Despite several years of decolonisation in Africa, parts of the continent are still enmeshed in neocolonialism, imperialism, and other forms of subtle colonial control. And I think that part of the reason for this is that, while previous attempts have interrogated the subject matter, emphasis has often been placed (almost exclusively) on the political aspect of decolonisation (specifically looking at gaining independence of the political order – which (make no mistake) is certainly important. However, with this (almost exclusive) focus on the political aspect of decolonisation, African countries have been missing crucial aspects of the neocolonial paradigm. For instance, neocolonialism does not primarily manifest in the form of nation states attempting to take over the territory and political systems of others, rather, it is largely orchestrated through international organisations and philanthro-capitalism – both of which come under the pretence of offering aid to respective African and Asian nations.

In fact, this should bring to mind what Professor Patrick Lumumba highlighted in his keynote address at the International Conference on Africa’s Democracy 2025, this past month of July, which is that neo-colonialism poses a threat far greater than colonisation itself, because this time around the colonial actors are faced with desperation. And so, in the post colonial and post WWII era, neocolonists created international organisations that technically respect the provisions of laws and treaties that demand a respect for human rights and sovereignty in Africa, BUT that simultaneously create a legal justification for plunder.

Immediately, you could think of the Bretton Woods institutions, and their structural adjustment programmes that threaten the sovereignty of national economies because they allow an outside organisation to dictate a nation’s economic policy. By minimising a government’s ability to organise and regulate its internal economy, pathways are also then created for multinational companies to enter states and extract resources in Africa. Furthermore, upon independence from colonial rule, many nations that took on foreign debt were unable to repay it, because they were limited to production and exportation of cash crops, and also restricted from control of their own more valuable natural resources (such as oil, rare earth minerals) by SAP free-trade and low-regulation requirements.

And so, clearly, in the neocolonial paradigm, it is NOT just political systems that are captured with the intention to form a satellite state that is some form of extension of the colonial one – in the way that Australia and Canada were the extension of the British Empire, or in the way that Congo was supposed to be the extension of Belgium. Rather, in the neocolonial paradigm, economic policies and inclinations are also of great interest to those who wish to continue the subjugation of African (and Asian, and South America) countries. And this is rooted in the need to destroy the people of these nations, while looting their wealth. And so, herein lies one of the crucial markers of the new dispensation of African leadership. This is leadership that is not exclusively interested in having political power (as symbolic and systematic proof of decolonial efforts in their respective nations). Rather, the new dispensation of African leadership understands that those who profit from your destruction do not have a vested interest in your upliftment, and that there is a need to decrease dependence on international organisations. Afterall, Africa is the new world, with hardworking people.

So, who then are these African leaders, at the fore of this strategic new dispensation of leadership? And to begin with, let’s talk about recent developments from Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso. On the 22nd of August, Burkina Faso halted a Bill Gates-backed project that had seen genetically modified mosquitoes released in a claimed bid to eradicate malaria and other insect-borne diseases.

Target Malaria, which is an organisation funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is the latest NGO to come under pressure from the Ibrahim Traore-led administration. In a communique, it was ordered to stop “all activities”. This is said to be in part related to the verdict on the works produced by an organisation with a similar focus. In particular, the Gates foundation funded Oxitec, which is a British biotechnology company to the tune of $41 million to create Genetically Modified Mosquitoes, which Gates and his cohorts claim will end Malaria. HOWEVER, the verdict is that many health experts actually refer to Gates’ mosquitoes as “flying syringes,” explaining that the hidden aim of these mosquitoes is to secretly vaccinate the general population with dangerous vaccines that would induce sterility in both males and females without them knowing it, which the people ordinarily would not accept in a traditional sense – so women become barren and men go impotent – and that’s just one of the potential risks associated with these mosquitoes.

Now, the Traore administration’s response is not reflective of the usual position that African countries take towards what are said to be generous, philanthropic pursuits that seek to alleviate problems like Malaria in their respective nations. But, clearly the leadership in Burkina Faso is suspect of the colonial inclinations – not only of nations like France – but also of philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates – and necessarily so, because first, Gates’s billions have not been intended at generously solving problems, rather, they have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but ultimately aimed at purchasing influence and power more than anything else.

On an international scale, this is perhaps exemplified in the relationship between Bill Gates and the WHO. RFK Jr, the Secretary of the US Department of HHS explained that Bill Gates gets tax deductions for giving money to the WHO, while he gains control of the WHO. Meanwhile, the WHO finances the health ministries in virtually every country in Africa, so Bill Gates can establish conditions for receiving that money, which can translate into the WHO transferring those conditions on nations. These conditions could also include conditionalising the receipt of funding on the vaccination numbers and status of the country. On top of that, the vaccines that countries are buying are owned by companies that Gates owns or has shares in. Therefore, at the end, the punchline on almost all of his philanthropic projects is that he ends up making money.

Secondly, Bill Gates actually does not have the good reputation and track-record that many assume he does! In essence, the claim of vaccine efficacy AND SAFETY (which has been the bane of Bill Gate’s push for vaccines) is actually not based on proven studies. Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome has asked for those studies. RFK Jr has ALSO asked for those studies, in fact, with the polio vaccine and the DTP vaccine, both Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome and RFK Jr respectively proved that the safety of vaccines is always alleged, and not based on scientific evidence!

For instance, with the DTP vaccine (that is the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine) Bill Gates asked the Danish government to support the program behind DTP vaccines, and said it saved 30 million lives. The Danish government asked Gates to show them the data. But, he interestingly was not able to. So the Danish government came to the African continent and did their own studies, in which they looked at 30 years of DTP data. [PAUSE] What they found shocked them: they found that girls who got the DTP were dying at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated girls. So, did Bill Gates not know this? Where were the 30 million lives saved? Or could it be that he maybe did have studies but studies that only looked at short term effects, below the 30 year mark? Well, irrespective: this proves that the data that Bill Gates tried to use as a selling point to the Danish government was false. The safety of the DTP vaccine was alleged, and therefore, the benefits were perceived at best.

This is crucial to note because it tells that – similarly – Bill Gate’s reputation and track record of doing good and alleviating health problems is alleged at best. It only appears factually accurate because it is repeated by his cohort, while truth was buried for the longest time.

Again, crucial to note is that this sterilisation project was tested in an African country, being Kenya. Which highlights (once again) why it is crucial that the Traore administration has rejected a similar effort in their country. But, of course, to the outside, ultra liberal world, Traore’s administration is a violent military government that poses a threat to democracy – especially since his administration began with a coup.

COUPS IN AFRICA ARE SEEMINGLY A RESPONSE TO CORRUPT, WESTERN-INSTITUTED GOVERNMENTS

But, important to take note of concerning Western instituted coups is that the figures who subsequently gained power were often figures friendly to the Western nations and their agenda – meaning these were people, who had no genuine and plausible aspiration to serve the people they were meant to lead in their respective country – or perhaps lost that aspiration once they were bombarded by the agenda set for them by the West.

Let’s take Gabon as a notable example. As you would recall, on the heels of a military takeover in Niger in 2023, a group of senior Gabonese military officers announced on national television they were seizing power in the central African nation, overturning results in a disputed presidential election. But, Before his removal in a military coup, Gabon’s hopelessly corrupt President Ali Bongo was courted by Obama and feted from Washington to Davos.

For half a century, the Bongo family ruled the resource-rich country but has been recently accused of abusing power and amassing exorbitant wealth. Military officials called themselves the “Committee of the Transition and the Restoration of Institutions” and said that “irresponsible, unpredictable governance” has led to a collapse in social cohesion. But, of course, president Bongo’s arrest was met with indignant condemnations from Washington and Paris, which had propped him up as he pillaged his country’s vast oil wealth. BUT…his ouster represented a particularly sharp rebuke of former President Barack Obama, who groomed the Gabonese autocrat as one of his closest allies on the continent, and leaned on him for diplomatic support as he waged a war on Libya that unleashed terror and instability across the region. And so, the US war on Libya which destabilised the region may not have succeeded without him.

Ultimately, so close was the bond between Obama and Bongo that Foreign Policy branded the Gabonese leader, “Obama’s Man in Africa.” With Obama’s help, Bongo attempted to fashion himself as a reformist moderniser. He travelled repeatedly to Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum, where was appointed an “Agenda Contributor.” There, he pledged to accelerate the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa by implementing lucrative digital identification and payment systems among his country’s heavily impoverished population. And so, this exposes that so-called civilian led governments (that are said to be a contrast of military governments) are not always plausible – especially where they are infiltrated by external influences. And so, Traore is a military leader, who came in through a coup (as it was in Gabon) – BUT he is exactly what his people desired.

AFRICAN LEADERS NEED TO CEASE TO PRIORITISE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

Now, while we see certain leaders at the forefront of prioritising the best interests of their people, we also need to consider how we standardise this calibre of African leadership. I would argue that we ought to begin with eradicating a dependent and almost beggarly attitude in some African leaders, especially because some African leaders have relied on an interpretation of national wealth that prizes foreign direct investment and high dollar reserves, or an IMF and World Bank validated fiscal and monetary policy. All of these things do not amount to wealth, and an increase in the standard of living of their people. What they are tools for the creation of perpetually defendant economies that are hamstrung by the dictates of lenders.

For instance, in April this year, the South African president expressed that foreign direct investment is the means through which to curb unemployment. Not the development of local industries, not increased support for small and medium enterprises, not even an increased government investment into technical and vocational education, which gives people practicals skills that they can use to find early employment or even begin their own business – which would also serve a catalyst to liberate the South African work economy from regarding a university degree as an important prerequisite for employment (despite formal education doing little to prepare people for work). But, yes, despite all of these more reliable measures, the South African president says that foreign direct investment is necessary for more job creation.

By the way, this narrative of key developments in the South African economy being hinged on foreign direct investment was once again rehashed after the meeting with members of the Trump administration at the White House. In what was concerningly viewed as a successful re-opening of trade relations with the US, in pursuit of FDI, the president of South Africa highlighted that not only is FDI allegedly needed, but that South Africa (and other nations) curate regulatory frameworks to attract foreign investors.

What is being missed by the South African presidency (and many other nations who uphold the FDI model for development), is that it is inherently predatory. The fact that nations have to restructure development plans and policies in order to attract foreign investors is equivalent to opening doors to a trojan horse. Which is why foreign direct investment culminates in the disenfranchisement of the people and business of the country! For instance, as opposed to merely increasing competition, FDI displaces local business because large foreign companies, with their economies of scale and access to global markets, often drive out local businesses that cannot compete. This ironically leads to job losses and a decline in local economic activity. Furthermore, FDI can lead to a concentration of economic power in the hands of foreign entities, potentially even undermining local economic development and reducing the ability of local actors to influence policy decisions – in fact, this is exemplified by the concession from the South African president in stating that they curated regulatory frameworks with the intention of attracting foreign investors (which means that domestic priorities become secondary to the appeasement of foreign investors).

This should not come across as a sound or sustainable plan for economic or industry development. Which brings us to the message from the President of Loveworld Inc. – which needs to be the new modus operandi for African leaders, and especially the president of South Africa.

AFRICAN LEADERS ALSO NEED TO EXTRICATE THEIR COUNTRIES FROM DIABOLICAL ORGANISATIONS

Secondly African countries need to extricate themselves from dangerous organisations and treaties – and the WHO is at the top of them. We mentioned earlier that the WHO has been sterilizing Kenyan women through vaccines, and the biggest sterilization happened when they brought what they termed as a “tetanus eradication vaccine”, where women were to be vaccinated to prevent the kids they will give birth to from getting tetanus – when in actual fact they were being rendered sterile. But, now, the people of Kenya have woken up to the evils of the WHO, and need to demand their government be removed from WHO associations.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Target Malaria: Pioneering Genetic Technologies to ”Combat” Malaria

Target Malaria is a not-for-profit international research consortium dedicated to developing and sharing innovative genetic technologies aimed at controlling malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The initiative originated as a university-based research program in 2005, initially exploring genetic modifications in mosquitoes. By 2012, it had evolved into a broader consortium, incorporating multidisciplinary expertise from scientists, social scientists, and regulatory specialists. At the heart of Target Malaria’s strategy is gene drive technology, which uses CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to introduce modifications that spread through mosquito populations at higher-than-normal inheritance rates. They say these modifications typically aim to reduce female mosquito fertility or bias offspring toward males, leading to population decline over generations. Target Malaria operates in several African countries, including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Ghana, collaborating with local institutions such as the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) and the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (IRSS) in Burkina Faso. In Uganda, recent contained studies on non-gene drive mosquitoes have advanced understanding of male bias traits. Past activities in Burkina Faso included releases of non-gene drive genetically modified mosquitoes in 2019, marking early field testing. Primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Open Philanthropy Project, with additional support from entities like the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the European Commission, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and African governmental bodies such as the Uganda Ministry of Health.

Bill Gates’ Philanthro-Capitalism

In Africa, malaria claims thousands of lives annually, with over 10,000 fatalities reported in Burkina Faso alone in 2023. However, a closer examination reveals the significant financial interests at play. Bill Gates, often perceived as a philanthropist, is also an investor with substantial stakes in biotech firms and pharmaceutical giants that stand to gain from innovations like these. Essentially, the strategy involves creating a problem, or exaggerating its severity, then selling the solution, and reaping the financial benefits while the local population bears the risks. From a financial perspective, this approach is a classic example of the globalist playbook, where costs are externalized to impoverished nations, and the elite reap the benefits of patents and subsidies. The project, backed by Gates and allegedly linked to US military interests, has turned African soil into a testing ground for gene-drive technology, which poses significant risks, including ecological disasters and the potential for weaponized biology. Traoré has taken a firm stance, ordering laboratories to be sealed, samples destroyed, and all activities halted due to concerns over biosafety, ethics, and ecology. The public outcry from locals and anti-Western activists has also played a significant role, as they reject the narrative that this is a form of assistance, instead viewing it as interference. The issue of sovereignty, a core conservative value under attack worldwide, is a critical aspect of this debate. The military government of Burkina Faso is pushing back against foreign NGOs and projects that undermine local control, revoking licenses and asserting that Africans will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments. Traoré is a hero in this context, thinking outside the globalist box, while other African leaders succumb to the lure of handouts. Critics argue that halting this project could hinder progress in combating malaria, but this is the same fear-mongering tactic used to promote every globalist agenda, from vaccines to climate change initiatives.

Traditional methods, such as bed nets and insecticides, have proven effective in combating malaria without resorting to genetic manipulation. The ethical red flags surrounding this project are glaring, including a lack of transparency, potential long-term harm to biodiversity, and the absence of genuine input from the affected population. Gates’ track record is questionable, given his ties to population control rhetoric and investments that conveniently align with his charitable work. This suspension serves as a beacon for conservatives worldwide, highlighting the need to reject globalist overlords, protect borders, and prioritize fiscal and national independence. More countries should follow Burkina Faso’s lead, abandoning the Gates-funded initiatives that come with strings attached and investing in homegrown solutions that do not compromise their sovereignty. If we fail to do so, we risk becoming lab rats in their grand experiment, with our nations and ecosystems being exploited for the benefit of the global elite. The people of Burkina Faso have made it clear that they will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments, and their stance serves as a powerful example for other nations to follow. By taking control of their own destiny and rejecting the influence of globalist interests, they are reclaiming their sovereignty and protecting their people from the risks associated with untested and potentially harmful technologies.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes – Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested a staggering $41 million in Oxitec, a British biotech firm, to develop these genetically modified mosquitoes that purportedly aim to eradicate malaria. However, numerous health experts have dubbed these creatures “flying syringes,” because their true purpose is to covertly vaccinate the general population with potentially hazardous vaccines that induce sterility in both men and women, without their knowledge or consent. This could lead to a significant increase in infertility, with women becoming barren and men becoming impotent on a massive scale, highlighting just one of the many risks associated with this technology.

Back in 2008, Gates’ foundation doled out $100,000 to a Japanese scientist, Hiroyuki Matsuoka, to engineer mosquitoes that secrete malaria vaccine proteins in their saliva. Bite you? Boom – you’re “vaccinated.” No needle, no doctor, no choice. They called it a “flying syringe,” and it wasn’t some fringe fantasy; it was funded under Gates’ Grand Challenges Explorations, where he threw millions at 104 “bold ideas” for global health domination. Fast-forward, and outfits like Oxitec – backed by Gates cash – are releasing billions of GM bugs in places like Florida and Brazil, supposedly to fight diseases. But whispers from the lab? These could be tweaked to deliver anything: vaccines, gene therapies, or worse. These genetically engineered mosquitoes are not only being touted as a means to control population growth, but also as a way to inoculate people with vaccines without their explicit consent. As a seasoned finance analyst who has tracked the ways in which globalist billionaires transform “philanthropy” into lucrative business ventures, this initiative reeks of a depopulation agenda masquerading as a benevolent endeavor. Rather than saving lives, Gates is essentially attempting to playing god with people’s bodies, and the backlash from Africa is only the beginning. In essence, the hazardous and potentially deadly vaccines that people have been wary of and rejected can now be administered without their knowledge or consent, courtesy of these genetically modified mosquitoes. All it takes is a mosquito bite, and the vaccine is injected into the bloodstream, complete with untested and questionable substances, all without the individual’s permission. Why should any nation, proud of its heritage, allow Bill Gates and his associates to continue perpetrating their mass depopulation agenda on their soil? The very idea of allowing these “flying syringes” to infiltrate their ecosystems is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and resistance against such insidious plans.

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

Bill Gates’ ambitious plan to eradicate malaria is a complex combination of artificial intelligence, experimental vaccines, and genetic modification, known as gene drives, which are essentially “kill switches” for mosquitoes.

 At first glance, his plan appears to be a selfless act, aiming to save the lives of over 600,000 children under the age of five who die from malaria every year. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly altruistic endeavor lies a more sinister reality: Gates’ desire to control nature reflects the arrogance of the global elite, who view humanity and ecosystems as mere test subjects for their experiments. Gates portrays mosquitoes as malicious, but is he and his allies truly any different? Unlike mosquitoes, they have monopolized farmland, disrupted food supplies, and profited from crises under the guise of “charity” – actions that have had far more devastating consequences for human societies. The use of gene drives, the cornerstone of Gates’ mosquito eradication plan, poses significant risks to the environment and ecosystems. These irreversible genetic modifications have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of nature in unpredictable ways. While mosquitoes can be a nuisance, they also play a crucial role in pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. However, Gates’ solution to the malaria crisis disregards these essential roles, prioritizing short-term human intervention over long-term ecological stability. This reckless approach to genetic engineering is reminiscent of the same hubris that has plagued globalist experiments in agriculture, healthcare, and energy, which have often had disastrous consequences for the environment and human societies. The narrative surrounding the “war on malaria” also conceals a more insidious agenda: control.

Gates acknowledges that malaria research has been underfunded because its victims are “too poor to attract attention”, but who is responsible for perpetuating this imbalance if not the billionaires who profit from inequality? Gates’ projects are not about saving lives, but about consolidating power and using diseases as leverage to reengineer society and nature in the image of the global elite. The exploitation of the Global South by Western philanthropists and corporations has become a familiar pattern, with the beneficiaries of these “humanitarian” efforts often being the same biotech firms, AI companies, and elites who profit from controlling life at the molecular level. The use of gene drives as a tool for population control is a chilling possibility that cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Given Gates’ history of using the Global South as a testing ground for his experiments, it is not far-fetched to imagine the use of gene drives for more sinister purposes. The same individual who has treated people as lab rats now seeks to play god with the natural world, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that his actions could have for the environment and human societies. The growing resistance to Western “philanthropy” in the Global South is a testament to the fact that people are no longer willing to be treated as test subjects for the experiments of the global elite. Ultimately, if Bill Gates truly wants to eliminate parasites, perhaps he should start by targeting the ones that are monopolizing resources and exploiting humanity. Mosquitoes may carry malaria, but Gates and his allies are carrying the far more malignant disease of hubris, which has already had devastating consequences for the environment and human societies. The cure for this disease is not found in a lab, but in the growing resistance of people who are rejecting the control of the global elite and demanding a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Financially, this is a goldmine for the elite. Gates invests in biotech firms like Oxitec and big pharma players, then “donates” to projects that create demand for their patents. It’s vertical integration on steroids – fund the “problem” (engineered bugs), sell the “solution” (vaccines via bite), and watch royalties flood in while populations dwindle. Remember his TED talk where he released mosquitoes on the audience to make a point about malaria? That wasn’t a stunt; it was foreshadowing. And don’t buy the fact-check spin that his current projects aren’t for vaccination – the tech’s the same gene-editing toolkit, and history shows he’s funded the syringe concept directly.

Bill Gates is actively utilizing insects as carriers for hazardous pathogens and recklessly dumping untested mRNA technology on impoverished communities, flagrantly disregarding fundamental conservative values such as informed consent, secure national borders, and unrestricted free markets. The Nuremberg Code, established to protect human rights, is being blatantly disregarded, while national sovereignty is being deliberately compromised. The potential consequences of these actions are alarming, ranging from ecological devastation and unforeseen genetic mutations to deliberately engineered pandemics designed to justify further authoritarian control. The state of Florida has already been transformed into a testing ground for these experiments, with billions of dollars being invested under the supervision of Governor DeSantis, despite the absence of comprehensive long-term studies to assess the safety and efficacy of these measures. We must reject this blatant attempt at technocratic domination and instead support courageous leaders like Traoré, who are taking a firm stance against these dangerous experiments. It is imperative that we invest in genuinely effective solutions, such as locally driven agricultural initiatives and traditional medicine, rather than relying on patented, potentially lethal products promoted by Gates. If we fail to take immediate action to halt these egregious practices, we risk being subjected to an unending barrage of experimental technologies concocted by globalist elites, as this sinister agenda is driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth, power, and the systematic erosion of national sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

In a diabolical new development, scientists have unveiled a controversial method for delivering mRNA vaccines using dental floss instead of needles. Dental floss, of all things, has become the latest delivery system for “vaccines,” bypassing injectables and entering uncharted territory in mRNA technology. In light of this, a study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reveals how researchers laced dental floss with mRNA components and flu vaccine ingredients. They then applied it to the gums of mice. What was said to follow was an immune response that the scientists claim could revolutionise how vaccines are administered in the future. But as with everything involving mRNA technology and vaccines, the stakes are high, and so are the questions.

But, let’s start with the invention itself. So, the scientists behind this invention were said to be a group led by a Dr Rohan S. J. Ingrole of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University. Meanwhile, Texas Tech University, which is based in Lubbock, Texas, also receives funding from self-proclaimed philanthro-capitalist Bill Gates himself, through a grant offered through the Gates Foundation.

Now, this new dental floss “vaccine” method is further said to take advantage of the gingival sulcus, which is the tiny trench between your gums and teeth. The researchers believe this delivery method offers a unique, highly permeable entry point into the bloodstream. The gumline’s permeability could allow for vaccine molecules to be absorbed directly into the body, bypassing the complications of traditional oral methods or injections. And while the concept may seem far-fetched, it’s rooted in research that’s getting increasing attention from the vaccine enterprise and its collaborators. This is primarily because the idea is that by using floss laced with “vaccine” components, medical researchers could provide an alternative to traditional “vaccination” methods, without the need for needles, specialised medical staff, or even consent from the public!

This is to say that if the floss-based “vaccines” become widespread, there’s a real concern about consent, transparency, and safety; because this technology could be used for mass “vaccination” campaigns without the public being aware that it is being administered! In fact, given how quickly government entities and corporations have adopted new health policies in the past (particularly during the COVID plandemic), this development is likely to serve as a conduit for efforts at mass vaccination!

Secondly, this invention also raises questions of how this technology could be adapted (or – more accurately – weaponised) to add mRNA “vaccines” to other basic necessities, such as toothpaste or even drinking water. This is considering that entities such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or the CDC) and even other public health bodies have pushed for easier, more accessible vaccination methods – again , like we saw during the COVID plandemic.

Well, in response to these concerns, which have been highlighted by others, even before the release of this study, the argument from supporters of floss-based mRNA delivery make a jarringly a-contextual argument. They state simply that floss-based “vaccines” could be delivered by mail, making them accessible to people anywhere without the need for a doctor or health professional to administer the shot; and that this could be convenient for mass vaccination campaigns.

The first problem with this is that it is utterly a-contextual in that it assumes that there is consensus of the plausibility of vaccines, and therefore, a corresponding need to access them with greater ease. And yet, vaccines are easily one of the most controversial inventions till date. Their claimed efficacy, benefits, and the impact they have had in enabling big pharma, while corrupting governments are a constant focus in the status quo – with examples ranging from autism discourse in the US, and Ursula von der Leyen Pfizergate scandal in the EU. But, then the second problem with the argument from supporters of the floss based mRNA delivery system is that they deliberately ignore how this mRNA delivery system opens up a massive door for coercion, whether overt or subtle. Because imagine receiving a package in the mail with instructions to simply floss your teeth to “protect yourself” from the latest health crisis. It may sound harmless to some, until you consider the implications of who’s making those decisions and how much oversight you’d really have over what’s going into your body.

And by the way, this indirect coercion is intrinsic to the vaccine enterprise’s modus operandi – affecting even the medical industry at large. For instance, Dr Daniel Neides, a respected educator at Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, has raised urgent concerns about the lack of vaccine education in medical schools.

He reveals a troubling reality: medical students are not taught about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Instead, they are required to memorize vaccine schedules to pass exams, with no discussion of the nearly $4 billion paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992.

Neides calls this a failure to provide the fair balance expected in medical practice. Neides also highlights conflicts of interest, noting that providers are often paid to complete vaccine schedules, which may pressure them to prioritize compliance over patient concerns.

What’s more, the use of mRNA technology for this floss-based delivery method comes with its own set of concerns. And this takes place against a backdrop where we’ve already seen the risks associated with Covid mRNA “vaccines,” and the long-term effects remain uncertain and far from positive… For instance, Dr Jordan Vaughn, a clinician overseeing 170,000 patients annually, testified before the Senate, revealing critical insights on the spike protein’s dangers. As a doctor and researcher, he has witnessed the devastating impact of COVID and mRNA vaccines on millions.

He revealed that the spike protein (or S1 subunit) is far from benign. It triggers inflammation, disrupts blood vessels, promotes clotting, and forms amyloid aggregates, impairing oxygen delivery and damaging organs. Patients that he’s seen reported experiencing heart racing, brain fog, shortness of breath, and severe fatigue. In his Alabama clinic, Dr Vaughn uses immunofluorescent microscopy to detect these aggregates in patients—teenagers unable to stand and adults suffering strokes without clear causes.

Furthermore, long COVID and vaccine injuries affect 10-15 million Americans. Dr Vaughn’s clinic has treated approximately 4,000 such patients, many young and previously healthy. Their struggles are real, life-altering, and often ignored by the system, while researchers develop more mRNA delivery systems.

WHY mRNA VACCINES ARE CATEGORICALLY HARMFUL AND DANGEROUS

But, here’s why mRNA interventions are categorically harmful and dangerous – irrespective of how they are delivered into the body. In essence, mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver modified mRNA, instructing cells to produce spike protein. Unlike traditional vaccines (which are also bad), as proven by how they have often caused or worsened the illnesses they claim to solve, the spike protein produced through the instruction given to cells from mRMA causes uncontrolled spike protein production for unknown durations, spreading to the heart, brain, vasculature, ovaries, and testes. In fact, the EMA’s assessment of Pfizer’s vaccine confirmed biodistribution beyond the injection site, contradicting claims it “stays in the arm.”

For instance, in 2021, Dr Vaughn treated a 69-year-old patient with unexplained shortness of breath after a second Pfizer dose. Tests ruled out typical causes, but anti-clotting therapy brought rapid relief. This case led him to study how spike protein induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, activates platelets, and damages blood vessels—explaining this case and thousands more.

Additionally, myocarditis signals emerged in spring 2021, particularly in young males post-mRNA vaccination. The DoD confirmed cases, studies detected spike protein in myocarditis patients, and autopsies linked fatal cases to vaccines. Yet, federal mandates intensified, sidelining these concerns. Subsequently, the CDC and FDA’s inaction—and vaccine promotion—eroded public trust. Meanwhile, the patients coerced by 2021 mandates despite prior infections or health risks, now face disability if they have not been killed by those vaccines already. And all this because Informed consent, which should be a cornerstone of medicine, was undermined – much like will be done with floss based mRMA delivery systems… But, the truth is that this is yet another step into uncharted territory, where science (or scientism) is rapidly evolving but leaving important ethical and safety considerations behind. Especially considering that no one asked for this, and natural immunity was always better.

FORCING mRNA HAS BECOME THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE’S OBSESSION

But, the reality is that not only is the vaccine enterprise aware of the dangers of mRNA vaccines, but forcing mRNA on the general public has become something of an obsession for them. For instance, you’d recall that in 2023, a team of researchers was reported to have developed what they call an inhalable vaccine against the COVID virus. It actually also makes it possible to deliver other messenger RNA therapeutics for gene replacement therapy. Now, for the so-called vaccine, the researchers demonstrated that two intranasal doses of the treatment, made with nanoparticles carrying mRNA Covid vaccine, is effective in mice. It also apparently demonstrates that an inhalable delivery system allows for minimally invasive and lung-targeted mRNA delivery, potentially applicable for numerous pulmonary diseases in addition to covid.

In their new study, the researchers showed that the shot isn’t necessary to provide protection. They state that there is no intramuscular injection, they just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally. They also state that based on their research, this method enables them to deliver different kinds of mRNA; meaning that it’s not just used for a vaccine, but potentially also for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. Therefore, they used a vaccine-based study to show how an aereosolised mRNA vaccine works, but admit that it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions… Well, this then explains the attraction of an aereosolised mRNA vaccine to the propagators of the covid debacle and vaccine enterprise at large; which is that an aerosolised mRNA vaccine is actually a tool to execute airborne interventions, such as gene editing; without having to deal with objections and dissent, or the responsibility to respect the bodily autonomy of people. Now here is how they detail aerosolisable lipid nanoparticles for a pulmonary delivery of mRNA.

Similarly, reports indicate that the vaccine enterprise and associates are spraying airborne mRNA on dense urban populations and rural areas with low vaccine uptake according to a commercial airlines pilot who has come forward to blow the whistle on chemtrails operations in North America and Europe. As the globalist so-called elite find it harder to convince humanity to submit to Covid mRNA shots and endless boosters, they are having to find deceitful new ways to force their mRNA.

According to pilots familiar with the scheme, the new airborne mRNA, known as Air Vax, is designed to deliver the vaccine right into people’s lungs, bypassing the need for injections – and the need for consent.

Then, on top of that, seemingly because it was not enough to try to forcefully vaccinate humans, the vaccine enterprise extended its efforts even to animals with the vaccination of cattle. As you can imagine, Bill Gates is also an advocate of vaccinating animals; in particular cows, and he says it is with the aim to eliminate the bacteria in their stomachs that produces methane. Meanwhile, nations like Australia and Kenya inclined themselves towards this agenda!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso