylenol use in this context may amplify the likelihood of developmental regression. This is considering that tylenol depletes what is called gluta-thione, and this is the body’s master antioxidant/detox system, exactly when the brain faces inflammatory/oxidative stress (such as fever, seizures, or immune activation). Now, some pediatric practices have actually recommended Tylenol before vaccine visits “just in case,” meaning that children who take tylenol before shots arrive with defenses already depleted as the shots provoke fever/immune activation—thus priming the children for worse outcomes. Ergo, tylon is a driver (or worsening agent) but not the cause of neurodevelopmental issues.

CONTRASTING THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE WITH TYLENON IN THE CAUSATION DISCOURSE

So, that is what studies reflect concerning tylenol’s capacity as a root cause in neurodevelopmental issues – and especially autism. Let’s proceed to contrast this with the childhood vaccine schedule. You’d recall that on the 9th of September, attorney Aaron Siri testified before the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the hearing titled: “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.” In his sworn testimony, Siri revealed the results of a long-hidden study from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI. This is the largest vaccinated vs unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (looking at 18,468 participants). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.

The study’s official title is (quote): “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.” The measures and outcomes of this study come directly from the testimony of Aaron Siri, who presented these findings under oath in the US Senate, as unfortunately, the study is not yet publicly available (again, considering that it was largely hidden for the longest time).

The key findings from the Henry Ford Health System study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders. In light of these findings, Aaron Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant. And even more striking is that, in conditions where unvaccinated children had zero cases (and this is looking at conditions like brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics), there were hundreds of cases among the vaccinated group!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Unpacking the revelations from the documentary titled Food Deception: The Global Poisoning Plot, and to begin with, right at the beginning of the documentary, an important fact is communicated, which is that in the last 50 plus years, how or what people eat has significantly changed. And this is a crucial reflection point, which necessitates that we ask the question, on what through this change about?

Well, first, we can note this change in light of the shift towards a higher consumption of ultra-processed foods. So, the term ‘ultra-processed food’ emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colours, artificial sweeteners, and flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970–80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as ‘food faddists’ and ‘pseudoscientists’.

Nevertheless, for decades, there was a significant amount of determined advocacy against ultra-processed foods, backed with clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. For instance, by the early 1970s, the topic of highly-processed foods finally became the subject of intense scientific and public debate. Included in this debate were a small but growing number of physicians and allied health professionals who promoted holistic medicine, an important part of which was dietary advice to limit highly-processed foods. When nutritional medicine pioneer Dr. Jeffrey Bland began lecturing on ‘food as medicine’ in the 1970s, he advocated for the removal of highly-processed foods (donuts, soda, and the like) during conference breaks, replacing them with whole fruits, nuts, and minimally processed items.

But, certainly the entrance and prevalence of ultra-processed foods did not occur on its own. In fact, it turns out that it was brought about by an industry that had little to do with food – being the cigarette industry – so much so that in the 90’s, the two largest food companies in the world were RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris (which are both cigarette companies. And happened because, when the Surgeon General of the US announced during this same period that cigarettes were problematic (which was obviously going to hinder the profits of cigarette companies), well, cigarette companies used their profits to buy entire sections of Food Companies.

In fact, the two biggest Mergers and Acquisitions deals in world history up until the 90’s were the Cigarette Companies buying food companies. These 2 cigarette companies (being  RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris) shifted their thousands of scientists from making cigarettes addictive to focusing on making food addictive. The Cigarette Industry further shifted all of their lobbying to lobbying for food… and created the horrible Food Pyramid where carbs and sugar were the base of the Pyramid. The Food industry then paid off the FDA, USDA, Harvard to create reports that sugar isn’t a cause of obesity. This is why America significantly shifted their diets to ultra high processed foods.

So, evidently, the nature of food eaten has changed from non-processed to ultra-processed foods, and this is because of the deliberate efforts of food corporations, and even non-food corporations – which is to say that there is a way on food and nutrition. Well, this necessitates that we question who else is involved in this plot, and what structures exist to hold them all accountable.

MANY FOOD CORPORATIONS KNOW THEIR PRODUCTS ARE HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS

Well, for one, a lot of the food corporations in the status quo are among the culprits in the war on food and nutrition. In fact, food corporations have known for a long time that they were harming people with high levels of sugar in their foods. For instance, in the year 1999, a group of men who controlled America’s largest food companies attended a meeting in the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury. In attendance were CEOs and presidents from Nestle, Kraft and Nabisco, General Mills and Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars. The agenda was the emerging obesity epidemic and how to deal with it. These men were in constant battle with each other over what they called “stomach share” – the amount of consumers that any one company’s brand could take away from their competition.

Pillsbury’s chief technical officer ran the meeting. His intent was to get these men to agree that they had gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns–foods laden with sugar, salt and fat. He and others wanted these food giants to agree to be part of the solution, not the problem, by reformulating their foods to make them healthier. But, by looking at today’s obesity epidemic it is quite clear that the food companies did not agree, and only proceeded to fuel the problem further.

HOW LOBBYING PRACTICES HAVE CORRUPTED FOOD REGULATION

However, it is not the people over at the 1999 meeting in the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury that learned to corrupt the vices of dissenters, regulators and credible science, because lobbying has become a highly weaponised tool from food corporations, and many diabolical corporations alike.

For instance, have you ever noticed how cheese is practically everywhere and in almost everything? Pizza crusts are stuffed with it. Salads are sprinkled with it. Burgers are smothered in it. Even vegetables, supposedly the healthy part of a meal, are often drowned in melted cheese sauce. Well, this is NOT an accident. It’s the result of decades of manipulation by one of the most quietly powerful food lobbies in the United States: being the dairy industry. And before we proceed, I certainly am aware that dairy can be among the healthier food groups, but make no mistake – this should not be a blanket assumption, being that cheese is either processed or ultra-processed, and pasteurised milk is not as healthy as it is marketed to be in comparison to the often unjustly vilified raw milk. And so, in essence, behind the dairy industry as well is a cartel-like structure of trade groups, marketing boards, and government partnerships that have worked together to artificially inflate the place of cheese and dairy in the human diet.

Let’s look at the US as a case study. The roots of America’s dairy dominance go back to World War I and II. During wartime, the government encouraged farmers to ramp up dairy production to feed troops overseas and keep the home front nourished. Milk, butter, and cheese were essentials. But when the wars ended, production didn’t stop. Farmers had built massive infrastructure to deliver milk in quantities that no longer matched demand.

Instead of scaling back, the US government stepped in. Federal price supports and subsidy programs propped up the dairy sector, buying up excess milk and converting it into shelf-stable products like cheese, powdered milk, and butter. These items were cheap to store and even cheaper to push. And so, over time, cheese went from being a relatively healthy food to a storage solution! And then, they got creative. In the 1980s, the USDA began working directly with fast food companies to (quote-unquote “solve” the surplus problem. One of the biggest partnerships was with Pizza Hut. With government assistance, they created the “cheese-stuffed crust pizza” to push more dairy.

By the way, pizza hut was NOT the only one. Domino’s pizza partnered with Dairy Management Inc. (a USDA-funded front group) to launch a new pizza with 40% more cheese. Taco Bell’s cheesy menu items were developed with the same organization’s help. Even McDonald’s began tweaking its menu to boost cheese consumption. And so, just like that, public health policy was working against public health!

Now, if this sounds like a conspiracy, it is likely because it practically is—only it’s all legal, tax-funded, and publicly documented. Here’s how it works: Dairy Management Inc is a marketing organisation funded by mandatory fees (checkoff programs) on dairy farmers. Dairy Management Inc also works in partnership with the USDA, meaning the same government that’s supposed to be promoting healthy eating is also helping the dairy industry sell more products. Then, between 1995 and 2023, the US provided over $50 billion in direct subsidies to the dairy industry, even though demand for liquid milk has been dropping for decades. All meaning that companies, regulators and government departments have all colluded in a corporatism plot, which prioritised private profit that is supported by public spending and shielded from normal market consequences. But, by the way Canada also has its own version of the dairy cartel that is currently colluding with the government to enforce a dairy production quota system that is detrimental to small farmers, as it is only the big dairy corporations that can afford them.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE SHIFT TOWARDS ULTRA-PROCESSED?

Now, one of the things we have to understand about the current predicament with regards to health is that however bad the effects of, say, phthalates or PFAS are on their own, things become so much worse in combination. This is considering that lab studies generally try to pinpoint the effects of individual chemicals, but the truth is that, out there in the real world, no-one is just exposed to one chemical. Instead, they’re exposed to dozens, maybe hundreds at a time.

The combination of particular substances is likely to result in enhanced negative effects or even new effects, as this study (which I’ve never seen anybody discuss) reveals. The common food emulsifier glycerin monostearate, which is readily found in processed food, significantly enhances the hormone-disrupting effects of phthalates, leading to increased testosterone decline and increased testicular damage in rats.

Similarly, Nitrosamines in processed meats can cause DNA alkylation damage leading to double-strand breaks (or DSBs). Acrylamide in fried foods also generates what is called Reactive Oxygen Species (or ROS), which is a neurotoxin. And so, the short-term takeaway is that eating processed food – which contains untold chemical additives – is probably one of the worst things you can do in a context where food corporations are pushing estrogenic and obesogenic substances. If you haven’t already, you would kindly need to consider stopping to eating processed and ultra-processed food, opting instead for whole foods.

THE PROBLEM WITH FLUORIDATED MILK

Now, a warning about fluoridated milk was re-echoed in the documentary Food Deception: The Global Poisoning Plot, specifically in light of how many milk brands contain fluoride, and how this has health ramifications for children. Now, Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in rocks, soil, and water. It’s a form of fluorine, a chemical element, and it exists in small amounts in plants, animals, and even our bodies. BUT, on average, the human body contains about 2,600 mg of fluoride, mostly stored in bones and teeth, which is far more than what is naturally acceptable; in other words, it is far more than what people would be exposed to if they only interacted with in the small, naturally occurring amounts found in plants, soil and water.

Well, while fluoride is promoted for preventing cavities, the levels that people are exposed to through specifically tap water, toothpaste, and processed foods are unnaturally high, and that’s where the trouble begins. But, in addition, fluoride is NOT a harmless nutrient like vitamin C or magnesium. It’s a toxin that can wreck your body when you get too much of it. Unlike other minerals, your body struggles to excrete fluoride, so it builds up in your bones, teeth, organs, and even your brain over time. And this accumulation can even lead to a range of health issues, many of which you might not immediately connect to fluoride.

Here is why this is concerning: Studies have linked high fluoride exposure to cognitive problems, including reduced IQ in children and brain fog in adults. Fluoride can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially disrupting neurological function and contributing to memory issues or difficulty concentrating. But, as troubling as it is for adults, it is especially alarming for children, whose developing brains are more vulnerable. Research from places like China and India, where fluoride levels in water are naturally high, shows a clear connection between fluoride exposure and lower cognitive performance.

Then, in addition, there is also the problem of mineral displacement. More specifically, fluoride displaces iodine, which your thyroid needs to regulate metabolism, energy, and hormones. This can, in turn, lead to hypothyroidism, leaving you feeling sluggish, gaining weight, or just not strong in your body. It also competes with calcium and magnesium, essential for strong bones and muscles, potentially weakening bones and causing joint pain – and so, ironically, fluoride weakens bones that strengthen them. And so, considering that milk is a staple in the diets of billions, the fluoridation of milk – just like the fluoridation of water – makes many susceptible to health risk if they do not know these facts.

GOT RAW MILK? THE WAR ON A CRUCIAL DAIRY SOURCE

During the Biden-Harris administration, small farms and companies were being mandated by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to destroy all of their raw dairy products after receiving a cease and desist order from the state – primarily because of raw milk. So, why was there this effort to target raw milk, which is non pasteurised and non-fluoridated. Well, first, raw milk proprietors tend to be small operations with limited political clout who giant agricultural interests see as competition they would like to wipe – much like Monsanto does with smaller farmers. Second, raw milk is actually full of beneficial bacteria that get wiped out during pasteurisation. But, of course, a government susceptible to a diabolical agenda to depopulate the world will try to stamp out what is good and healthy for people to consume by whatever means available to them – this is part of the reason farmers are being asked to destroy organic crops and use GMO seeds.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that 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 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.

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.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, 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, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

In addition, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

Similarly, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Since 2020, Yvonne has been a leading voice exposing the flaws in covid vaccine rollouts. Now, with government mandates intensifying, she brings together medical and legal experts to discuss:

• The science behind vaccine safety in children
• The legal implications of mandatory shots without parental consent
• The global data on vaccine side effects, including myocarditis
• What parents and communities can do to respond

This powerful interview is more than a discussion it’s a wake-up call.

Watch now and share with every parent, teacher, and student you know.

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

The Setup: Big Food’s Toxic Empire

Big Food giants like Nestlé, Kraft, and Mondelez have spent decades perfecting the science of addiction. They craft ultra-processed foods—think sugary cereals, fast food, and snack aisles brimming with chips and sodas—engineered to hit the brain’s reward centres like a drug. These products are loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavours, and preservatives that disrupt metabolic function and gut health. Studies, like those from the National Institutes of Health, show that ultra-processed diets lead to a 30-60% increased risk of chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular issues. Yet, these foods dominate grocery stores, school cafeterias, and even hospital menus, marketed as convenient and affordable.

This isn’t accidental. Big Food employs armies of scientists to ensure their products are hyper-palatable, triggering dopamine spikes that keep consumers coming back. They fund misleading studies, lobby for lax regulations, and plaster their packaging with deceptive “low-fat” or “heart-healthy” claims, all while knowing their products inflame the body and erode health. The average American consumes over 50% of their calories from ultra-processed foods, a statistic that reflects not choice but manipulation.

People are getting more and more aware of the dangers being pumped into our food system. One expert on these things who has taken it upon himself to get the world aware of the dangers of ultra processed food and the hazardous toxins that have laden the food system. I’m talking about Itay Shechter.

The Payoff: Big Pharma’s Role in the Cycle

As Big Food sows the seeds of disease, Big Pharma reaps the harvest. The chronic illnesses fueled by processed diets—diabetes, hypertension, depression, and autoimmune disorders—create a captive market for pharmaceuticals. Statins, insulin, antidepressants, and anti-inflammatory drugs are prescribed en masse, often for life. In 2024, the global pharmaceutical market was valued at over $1.5 trillion, with the U.S. alone spending $600 billion annually on prescription drugs. This isn’t healing; it’s a business model.

The Food is Poisoned for Profit and Pharma Profits Off Illness

The food system is actively driving a vicious cycle, where the widespread consumption of processed foods is directly linked to a heightened risk of developing devastating health issues, including cancer. By flooding the market with these products, the food industry is inadvertently creating an environment that breeds disease, forcing individuals to undergo expensive and often invasive treatments, rather than providing effective solutions that tackle the root causes of these health problems head-on.

Big Pharma’s influence runs deep. They fund medical research, shape treatment guidelines, and cozy up to regulatory bodies like the FDA, ensuring drugs are fast-tracked while natural remedies or dietary interventions are sidelined. Ever wonder why doctors rarely prescribe whole-food diets over pills? It’s because medical schools, heavily funded by Pharma, barely teach nutrition. The result: a healthcare system that treats symptoms, not causes, keeping patients tethered to medications that often come with their own side effects, necessitating more drugs in a never-ending spiral. The conspiracy lies in the symbiosis. Big Food creates the conditions for disease, and Big Pharma profits from managing it. They’re two sides of the same coin, propped up by a revolving door of lobbyists, shared board members, and political influence. Look at the USDA’s food pyramid, historically shaped by agribusiness interests, pushing grains and processed carbs while downplaying whole foods. Or consider how Big Food sponsors health organizations like the American Heart Association, which conveniently endorses their products while Pharma funds the same groups to promote their drugs.

This cycle traps individuals in a feedback loop: eat addictive, nutrient-poor foods, develop chronic illnesses, and rely on medications that never address the root cause. The average American now takes four prescription drugs daily, and obesity rates have climbed to 42%, with projections hitting 50% by 2030. Meanwhile, both industries dodge accountability, blaming personal responsibility while their profits soar. The evidence is clear: the food system is rigged to make us sick, and the pharmaceutical system is designed to keep us that way. To break this cycle, reject the processed poison peddled by Big Food. Embrace whole, unprocessed foods—vegetables, fruits, nuts, and ethically sourced meats—that nourish rather than destroy. Support local farmers, question dietary guidelines, and educate yourself on nutrition outside the Pharma-funded medical establishment. The conspiracy thrives in ignorance, but awareness is the first step to dismantling it. Big Food and Big Pharma want you dependent; choose defiance instead.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The medical industrial complex and scientistic cult evidently keep using the most vulnerable members of society (especially children) as a sacrifice in the pursuit of their efforts. But, with all that we know about the medical industrial complex, this is not news to anyone. In fact, what is expected is that there be progressive institutional reform in the status quo – especially in the second Trump administration – that directly challenges these issues. However, what is being exposed is just how deeply entrenched regulatory bodies are in their collusion with the medical industrial complex – especially pharmaceutical companies. But, today, we ought to discuss this further in light of Moderna’s mRNA COVID Shot getting Full FDA Approval for said to be “At-Risk” Infants.

U.S PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP THREATENS 35% TARIFFS ON CANADA STARTING AUG. 1

U.S President Donald Trump has threatened a 35% tariff on goods imported from Canada. [ROLL CLIP00:11-] Trump’s announcement of higher tariffs on Canada comes amid a flurry of letters the U.S President has sent to world leaders over the past week informing them what rates their goods will be tariffed at come August 1, absent any trade deals.

BRAZIL VOWS RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST US IF TRUMP FOLLOWS THROUGH ON 50% IMPORT TAXES

In a related matter, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said that he will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if President Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to boost import taxes by 50% over the South American country’s criminal trial against his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. Lula said he will trigger Brazil’s reciprocity law approved by Congress earlier this year if negotiations with the U.S. fail.

NETANYAHU SAYS HOPING HOSTAGE DEAL WILL BE FINALIZED ‘IN A FEW DAYS’

On the last day of his 4-day trip to the US, Benjamin Netanyahu released a brief clip detailing his discussions with US President Donald Trump as well as Israel’s plans for Gaza amid ceasefire talks. Netanyahu emphasised Israel’s previous goals in Gaza including the removal of Hamas, demilitarisation of Gaza.

UK, FRANCE ANNOUNCE AGREEMENT ON PILOT MIGRANT RETURNS PROGRAM

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have reached an agreement on a pilot programme to return migrants and refugees arriving in small boats, in a scheme to curb crossings over the English Channel. In a joint press conference on Thursday, Starmer said people arriving in the United Kingdom on small boats will “be detained and returned to France in short order”.

MODERNA’S mRNA COVID SHOT GETS FULL FDA APPROVAL FOR “AT-RISK” INFANTS

On July 10, 2025, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) in “at-risk” children aged 6 months to 11 years. The shot was previously available only under emergency use authorization. This approval comes despite a mountain of evidence linking the shots to catastrophic harms, some of which include heart damage, brain damage, cancer, and mass death. Once again, this decision is quite concerning as it shows that regulatory agencies remain captured by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. And so, one has to ask: How many more children must be sacrificed before accountability begins?

THIS MOVE COMPOUNDS THE LACK OF TRUST TOWARDS THE FDA

Now, this move certainly compounds the lack of trust towards the FDA, and necessarily so when you consider who influences the policy direction of the FDA. The general points of historical context to note regarding the FDA is that it was established in 1906 in response to public concern over unsafe food and drugs, such as spoiled food and counterfeit products. However, food industry lobbyists gradually gained influence, leading to the removal of the agency’s original leader. As a result, numerous harmful food additives were granted “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS) status and continue to be used today.

Then, in 1962, the FDA was given broad powers to oversee drug safety following the thalidomide incident. Unfortunately, the new regulations created strict standards for drug efficacy that were often selectively enforced, benefiting the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the FDA then increasingly targeted natural therapies, which led to many being erased from history – all of which is incredibly important to remember in light of our subsequent discussion on the propaganda against salt. Nevertheless, this historical context is why – despite the numerous attempts to reform the agency – issues of inefficiency and bias within the FDA persist. [PAUSE]

Now, evidence of the lobbyist factor in the FDA’s work, can be inferred in the agency’s work in food regulation. For instance, in the late 1800s, food producers were selling adulterated products, and pharmaceutical companies peddled medicines with secret ingredients like opium and alcohol. Public outrage grew, especially after exposés like Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’, which helped spark the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This law gave the Bureau of Chemistry the power to ensure accurate labeling and prevent harmful additives in food.

Well, the director of the Bureau of Chemistry (and thus the first head of the FDA), Harvey Wiley conducted tests on food additives, proving they made healthy volunteers sick. While the public and many scientists supported his findings, the food industry fought back with powerful lobbyists and legal tactics. Well, Wiley’s book “The History of A Crime Against The Food Law” went on to detail much of the same abhorrent industry tactics we see happening now. But, this is all to detail the contextual background behind the FDA’s propensity to be influenced by lobbyists from the industries it is supposed to regulate – which is the first aspect of the FDA’s problem with corruption.

THE FDA’S DECEPTIVE AND HARMFUL “GENERALLY RECOGNISED AS SAFE” STATUS

Let’s then proceed to discuss the FDA’s “Generally Recognised as Safe” status. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Well, GRAS food products presented two fundamental issues: food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Now, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. Here’s more on the FDA’s GRAS status.

Furthermore, companies currently self-certify their chemicals without independent oversight; which has resulted in ingredients like titanium dioxide – which is banned in Europe and other developed nations still being legal in the US despite mounting health concerns. Through GRAS, FDA has for the longest time applied an “innocent until proven guilty” approach to food! Which is a categorically dangerous approach; ingredients should not have to harm or kill people first before they are deemed unsafe!

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

Let’s also look at vaccine cover-ups, as being part of the reasons behind the compounding lack of trust towards the FDA. Many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people. One of the ways people were made aware of this was through the recently leaked recordings showing how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division, being Peter Marks at the time, refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients, and even medical practitioners who were treating vaccine injured patients.

Here’s why this is important to note: generally, in looking through what transpired with the COVID-19 response, Anthony Fauci is commonly blamed for all that went amiss – and correctly so. However, we must not also miss the people who were also directly involved, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy. One such person is Peter Marks. Peter Marks is the primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were (quote unquote) “safe and effective”). He was also the person who kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID jabs (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). The parties involved in this process, which included, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause (who were the Director and Deputy Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, respectively); they reported that there were (at that point) no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Peter Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FDA ARE FURTHER ENABLES BY STANDARDS IN MEDICINE

So, while the FDA is central to focus on as far as recent developments are concerned, it’s important also to note that the problems with the FDA are FURTHER enabled by standards in medicine. And I say that because it occurred to me that even if we have bad regulators who approve bad medicine, if we had good doctors and medical standards, then the harms could easily be averted or mitigated. But if the medical standard is overmedication and trusting “the science”, while doctors function as pharmaceutical representatives, then of course the problems are worse.

Let’s look at medical education. No matter how you dice it, medical education is quite challenging as there is simply too much to learn, and so even the “brightest” students adopt a triage mentality where they cut out things that NOTt necessary (or low-yield) (specifically) for exams so they can pass and get a degree. And because of this medical education typically presents 3 issues as far as medical standards are concerned.

First, the present standard of medical education covers many aspects in a superficial manner (e.g., med students just learn the classic indications, simple mechanisms of action and commonly recognized side effects of drugs). Now, this is quite problematic as many of those simplistic facts students memorize aren’t always entirely correct (or become evidently contradictory once you take the time to understand them). However, since students are under such pressure to memorize them, they take the facts as verbatim facts they don’t question and become quite haughty towards those who do.

Second, there has been a strong focus in medicine on the key medical products on the market (e.g., doctors focus on how to use pharmaceutical drugs along with the key microbes and their pharmaceutical treatments, understanding what aspects of the body each speciality is responsible for, how to interpret imaging studies, and even how to understand surgery well enough to want to go into it or refer patients to it). Similarly, there is also a strong focus on just the basic skills necessary for being a doctor (this includes being able to recognize potentially life-threatening conditions, conducting a physical exam with enough details to complete a medical note and writing billable medical notes). That said, there is also (thankfully) a strong focus on anatomy and physiology, which along with recognising key diseases and medical emergencies, represent some of the most valuable aspects of conventional medical training.

Then the third issue presented as far as medical standards are concerned has to do with how medical training cuts out a lot of the subtle aspects of medical science and doctoring that make you an effective clinician (and this includes things like medical ethics). And because of this, there is always a subset of medical students who have that inherent capacity and excel at being clinicians but very few learn it through their training. Put differently, standard medical training does NOT really cover what is needed to make people healthy as there is never enough time for that and again and again, we hear stories of medical educators who try to incorporate it but get pushed to the side due to limited curriculum time.

So, in a world where medical standards prioritise pharmaceutical interventions, and medical education and training focuses purely on passing exams as opposed to being more concerned with aspects of medical science that make a med student an effective clinician, well then of course the FDA’s corruption will have crippling impact, because doctors themselves are trained to push what the FDA has approved.

Well, no wonder the medical industrial complex is so-multilayered. There are clearly various actors involved. But, this also gives broader context behind why doctors become progressively less focused at making their patients better, while becoming product pushers for the pharmaceutical industry. Take this testimony from a pharmaceutical representative of 32 years. She exposes the corrupt relationship between big pharma and doctors, primarily based on greed because it was about organising expensive gifts and experiences for doctors in exchange for their product loyalty.

WORST OF ALL IS THAT PATIENTS ARE DISADVANTAGED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEMS

I’ve had discussions with medical students and practitioners on the necessity of strict standards to enter medicine because it is one of those fields where there is no room for error. ANd I think many people still have that same perception of the medical field: which is that it brings in the best and trains them rigorously so they are less susceptible to making mistakes that can be the difference between life and death for some. BUT… while there absolutely are exceptions who are incredible doctors, it is also clear that the medical system is not as fool, corruption, and greed-proof as we thought. And worse of all is that there are many people who have not broken free from this presumption of excellence and efficacy in the medical field, and pay with their lives. And yet, the issues in medicine are quite nuanced because it is NOT just the FDA that has been financially bought out – it is almost everyone, down to the medical schools that teach the doctors that are supposed to practise evidence based and holistic medicine. In fact, the verdict from good doctors is that there is almost no such thing as evidence-based medicine anymore, in a world where big pharma has gained influence over regulators and academia.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The FDA will begin by revoking approval for two petroleum-based dyes in the coming months and working closely with food manufacturers to remove six more by the end of next year. At the same time, the agency plans to introduce four new natural colorings and fast-track others to support the transition.

This decision comes amid growing awareness of artificial dyes’ potential effects on health, particularly in children. Concerns have been raised about links to ADHD, obesity, and other conditions. A 2007 study in a respected medical journal highlighted a connection between food dyes and hyperactivity, adding urgency to the conversation.

“This is about putting our children’s health first,” said Makary, who emphasized that the move to natural dyes—like beet, carrot, and watermelon juice—shouldn’t lead to higher prices for consumers. He added that the FDA will partner with the National Institutes of Health to deepen research into how food additives affect development.

Kennedy described the change as a long-overdue course correction and a meaningful step in reducing chronic illness. “We’ve run one of the largest unintentional experiments on children in our history,” he said. “Now it’s time to clean up our food supply.”

Major brands are already signaling their support, preparing to update products like Doritos, Gatorade, and Lucky Charms. While some industry groups have pushed back, public health advocates are applauding the decision as a turning point in U.S. food policy.

With more natural alternatives on the horizon and growing momentum for transparency in food labeling, this move is being hailed as a win for families—and a promising start to a healthier future.

Synthetic dyes are man-made chemicals derived from petroleum, which don’t naturally exist. These dyes are commonly used in food products to improve their appearance, as noted by Sensient Food Colours, a company based in St. Louis that supplies food colours and flavours.

In the U.S., nine synthetic dyes, including Red 3, are approved for use in food. Other frequently used colorants include Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6. Two dyes, Citrus Red 2 and Orange B, are permitted but are less commonly used.

The FDA is responsible for certifying these synthetic colour additives and overseeing their regulation. Following a recent ruling on Red 3, manufacturers have until January 2027 to eliminate the dye from their products, while those producing ingestible medicines like cough syrup have until January 2028 to comply.

Momentum is growing to eliminate synthetic dyes in food products. Last year, California became the first state to ban six artificial food dyes in foods served in public schools. This year, over a dozen state legislatures may introduce bills to ban these dyes, either in school lunches or across all settings. In October, protesters rallied for WK Kellogg Co. to remove artificial dyes from cereals like Apple Jacks and Froot Loops.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was recently confirmed as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, ran on a platform of “Making America Healthy Again,” which includes addressing artificial dyes and other chemicals in food. His position has gained support from “MAHA moms,” a group of women on social media advocating for the removal of artificial ingredients and ultra-processed foods in the U.S. food system, among other issues.

“I was labeled a conspiracy theorist when I said red dye caused cancer,” Kennedy remarked during his confirmation hearing. “Now, the FDA has acknowledged this and banned it.”

Because the dyes are so widely used, it can be difficult to find foods that don’t contain colour additives. The best to way to avoid the dyes is to read ingredient labels, said Arnold. “If the list is so long that you don’t want bother reading it and it probably has things in it you can’t pronounce, don’t buy it,” he said.

]]> https://ln24international.com/2025/02/18/fda-bans-red-3-dye-in-food-products-amid-growing-push-to-eliminate-synthetic-colourants/feed/ 0