Argentina has formally withdrawn from the World Health Organization, finalizing a decision first announced a year ago, according to the country’s foreign ministry.

Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno confirmed the move in a social media post, stating that the government of President Javier Milei has completed the withdrawal process. The administration has framed the decision as a matter of “health sovereignty,” emphasizing the need for independent national decision-making on public health issues.

President Milei and his team previously justified the move by citing what they described as “profound differences” with the WHO, particularly regarding its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Milei has been sharply critical of the organization, accusing it of overreach and questioning its role during the global health crisis.

Argentina’s decision follows a similar move by the United States, signaling a broader shift among some governments toward reassessing their participation in international institutions.

The WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, plays a central role in coordinating global health responses, setting standards, and supporting countries during health emergencies. However, it has faced criticism from various quarters over its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with some leaders calling for reforms or reduced reliance on the organization.

Argentina’s withdrawal marks a significant development in global health governance, potentially impacting collaboration, funding mechanisms, and coordinated responses to future health crises.

As the global health landscape continues to evolve, Argentina’s exit raises questions about the future of international cooperation in managing pandemics and public health challenges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY THE DONOR-ADVISED FUND MODEL FEATURES IN PLANDEMIC PLANNING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLIMATE ALARMISTS HAVE A TENDENCY TO MANUFACTURE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

HE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY: AN ACTOR LURKING IN THE SHADOWS OF MEDICAL CORRUPTION

Looking at the Transplantation Society, as an actor lurking in the shadows of medical corruption. To begin with, we ought to look at what exactly is the Transplantation Society. And once again, the Transplantation Society, presents itself as a humanitarian alliance of medical professionals dedicated to advancing the science and ethics of organ transplantation. It was founded in 1966, it operates from Montreal but exerts influence far beyond its modest headquarters, functioning as the central nervous system of global transplantation policy. Meanwhile, its mission, on paper, seems noble: as they state that they exist to spread clinical expertise, to promote fair organ allocation, and to raise ethical standards in donation practices. YET the structure and relationships that sustain the organisation tell a more intricate story; and one where medicine, politics, and economics literally interlock around a single institution.

Additionally, at the top of TTS sits a governing council of presidents, treasurers, and regional representatives, formally tasked with setting global policy. Around that nucleus spreads a web of committees devoted to research, education, and ethics. Those groups feed into the society’s two primary platforms of influence: its scientific journal (called Transplantation) and its World Congresses, where professional guidance often becomes de facto international policy.

Then, beneath the pleasant fiction of open deliberation also lies a concentrated form of authority. And here, a handful of senior surgeons and bioethicists; mostly Western, draft guidelines that ministries of health later adopt wholesale. TTS then issues so-called “recommendations.” But, because it holds consultative status with the World Health Organization, those so-called recommendations are actually promptly incorporated into the WHO’s declarations and then disseminated to hospitals as hospital policy. And so, what begins as advice in a conference hall can soon determine who receives a heart, kidney, or liver on the other side of the planet.

And so, ultimately, the Transplantation Society functions much like a modern scientific guild; an exclusive, self‑governing body that defines legitimacy, enforces orthodoxy, and safeguards the privileges of its members under the banner of ethics. Its council and committees act as gatekeepers, determining which research is deemed credible, who may participate in professional circles, and what qualifies as “ethical” medical practice. Through its partnerships with institutions such as the World Health Organization and major pharmaceutical sponsors, it has been able to exert soft authority that resembles a guild’s monopoly power, controlling access to professional recognition, funding, and even policy influence. And, of course, like guilds of old that combined moral mission with economic protectionism, TTS blends humanitarian rhetoric with structural self‑interest, ensuring that dissenting voices are marginalized while institutional consensus is enforced. In essence, it operates less as an open scientific association and more as a closed order of credentialed so-called elites managing global transplantation as both a craft and a domain of influence.

Now, just give insight into what this looks like in a real world setting, and emphasising how it affects the livelihood of people, I’d like (once again) to reference a point stated earlier, which is that the TTS holds consultative status with the World Health Organization, which has meant that their so-called recommendations are promptly incorporated into the WHO’s declarations and then disseminated to hospitals as hospital policy – which means that, what begins as advice in a conference hall can soon determine who receives a heart, kidney, or liver on the other side of the planet. Well, I think the world saw this in play when, in February 2025, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital denied a child a heart transplant because she was NOT vaccinated for covid due to religious beliefs.

THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S INFLUENCE ON COVID POLICIES

Now, just in case it seems like a stretch to assume that the hospital policy of children’s hospital in Cincinnati has anything to do with the TTS, I’d like to zero in further on the TTS’s actions during the COVID era. So, during the COVID‑19 era, the Transplantation Society assumed an unusually activist role, crafting and promoting global transplant policies that extended well beyond scientific guidance into behavioral enforcement.

Notably, it urged transplant centers to prioritize vaccination as a prerequisite for both recipients and living donors, describing compliance as an ethical duty rather than a personal choice. And that language, which mixed medical caution with moral obligation, quickly translated into hospital protocols that removed unvaccinated patients from transplant waiting lists! And not only this, but the TTS further advised that transplant programs could be suspended or postponed during outbreaks, that donors who test positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 be excluded, and that clinical staff adhere to strict immunisation mandates themselves. And so, I believe at this point, the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital incident is probably looking more and more like a manifestation of a universal problem than an isolated issue.

In anycase, although these measures were presented as safeguards for immunosuppressed patients, they effectively created a regime of medical conditionality, in which access to life‑saving surgery hinged on conformity with public‑health directives. And by defining vaccination as an “ethical prerequisite,” the TTS transformed voluntary compliance into institutional coercion, thereby legitimizing discriminatory policies that lacked long-term outcome data and ignored emerging evidence of the limited efficacy of vaccines in immunosuppressed individuals. 

Furthermore, the emerging evidence of vaccine-related cardiac damage was ignored by the TTS, which ended up forcing many patients with cardiac disease to get vaccinated despite ample evidence indicating it could worsen their condition. But, through its networked influence with regional transplant bodies and the WHO, the TTS ensured that these standards were adopted globally, embedding pandemic control measures into the fabric of organ‑transplant ethics itself (and we will address in a moment why this is concerning in light of the already poor ethics in the organ transplantation industry).

But, to demonstrate how global this influence of the TTS was, there are numerous individuals in Australia (not just America) who were denied an organ transplant because they did not meet vaccination requirements. In more detail, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021–2022, certain Australian hospitals and transplant programs imposed requirements for COVID-19 vaccination among patients awaiting organ transplants. In Queensland, health authorities mandated a minimum of two doses of an approved vaccine for eligibility in kidney, lung, or heart transplant procedures.

Similar considerations applied in other states, such as New South Wales, where hospitals like St Vincent’s cited vaccination status as a key factor in assessing transplant viability, arguing that proceeding without it could endanger the patient, waste a scarce donor organ, or pose risks to healthcare staff and others. The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) noted vaccination as one of multiple medical factors in decision-making, aligning with international practices where stewardship of limited organs prioritized candidates with better predicted survival.

These policies were thus coercive, effectively presenting patients with a stark choice: between vaccinating or facing indefinite delays on waitlists, EVEN when COVID-19 posed minimal community threat. As such, some patients expressed feeling “backed into a corner,” fearing vaccine side effects amid their vulnerable health states. Meanwhile, reports also emerged of specialists dismissing concerns, including references to Pfizer’s clinical documents or safety data, because the specialist were prioritising compliance over individual inquiries.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY: HOW THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S FUNDING MODEL BENEFITS PHARMAKEIA 

Let’s also follow the money, because as with many (if not all) organisations and developments, when you follow the money, you understand better where control lies. Well, in light of the money trail, the Transplantation Society relies on a funding model that blends membership dues with substantial sponsorships from the pharmaceutical industry. Major companies producing anti-rejection medications, immunosuppressants, and advanced biological therapies – and these are pharmaceutical companies such as Roche, Novartis, Astellas, and several others – and they provide financial support to the TTS.

These financial contributions primarily underwrite the TTS’s international congresses, educational programs, research grants, and various outreach initiatives.This partnership thus grants pharmaceutical firms significant influence over the direction of transplant medicine. And by funding high-profile events and so-called continuing medical education, the pharmaceutical companies ensure that their products, clinical priorities, and research agendas remain central to scientific discussions, guideline development, and professional training. In fact, presentations at the TTS congresses are said to often highlight data favourable to sponsored therapies, while alternative approaches or critical perspectives on long-term immunosuppression risks may receive less emphasis.

Additionally, the financial arrangement affords the TTS extraordinary global reach and organizational capacity. With industry backing, the TTS can convene thousands of specialists, publish influential journals, shape international guidelines, and coordinate registries that inform transplant policy worldwide – which as we’ve established, is a concerning thing seeing as their policies have empowered hospitals to deny people transplants on the basis of vaccination status.

But, despite the global reach of the TTS, this financial dependence on pharmaceutical companies has also inevitably eroded institutional independence. This is to say that although TTS is registered as a nonprofit scientific body, its operations more closely resemble a sophisticated clearinghouse for global transplant governance than a traditional charity focused solely on patient welfare or public health advocacy. And you see when considering that decision-making about conference content, educational priorities, and even ethical statements often reflects the interests of corporate patrons. And so, these entrenched industry ties have promoted the prioritisation of commercial goals – such as advocating for expanded lifelong drug regimens and higher procedure volumes.

But, in all honesty, this is not new at all. Any allegedly independent health body or society, is often funded by pharmaceutical corporations and ends up churning out information in favour of said pharmaceutical entities, RATHER than advocating for the best interests of its focus group. In fact, you’d recall that we discussed this in light of the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Paediatric’s here on The War  Room, proving that this financial conflict of interest has become ubiquitous among medical academies and societies.

THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S STANDARDS CONTRIBUTE TO ALREADY POOR ETHICS IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION

Now, we discussed earlier that through its networked influence with regional transplant bodies and the WHO, the TTS ensured that its COVID policy standards were adopted globally, embedding pandemic control measures into the fabric of organ‑transplant ethics, and I then flagged that we would address why this is concerning in light of the already poor ethics in the organ transplantation industry – and this is where we zero in on that.

We’ve discussed here on The War Room, the fact that the diabolical definition of brain death evolved in the mid-20th century (in part) due to technological advances in critical care, BUT also due to the need for organ transplantation – and so, for the purpose of this discussion, we ought to look further into this intersection between brain death and organ donation and transplantation. 

So, organ donation is frequently portrayed in mainstream media as an unequivocally noble act, emphasizing stories of one individual’s selfless sacrifice saving multiple lives. This narrative frames it as a classic utilitarian triumph: the greatest good for the greatest number, where one death enables many to survive. BUT, this optimistic view actually obscures a profound ethical and medical controversy, which is that for organs to remain viable for transplantation, they must be harvested while still perfused with oxygenated blood, thus requiring the donor to be alive. As such, this requires the donor to be biologically alive – despite being labeled “brain dead.”

This is in part why the term “brain death” is highly controversial, as it literally allows organ removal from patients whose hearts are still beating. In effect, the act of organ removal becomes the cause of true biological death, because the person would otherwise be alive if their organs were left intact, especially since bodily processes like homeostasis, hormone regulation, and even gestation in pregnant women can persist despite so-called brain death. And so, in light of this controversy, many are calling organ harvesting a ritual: a ceremonial determination of death preceding a sacrificial extraction, all under the guise of medical necessity.

HOW BRIAN DEATH INFLUENCED THE COMMODIFICATION OF ORGANS

So, let’s also follow the money. In essence, given how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from over $400,000 to just under $2 million, depending on the organ—and with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it seems reasonable to deduce that some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (for example, in overseas wars, or with a pharmaceutical company pushing a lucrative drug they know can kill). And unfortunately, this is the case – which is to say that the brain death phenomenon, coupled with a need for viable organs, has fueled a commodification of organs that has in turn created human rights abuses – and all for money.

For instance, individuals being tricked into selling a kidney. For example, in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 – which is approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden

Similarly, a 2009 and 2024 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments. As such, approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care.

Additionally, the US Department of Health and Human Services reported, after an investigation, that hospitals have been allowed to begin the organ procurement process while the so-called organ donors were still showing signs of life! This is to say that the Department’s investigation has exposed systemic, life-threatening failures in America’s organ procurement system in general (beyond hospitals themselves), and this includes cases where patients were NOT even dead when doctors began harvesting their organs, like we’ve just heard.

Then, in addition, the Department of HHS’s independent review found 29% of 351 cases had “concerning features,” including 73 patients with neurological activity and at least 28 who may have still been alive when organ procurement began. And the cause of all of this is shoddy death certifications, pressure to secure organs, and misclassification of overdose cases as “brain death.” 

Meanwhile, all of this had been covered up for a long time because the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the self-regulating body overseeing transplants, ignored red flags and dismissed concerns as “misinformation.” And when the Department of HHS ordered an investigation, an industry trade group (being the Association of Organ Procurement Organisations) publicly attacked the probe as a “conspiracy campaign” – which tells you where their priorities lie, considering the findings of the investigation.

Ultimately, all of this is to say that the organ transplantation industry is ALREADY rife with poor ethical conduct, exploitative practice, and a jarring disregard for human life. Therefore, the standards of the Transplantation Society only make this industry worse, by making genuine help for people who need it impossible to achieve without risking your life any further. And so, evidently, there is a need for competition and even the replacement of the TTS.

But, thank God that even in this glorious year of Manifestation, all satanic and globalist agendas are still under suspension. The world will instead see a profound manifestation of the truth and the sons of God, in a way that will make divine realities undeniable, as we look forward to the imminent manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

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

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

And now onto our main discussion regarding the multifaceted war on America’s sovereignty, and we ought to begin with the aspect of agroterrorism. And According to a press release from the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, Yunqing Jian, who is a University of Michigan research fellow, and her partner Zunyong Liu have been arrested by the FBI and charged with conspiracy, smuggling, making false statements, and visa fraud after allegedly importing a dangerous biological agent into the United States. The two Chinese nationals are accused of smuggling Fusarium graminearum—a fungal pathogen that causes devastating “head blight” in staple crops such as wheat, corn, and barley, and is classified as a potential agroterrorism weapon due to its capacity for widespread food supply disruption and severe human and animal toxicity. The fungus produces toxins linked to vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive abnormalities.

Zunyong Liu, who works at a Chinese university and conducts similar research, allegedly smuggled the fungus into the U.S. through Detroit Metro Airport, later admitting that he planned to use Yunqing Jian’s University of Michigan lab to conduct further experiments. Also notable in this development is that according to the complaint, Jian received Chinese government funding for her research on this pathogen and possessed electronic records documenting her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – which thus establishes a clear link between her and the Chinese Communist Party (also known as the CCP).

In light of this, the FBI described the case as a grave national security threat, underscoring the danger posed by foreign infiltration of American scientific institutions and the misuse of academic access to import potentially weaponizable biological materials; while Customs and Border Protection echoed these concerns.

THE U.S. NEEDS TO INTENSIFY THE VETTING PROCESS FOR FUNDS SENT TO FOREIGN ENTITIES

Now, what also stands out about this development is that the 2 Chinese nationals worked in a lab that received millions in funding from the US Government. And so, immediately, this means that America is not properly vetting money sent to foreign nations or foreign researchers; or perhaps needs to re-evaluate the existing funding after the work that was done through DOGE.The failure to do this could even mean that America ironically continues to fund projects aimed at undermining its sovereignty.

But, what is even more concerning about this financial aspect is that is is synonymous to what took place with the COVID debacle, in that Wuhan (where the covid virus was concocted) also received funding from the US government. More specifically, USAID funding was utilised to fund the research in Wuhan China that culminated in the COVID plandemic! Some of the research proposals in 2018 were the Wuhan Institute of Virology asking for money to create a virus with a furin cleavage site, specifically a SARS-like coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Well, that’s exactly what COVID-19 turned out to be.

WAS THERE A FAILURE TO ENFORCE TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GAIN-ON-FUNCTION RESEARCH?

However, vetting funding for research that may possibly be dangerous or weaponised against the US is just one part of the essential measures needed. To push the envelope, I would argue that the US needs to also intensify how it enforces the executive order signed by President Donald Trump on suspending gain of function research.

You’d recall that on the 5th of May, Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Improving the safety and security of biological research’, and the purpose of this executive highlighted that (quote): “Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens.  If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.”

It continued to state that “The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight.  It also actively approved, through the National Institutes of Health, Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries where there is limited United States oversight or reasonable expectation of biosafety enforcement.

This recklessness, if unaddressed, may lead to the proliferation of research on pathogens (and potential pathogens) in settings without adequate safeguards, even after COVID-19 revealed the risk of such practices.”

In addition to this, section 3 of the executive order, even proceeds to outline “Stop[ing] Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research.” It states that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (or OSTP), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) identified by the Director of OSTP, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies, to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding, to immediately: (i)   end Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries of concern (e.g., China) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627(c), or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies. So, the question is, where was the enforcement of this executive order in preventing or stopping the possibility of foreign nationals working on an agro-terrosim pathogen from fully developing it and trying to release it in the US?

Clearly, this law needs better enforcement capacity – especially because “so-called accidental leaks” are becoming a protruding trend in biological labs; and in some cases in very aggravatingly unacceptable ways. For instance, kindly have a listen as NIH Director Dr Jay Bhattacharya explains why he paused research on deadly viruses at Fort Detrick’s Integrated Research Facility following an intentional SABOTAGE of lab security, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

THIS ACT OF AGRO-TERRORISM PUTS GAIN-ON-FUNCTION RESEARCH ON THE SPOT

But, this act of agro-terrorism certainly puts gain-on-function research on the spot (once again). And, here, I must emphasise that while this approach to virology or alleged preparation for biological warfare seems noble, gain of function ultimately amounts to an indoctrination in the medical and scientific industries that serves a broadly dystopian, depopulation agenda. As you’d recall, this conduct of weaponising a pathogen is based on a philosophy that was fundamental to the formation of the WHO, and its approach to (quote unquote) health policy. We’ve discussed here on The War Room how the WHO was institutionalised. Its first director general at that time was Canadian physician Brock Chisholm, who served from 1948 to 1953. As the first DG, he obviously contributed significantly to the philosophy of the WHO, which is concerning because Dr Brock Chisholm very infamously advocated for “bacteriological warfare”! He told a meeting of teachers in Toronto in 1947, “that bacteriological warfare promotes any little group of people or any little nation to a degree of proficiency in offensive warfare which makes it a competitor of any of the greater nations.” he added that “It is obsolete now to gauge a nation’s war strength by its capacity to produce aluminium, guns, tanks and so on.”

This is why today, the WHO has increasingly been dictated by a much narrower vision, which identifies public health with biomedical science – much like was influenced by Dr Chisholm in 1948. This has meant that, according to the WHO, the response to epidemics is to be found in vaccines rather than communities; and if the community does not accept the vaccine, they must be made to do so. And yet, the failure of this approach was well-documented in West Africa in the 2013 Ebola outbreak. The WHO, and other international organisations, tried to impose interventions and failed. The outbreak instead came under control when local communities were engaged, as other experts had been urging from the start. And so, by the time the vaccines arrived, the outbreak was in its final stages.

All of this is to say that gain-of-function research is often presented as a noble necessary danger, but it is really part of this ideology that prioritises the weaponisation of pathogens, while claiming that this is a means to save lives, when (in reality) it is part of the health concerns. This is why vaccines do not save lives and often carry active viruses that harm people (like we saw with the polio vaccine) or present new health challenges (like the infertility from the tetanus and COVID jabs); this is also why lab leaks (or intentional lab leaks, in the case of COVID) are often where the practical issues with gain of function research arise. Just as an example, let’s revisit the COVID gain-of-function research issue. Not only did it involve USAID, but it was a deceptive plan that was a collaboration between the US and Chinese governments. Therefore, covid occurred because the legitimisation of gain of function enabled a corrupt ambition for population reduction using a system of gain of function research that was already available, without much concern for accountability.

THE BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL COMPLEX SUBSCRIBES TO PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING

The immediate question that should be asked in light of the agroterrorism pathogen smuggled by the Chinese nationals is whether there is a broader diabolical agenda at play – which is perhaps one of the most important questions to ask seeing that these critical arrests come as the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, Bill Gates, Ashish Jha, and Peter Marks warn of imminent bioterror threats. Why this matters is that the bio-pharmaceutical complex subscribes to predictive programming. This is to say they meet and talk about a potential threat, before it is imminently rolled out.

You would recall that there were covid and the food emergency simulations that preceded the announcement of an emergency of sorts. With respect to food, there was the Food Chain Reaction Game, by Cargill and company, and it was a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organisers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. And if you don’t think those dates are significant, then you might be missing important context.

In addition to this was also Event 201, which was the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. All of these efforts hinged on using simulations for social conditioning are really classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, which is the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. And with this tactic, especially considering the extent of social nudging that is involved, the solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. This probably reminds you of what Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, once notoriously said when he said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” (end quote). In fact, kindly have a listen to the following excerpt from Event 201, and note the discussions about the quick surge of the presented problem and the prescribed solutions to claimed mis and dis-information; which include employing social media organisations to be a part of what are essentially censorship efforts.

And so, noting this propensity in bio-pharmaceutical complex to use predictive programming (like it did with the food chai reaction game and event 201, it is deductible that the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, Bill Gates, Ashish Jha, and Peter Marks warning of imminent bioterror threats is aimed at doing the same thing – especially when we consider that in April 2024, the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense released what was titled “The National Blueprint for Biodefense: Immediate Action Needed to Defend Against Biological Threats”, which is a little-known but deeply alarming federally commissioned report. It outlines a simulated bioterror attack on July 4, 2025, using a genetically engineered Nipah virus that kills 280,000 Americans in a single day and devastates livestock. The virus, in the scenario, is modified for high transmissibility and retains a fatality rate exceeding 40%.

Like Event 201 just before COVID-19, this simulation appears to represent strategic planning informed by foreknowledge of an impending crisis—laying the policy and infrastructure groundwork for future emergency powers, AI-driven surveillance, and accelerated “vaccine” deployment. The report explicitly calls for centralizing national biodefense authority under the National Security Council, establishing a permanent White House directorate, and replacing decentralised detection systems with a unified, technology-driven infrastructure.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

And now onto our main discussion regarding why the WHO’s pandemic accord should not be adopted; and as alluded to earlier on, on May 19, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a historic but deeply concerning step: Member States, through Committee A of the World Health Assembly, officially approved the WHO Pandemic Agreement. However, that is not the final stage, as the plenary is for yet to adopt the accord. And so, we ought to detail precisely why this pandemic accord should not be adopted. To begin with, I’d like to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.

More specifically, the draft pandemic accord has been under development for three years by delegates of 194 Member States of the World Health Organization. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a pandemic treaty or accord allegedly to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).

But, here’s where we find the concerning context behind the pandemic accord and the amendments to the international health regulations. In essence, the IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, less than 48 hours after negotiations on them finished. This haste was in blatant violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements! Meanwhile, in December 2021, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate the pandemic agreement, but this body failed to reach agreement for the 2024 world health assembly.

Following this failure, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was then mandated “to finish its work as soon as possible” and no later than a year. The reason for this is that the WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director-General (DG) recently claiming that (quote) “the next pandemic could occur tomorrow.” However, the problem with this manufactured sense of urgency is that it is not based on a sincere interest to prepare against genuine health concerns, since for one viruses and lab leaks do not occur naturally. But, secondly, the pandemic accord is drafted to orchestrate a power grab. This is to say that drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralise management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health, all while undermining the sovereignty of nations. But, ultimately, what this hastened nature of the pandemic accord and the IHR amendments shows is that its acceleration emerges out of political interest, and not organic necessity – especially seeing that the WHO even undermined its own regulations in the process.

However when we consider that the WHO is not a genuine health-focused body, and instead is one that has been working against the advancement in good health practices while pushing a bacteriological warfare agenda, this context is not difficult to appreciate. However, what should be jarring is that the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Let’s proceed to the second reason why the pandemic accord should not pass, which is the fact that the accord is designed to inherently undermine sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’ dlike for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.

Let’s directly respond to this. In essence, while Article 3 of the pandemic accord affirms national sovereignty (on paper), the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (especially when you look at Articles 31–33). And this happens because these provisions empower the WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through: (1) a global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (according to Article 12); a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (according to Article 13); a Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (according to Article 18); and a National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (according to Articles 4, 6, 16). And then to top it off, once ratified, countries would be expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, thus subjecting national decision-making to international influence. And so, while article 3 of the pandemic accord is paraded as a preliminary response to concerns of the erosion of sovereignty, the entire accord completely disregards it in various avenues!

Furthermore, this means that the global concept of (quote-unquote) “One Health” remains in the pandemic agreement. And One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” This therefore introduces a problematic expansion of the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies!

KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

It does not stop there, because there are a number of detrimental provisions that are outlined in the pandemic agreement, detailed in various articles of the document. First, the WHO pandemic agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorisations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (through Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (which you see in Article 12.6). And what this is aimed towards is a global deployment of more experimental injections.

Secondly, there is no built-in liability or compensation for injuries. This is to say that although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. To add to this, Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests the WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.

Then thirdly, the pandemic agreement further lays groundwork for vaccine passports and digital surveillance! In Article 6.3, the agreement mandates development of inter-operable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance, which culminates in vaccine passports.

THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS

Equally important is the competence of the WHO in potentially having an expanded role. Here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.

For starters, the WHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for Covid, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus as reports increased of spread in the population in Wuhan, China, and subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates.

Then secondly, despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from Covid-19 to children, the WHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children – which in various contexts, set the scene for drastic ramifications such as crippling education quality, and youth suicidality. The WHO’s COVAX mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly $10 billion vaccinating people it knew were mostly already immune, and never at high risk.

In addition, and in an effort to promote its pandemic preparedness prevention response agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, the WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign of demonstrable misrepresentation and confusion. Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment. And so, ironically, while the pandemic accord calls for so-called “better adherence to honesty and evidence”, it evidently directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself. But, president Donald Trump long exposed these issues of corruption and manipulation in the WHO, as early as 2023, and even prior – in his first administration.

THE BINDING NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REMAINS QUESTIONABLE

The final provisions to note concerning the pandemic agreement is that it is drafted to become binding on ratifying countries. When it passed Committee A, the agreement was adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution (Resolution OP1) and became legally binding after 60 countries ratified it (again, according to Articles 31–33). Once in force, it is supposed to obligate Parties to participate in WHO-led coordination and response frameworks during declared pandemic emergencies, even if domestic law would otherwise differ. What this tells us is that the WHO is aware of the largely non-binding nature of international law, and is trying to circumvent that. However, the binding nature of international law remains abstract, and this is because there is no enforcement capacity for international law outside of the voluntary compliance of nation states.

Therefore, while the pandemic agreement is drafted to undermine sovereignty and make way for the dictates of the DG of the WHO, countries do not get arrested for not following them. At best, international law is enforced through sanctions as a penalty or trade benefits as encouragement. However, the WHO is not a nation state or a global trade bloc with great economic or military power. It also needs the donations and funds of nation states to continue its operations. (seeing the large dent that was caused by the US exit from the WHO). Therefore, the power of the WHO is as real as nations allow it to be – which is to say that nations can choose to lightly esteemed the WHO and the provisions of the pandemic accord without significant consequence – again, the US is an example!

In fact, the US is an example in more ways than one, because we can make the same argument about the dollar. The American dollar is nothing more than a piece of paper that is backed by propaganda. It is people who collectively decided to assign value to the dollar and make a reserve currency out of it, and people can also easily decide that it is no longer valuable as currency – since it is backed by nothing but propaganda. And so, just because something is a legally backed provision, does not mean it has inherent value – which is always the case with international law.

MEANWHILE, THE W.H.O IS (STILL) TRADING ON A FADING REPUTATION

Furthermore, the WHO seems to have abandoned any attempt at meaningful dialogue. They still justify the surveillance-lockdown-mass vaccinate model by the logic-free claim that over 14 million lives were saved by Covid vaccines in 2021 (so we all have to do that again). The WHO recorded a little over 3 million Covid-related deaths in the first (vaccine-free) year of the pandemic. For the 14 million ‘saved’ to be correct, another 17 million would somehow have been due to die in year two, despite most people having gained immunity and many of the most susceptible having already succumbed.

Such childish claims are meant to shock and confuse rather than educate. People are paid to model such numbers to create narratives, and others are paid to spin them on the WHO websites and elsewhere. An industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars depends on such messaging. Therefore, scientific integrity has no place in an organisation paid to be a mouthpiece for the financial interest of the medical industrial complex.

And so, what we need to see is a PERSISTENT and well-deserved erosion of trust in the WHO, that also catches up with the global health industry, such that no country ratifies this treaty, thus preventing it from ever coming into force. Furthermore, to fix the underlying problem and derail the pandemic industrial complex train, we will need to rethink the whole approach to cooperation in international health. Especially in a status quo where the WHO the WHO is being used as a tool, by people who want to take over the world.

But, God has not only placed a moratorium on all satanic and globalist agendas this year, He also is in charge of our planning. Which means, as representatives of nations gather at the WHA, the Church of Jesus Christ is making tremendous power available in prayer, to disrupt and nullify their plans.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso