CONTEXTUALISATION: THE SEPTEMBER 22ND ANNOUNCEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRASTING THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE WITH TYLENON IN THE CAUSATION DISCOURSE

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war on health, with a special focus on the concerning infant mortality rates, and the first thing to acknowledge is that the trends and observations for children (aged 0-14 years) that have been reviewed over various literature confirm that the health of the young population is deteriorating. And unfortunately, until now, the sharp decline in children’s immune systems was not capturing the attention of the so-called experts and public health authorities.

Therefore, many are now proffering that, to rescue children’s health, this issue needs to be viewed as an emergency. In light of this declared emergency, then policies for any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects could be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties. Thankfully, this mentality is being implemented in the status quo, as recently Mississippi state officials have declared a public health emergency due to the highest infant mortality rate in the past decade. Newborns in the state of Mississippi are experiencing congen-ital malformations, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome, as well as premature births in their mothers.

THERE IS A NEED TO INVESTIGATE DRUGS AND VACCINES IN DEALING WITH INFANT MORTALITY

Now, I just alluded to the fact that part of what is plausible about declaring a state of emergency regarding increasing infant mortality rates is that a declared emergency, could well necessitate the implementation of policies that require any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects to be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties.

Well, let’s then address where the communicated need to focus on drugs and vaccines comes from in light of the infant mortality rate. For many years, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added more and more shots to the childhood immunization schedule. In the 1980s, children received around two dozen doses; today, the official schedule calls for approximately 72 doses by age 18 (when counting each dose of multi-dose vaccines and annual flu shots). This aggressive schedule is the most extensive in the world.

However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.

This gap in safety research has been flagged by experts for decades. The prestigious Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) urged the CDC to investigate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule in reports published in 2002, 2005, and 2013. In those reports, panels of scientists raised concerns that simultaneous or back-to-back vaccinations might pose risks that wouldn’t be apparent in single-vaccine trials. Yet the CDC ignored these recommendations, undertaking none of the comprehensive safety studies requested by its own advisors. The lawsuit calls this pattern “deliberate ignorance,” noting that the agency offers no explanation for disregarding its most prestigious scientific adviser for over 20 years.

However, while all of this is happening, American children have been getting sicker: chronic health conditions such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and autism have surged in the past several decades. As such, seeing that the ballooning of the vaccine schedule from 24 to 72+ doses has occurred parallel with the increase in notable group of illnesses, such as autism diagnoses exploding from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 31, and over half of American kids now suffering from some form of chronic illness, this has thus been the most notable correlation, as far as environmental factors as concerned.

Now, of course, some will be quick to point out that correlation does not equal causation (although I believe the numbers contradict that logic at this point) — HOWEVER, the core issue remains that no one in authority (such as the CDC leadership) has rigorously investigated whether this massive increase in pharmaceutical interventions in early childhood could be contributing to these poor health outcomes, and especially rising infant mortality rate. INSTEAD, any concern about “too many, too soon” has been met with the refrain that vaccines are safe and that questions are unwarranted. As far back as 1984, federal policy was explicitly oriented to “not allow” safety doubts about vaccines to persist, lest vaccination uptake decline. In essence, the public was told to provide proof of harm — even though the very agency in charge refused to actively look for that harm.

And so, a declared emergency now puts the onus on the state to view and investigate drugs and pharmaceuticals as one of the sources of the problem, and this is an incredibly necessary paradigm shift in how pharmaceuticals have been viewed in American society. And perhaps to emphasise this need for a paradigm shift even further, I would like to show you this jarring excerpt from CBS News, where (in trying to make sense of the rising infant mortality rates in Mississippi), their medical contributor – instead of pointing to the obvious, being the many vaccines and other pharmaceutical interventions infants have been taking without tests on their cumulative impact – well she says the problem resides with a combination of health care access as well as social challenges.

I’d like to point out that women were giving birth to healthy babies in their homes years before the advances we see in medicine or even the availability of many hospitals – and this includes in rural places as well. And so, while access to state of the art hospitals is a reasonable expectation in the modern context, I do not think the lack of such access suffices as a root cause of rising infant mortality rates – and is thus a driver of the problem at best.

INFANT DEATHS LINKED TO TRANSGENERATIONAL MRNA “VACCINE” FATAL ADVERSE EVENTS

Which brings us to this question: If we are saying that infants are barely making it to their first birthday, which means 12 months of life, then someone could ask: How much of this has to do with pharmaceuticals as opposed to say, overall quality of health and life – or even a combination of health care access as well as social challenges, like the people over at CBS seem to suggest. In other words, we need to address the question of how much of pharmaceutical products are being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates? And to address this, I would like to bring our collective attention to the CDC’s own website.

If you go to the page titled “Vaccines & Immunizations”, and look under “Vaccines By Age”, when you count the vaccines listen from birth all the way to 12 to 23 months, infants are recommended to have the following: It begins with 2 vaccines at birth, then 6 from one through to two months, 5 at four months, 7 at six months, 1 at seven through to eleven months; and then 9 vaccines at twelve to twenty three months – which brings it to a total of approximately 30 vaccines (depending on how many are taken between months 12 – 23). So, clearly infants are being bombarded with many jabs, for an age group that does not yet even have a body mature enough to metabolise a lot of what is being injected into their bodies. And so, evidently, there is a significant number of pharmaceutical products being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates.

But, this is not even the most concerning part, because it would seem, infants do not even have to be inoculated themselves to deal with the adverse effects of vaccines. More specifically, the CDC’s own data shows babies born are now dying at a 77% excess rate — years after mass vaccination of childbearing women. The 30-year decline in infant mortality collapsed in 2021, immediately following the mRNA injection campaign. The excess infant death causes mirror those observed in vaccinated adults, thus suggesting a transfer of mRNA “vaccine” genetic material to offspring! In other words, the mRNA vaccines created a transgenerational crisis, where children are dying who were never injected, but whose mothers were.

THE THALIDOMIDE SCANDAL: PHARMACEUTICALS HAVE A HISTORY OF HARMING INFANTS & MOTHERS

Now, even as we discuss the health concerns observed especially in the generation born after the introduction of the Covid Vaccine, it is important that we never forget pharmaceuticals have a wide and dark history of harming infants and mothers, which brings us to the global Tha-li-domide scandal.

Thalidomide, which worldwide maimed an estimated 20,000 babies and killed almost 100,000, was widely used between 1958 and 1962 and was marketed as a wonder drug against morning sickness for pregnant women. Most of the women who took the drug suffered from miscarriages or stillbirths that were not documented as potential Thalidomide victims. The few surviving babies were severely deformed or died later in infancy. And like the Covid jabs – the morning sickness drug was not once tested for fetal safety; while its wide usage then conveniently made the drug companies millions.

Then, after Thalidomide was discovered to be the cause of the fetal slaughter, there was no criminal trial that resulted in accountability or conviction and many health ministers and health leaders refused a public inquiry. Blame was passed back and forth until almost every one involved in the scandal grew old or passed on. The one criminal trial held was with the German scientists who concocted the drug; but that trial was ultimately terminated without a judgment. The court cited the difficulty in determining the individual culpability of the accused, concluding that their guilt would be considered minor (which was strange, considering the global harmful impact of thalidomide). But, still to this day, nobody was held accountable for Thalidomide – while restorative justice measures have included, in Australia, an apology from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to survivors of the Thalidomide scandal.

But, I say this to say that the pharmaceutical industry has a notorious history of harming infants and mothers, and people tend not to know a lot about this because there are little to no criminal persecutions of the relevant actors. And so, what we are seeing today in light of rising infant mortality rates are the diabolical (and yet) audacious actions of a pharmaceutical industry that has been allowed to get away with murder and culpability in harm.

THE CENTURY-LONG EVIDENCE OF VACCINE-INDUCED SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME

But, it also does not take medical or scientific gymnastics to make a case for investigating pharmaceuticals in the modern, post-thalidomide context when we can also easily see a similarity in the relationship between infant death rates plus pharmaceuticals AND the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome, also called SIDS plus pharmaceuticals – especially since the creation of the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, which has been associated with those deaths. For example, in 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered which belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s.

Likewise, as detailed by Sir Graham Wilson, in the early 1900s, there were over a dozen cases in the medical literature (and likely far more that weren’t documented) where groups of children received an incorrectly prepared diphtheria vaccine, and collectively, thousands became severely ill, with hundreds suffering an agonizing death. A wave of deaths hence followed DPT vaccine’s adoption, which like those following the COVID vaccines, became a “mysterious syndrome,” initially being called “crib death” and then “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS). In turn, a few doctors saw this and spoke out against it. For instance, Dr Paul Thomans argues that historical data indicates that in the United States 97% of SIDS cases take place less than one week after a vaccine regiment.

THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND INFANT MORTALITY

There is also a notable causal relationship between vaccines and infant deaths – beyond the vaguely named sudden infant death syndrome. For some context, in 1957, Archie Kalokerinos M.D., desiring to serve the people, requested to be stationed in the neglected rural Aboriginal communities, as their infant mortality rate was 10% (whereas it was 2% in the surrounding white communities). Many diseases were rampant there (pneumonia, severe ear infections, severe infant irritability, and a frequent inability to feed the afflicted children), but were ignored and blamed on the said-to-be uncivilised habits of the mothers.

BUT, then Dr Archie realised these deaths were due to severe nutritional deficiencies and quickly saved many lives (e.g., by injecting IV vitamin C or giving zinc). However, the infant death rate climbed to 50% following an infant vaccination campaign. And this came with an alarming discovery: Dr Archie realised that in the same way infections depleted vitamin C, vaccines actually did the same! Additionally, he also discovered that vaccinating a child who was currently ill was frequently lethal (which, to varying degrees, has also been reported throughout the medical literature). But, thankfully, in learning this Dr Archie rapidly stopped the vaccination deaths with injected vitamin C. In fact, later, he used vitamin C even to treat many other conditions too (e.g., otherwise fatal measles cases).

Similar to the hidden evidence of the causal link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, not only is one of the most frequent complications of vaccination neurological injury, but ever since the smallpox vaccine hit the market over two centuries ago, severe and unusual injuries have ALSO been reported throughout the medical literature. BUT… rather than disclose these injuries to the public, the medical profession chose to conceal them under the ERRONEOUS belief that the public good of vaccination justified hiding anything which would create vaccine hesitancy.

For example, a 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis ence-phalo-pathy” after taking the DPT vaccine. But, for some reason, most doctors refused to report this, even though medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine went back as far as to the early 1930s, while report after report had been published in medical journals since then. For instance, in 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. [PAUSE] Well, those studies have progressively been less discussed, in a world where pharmaceutical companies captured the media, and as a result, this orchestrated a selective amnesia when it comes to the history of vaccines.

RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES TAKE PLACE PARALLEL TO ATTACKS ON MOTHERHOOD

Then, finally, it bears mentioning that the rising infant mortality rate takes place parallel to attacks on motherhood. We’ve seen it time and again, from the glossy magazine covers glorifying “child-free” living to the snide late-night jokes about “breeders” and “stay-at-home moms.” It’s no longer subtle. The war on motherhood is loud and broadcast 24/7 across every major platform. And make no mistake—this is NOT just about personal choice. It’s a coordinated cultural campaign in an effort to devalue life and being a mother. In fact, in August 2024, the United States surgeon general issued an official public health advisory that parenting was bad for your health. And just days before the 2024 Election Day, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline, “It’s almost shameful to want to have children.”

This was a coordinated effort to make people devalue life and especially the life of children, so that when they are dying at alarming rates, it was merely supposed to be an abstractly unfortunate incident to those who still cared, but not enough to warrant a declared health emergency, likely one that will have great consequences in exposing the diabolical role of pharmaceuticals. It’s the same anti-life playbook behind forced DNR orders and the brain death phenomenon, used to justify people dying without much probe.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The intersection of law and food and agriculture, and we ought to begin with the contextual background behind the Bayer and Monsanto campaign to shield all pesticides from legal liability. So, in 2018, Bayer (one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies) acquired Monsanto. This backfired, as due to the billions in Roundup judgments (likely to far exceed 16 billion), Bayer rapidly lost two-thirds of its value.

It was against this background that certain measures were taken. In particular, to save the company Bayer (which, like Monsanto, has a long history of unscrupulous conduct) is now conducting a variety of measures to end those lawsuits within the Courts, States, Congress, and EPA. Many of these involve creating liability shields which make it impossible to ever sue a pesticide manufacturer for being seriously injured by their product, even if the manufacturer deliberately concealed this known toxicity. And quite notable is that these actions eerily parallel the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a “well-intended” act which rather than lead to safer vaccines, unleashed the modern era of chronic disease upon America.

Well, presently a bill is working its way through Congress containing a covert provision designed to shield Bayer (and many other manufacturers) from these lawsuits. And due to how utterly repugnant this position is (along with a related one to ensure toxic sludge can be dumped on farmland and render it permanently unusable), this bill can only pass if we are not unaware of it, and thus not primarily praying against it, but also engaging the relevant stakeholders and institutions. As such, I believe it is vital to have a discussion concerning what is going on and the diabolical intent behind it.

And for all of its challenges, the United States has one of the best governments that has ever been developed. This is because the system is rife with checks and balances, where one part of the country or government can constrain another part from acting out of line, and the public has a voice that can frequently be mobilised if things become too egregious and bring everything back to balance. However, this framework has led to instances where bad actors endeavour to take a multi-pronged approach where they attempt to co-opt every single thing that constrains their misdeeds. And while challenging, this can eventually be done with concerted effort. For example, during COVID-19, virtually every institution that should have prevented the unconstitutional lockdowns, the top-down suppression of unpatented COVID-19 treatments, and the COVID-19 vaccine mandates (let alone their approvals) failed as virtually every institution worked in concert to advance the COVID cartel—resulting in arguably the worst “public health” crime in history.

Yet, even with this example, due to the independent media, bold politicians and medical practitioners, and the egregiousness of the COVID policies, a check was eventually able to neutralise the COVID cartel. Furthermore, beyond the COVID vaccine program failing to accomplish its primary goal, the trust they have long used to market medical products has also been shattered, to the extent that COVID is now arguably costing the medical industrial complex far more than was made from the landemic—all of which illustrates that the American political system has a robust series of checks once things get too out of line – ALL OF THIS because the Church prayed: the architects of the COVID plandemic collided with a Higher Power, which is a the Church of Jesus Christ.

THE WAR ON THE JUDICIARY: HOW LAWS, FOOD, AND AGRICULTURE INTERSECT

This brings us to the intersection between laws, food and agriculture, and how this is tied to a war on the judiciary as well. So, since so many institutions in society have been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry, it has both become vital to find alternative options (e.g., creating a robust independent media, such as the Loveworld Networks and LN24 International) AND ALSO to protect the viable options that remain.

One of those has ALWAYS been the courts, as frequently, if a bad actor steps too far out of line, a legal framework exists to constrain their actions – in other words, and to paraphrase the words of the highly esteemed Rev Dr Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD has often said, “Courts are the last line of defence in the formal legal recourse system”. And so, for this reason, a plan of the industries which profit from poisoning people has long been to take away the ability of the courts to check them by passing laws (or securing court rulings) that shield them from liability and hence terminate the lawsuits that can stop their egregious conduct!

For example, the whole-cell DPT vaccine was long recognised to be a particularly dangerous vaccine which frequently caused brain damage and death, yet for decades the medical community and government covered it up. As a grassroots awareness of the dangers of the vaccine spread across the country (aided by a 1982 NBC program) more and more lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers, the majority of which were for DPT injuries.

Because of this, DPT manufacturers rapidly left the market (e.g., due to rising liability insurance costs) and by 1984, only one remained. Now, during that time, the discourse on vaccines was not as critical as it is today, and as such, the perception was that something needed to be done to protect the vaccine supply, therefore, a deal was brokered between advocates for vaccine injured children (along with their supporters within Congress) and the pharmaceutical industry. After some work, a framework was put together which was intended to help the vaccine-injured (as lawsuits for vaccine injuries were a grueling and not always successful process), create safer vaccines, also to transfer liability from the vaccine manufacturers to the US government so the manufacturers could remain in business. HOWEVER, since many provisions of the act designed to protect the vaccine injured were at the HSS Secretary’s discretion and the government ultimately paid for injury compensation. It created a massive incentive to deny that injuries could occur, and as a result, most of the acts’ intended provisions failed to manifest or were systematically undermined.

As such, there’s still very little reliable data on vaccine injury (e.g., VAERS was systematically undermined as the government did not want a publicly available injury database), the science linking vaccines to specific injuries that was supposed to be done never got done (especially during the Biden-Harris administration), and most importantly it’s nearly impossible for vaccine injuries allegedly “not supported by science” to be compensated in the vaccine court. In addition, a 2011 Supreme Court ruling further gutted the act, making it impossible for vaccine manufacturers to be directly sued, even in cases of grossly defective vaccines that the 1986 law had specifically intended to allow.

Well, here is Stanley Plotkin, who is nicknamed the “godfather of vaccines” explaining the rationale behind the National Vaccine Injury Act 1986.

Well, conversely, this act birthed a massive industry, as removing the primary check against the industry (being lawsuits for vaccine injuries) incentivised producing a glut of new vaccines to enter the market and removed any incentive to ensure their safety. As such, an apparatus gradually developed to ensure investors could expect a successful return on upcoming vaccines by ensuring they would always be approved and mandated upon our children, eventually culminating in the COVID catastrophe.

Fortunately, as the American system has a robust series of checks and balances, even though a primary one failed (again, being injury lawsuits), eventually the unrestrained proliferation of injurious vaccines went so far that a new check emerged—and that was public loss of trust in the vaccine apparatus, MAHA’s political ascendency and RFK becoming a HHS Secretary who amongst other things has begun to implement the key safety provisions of the 1986 Act every Secretary before him refused to do.

But, in light of the war on the judiciary, and the intersection between law, food and agriculture; what we’ve just discussed is to explain why many are quite concerned by the recent push to exempt pesticides from lawsuits – it is about removing the judiciary from the equation, EVEN when it comes to food and agriculture related cases! In other words, Bayer and Monsanto are trying to replicate the same diabolical conduct of the vaccine manufacturers! Here’s a recapitulation on this, looking at the articulation of the vaccine injury act of 1986 by RFK Jr, and the articulation of the pursuit for agrochemical protection from liability from the CHD.

A DEEP DIVE IN TO BAYER, MONSANTO AND GLYPHOSATE

Let’s proceed to a deep dive into the actors behind this pursuit of protection from liability – and so, let’s talk about Bayer, Monsanto and Glyphosate. So, Bayer rose to ascendency as one of the early pharmaceutical giants after developing one of the first blockbuster drugs, aspirin (which arguably contributed to the 1918 influenza catastrophe as doctors regularly gave toxic doses of it to influenza patients), along with selling heroin (as an allegedly “non-addictive substitute for morphine”) as a cold remedy, and then chemical weapons during World War I. Following this, in 1925, Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben, creating the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical company [where Bayer’s scientists developed the world’s first antibiotic]…Following World War II, the Allied Control Council seized IG Farben’s assets because of its role in the Nazi war effort and involvement in the Holocaust, including using slave labour from concentration camps and humans for dangerous medical testing, and production of Zyklon B, which was a chemical used in gas chambers. In 1951, IG Farben was split into its constituent companies, and Bayer was reincorporated as Farbenfabriken Bayer AG. After the war, Bayer re-hired several former Nazis to high-level positions, including convicted Nazi war criminals found guilty at the IG Farben Trial like Fritz ter Meer. So, as far as ethical corporate practices, Bayer has a fairly dark history, and showed a lack of ideological change with its re-hiring of convicted Nazi war criminals.

Well, unsurprisingly, they merged with Monsanto to present the world with a glyphosate based herbicide. During this time, of the agrochemicals, herbicides (to destroy weeds) are arguably the most toxic, so in many ways, when glyphosate was discovered, it was seemingly revolutionary as it was significantly less toxic than the competing options. And so, after being introduced in 1974, it initially occupied a small portion of the herbicide market, but once Monsanto introduced crops genetically modified to resist Roundup it rapidly took off.

This ended up being a profitable business model for Monsanto as beyond allowing Monsanto to corner the herbicide market, it also incentivised farmers to use far more Roundup (as their crops didn’t die) and allowed Monsanto to make even more money selling genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds (e.g., in 2009 about 10% of Monsanto’s revenue came from glyphosate whereas 50% came from Roundup Ready seeds)—particularly since overuse of glyphosate created resistant weeds requiring even more glyphosate to be eliminated. BUT, unfortunately, since Roundup became more toxic to humans at higher doses, concerns grew about the chemical.

In response to this and similar concerns, in 2018, RFK Jr (before MAHA and his appointment by Trump to be the Secretary of the US Department of HHS), he helped spearhead a successful lawsuit for chronic Roundup exposure that caused a groundskeeper to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and was able to obtain proof through discovery that Monsanto had doctored decades of science to conceal this known risk so they could continue selling “safe and effective” Roundup. This resulted in a massive 289 million jury payout (later reduced to 21 million) and many more successful non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuits between 2019 and 2025. But, before we proceed, here is Charles Benbrook detailing how glyphosate enters the bloodstream much the same way it is designed to penetrate the outer layer of weeds.

Furthermore, as of May 2025, Monsanto had reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying approximately $11 billion, but still had roughly 61,000 active lawsuits pending. Because of this, Bayer was forced to take on that liability and their decision to acquire Monsanto. Its value rapidly dropped from 100 billion pre-acquisition to 33 billion (making it worth half of what it paid to buy Monsanto), and this acquisition is now being viewed as one of the worst merger decisions in corporate history.

Well, parallel to these efforts at accountability, a hidden battle is raging in Washington, D.C.—one that could lock in outdated, dangerously obsolete pesticide safety rulings for decades.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Is Big Pharma silencing cancer breakthroughs?

Researchers are uncovering groundbreaking evidence that Big Pharma is deliberately ignoring. Dr. William Makis, a renowned radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, in a recent online interview revealed that ivermectin is apparently demonstrating profound anti-cancer properties. Studies are showing that the drug is capable of triggering a staggering 83% death rate in cancer cells, effectively shutting down the blood supply to tumours, and annihilating a significant 85% of cancer stem cells. In a remarkable documented case, an 11-year-old patient suffering from leukaemia experienced a dramatic 90% elimination of cancer cells in just one week while undergoing ivermectin treatment. Furthermore, ivermectin is amplifying the potency of chemotherapy drugs by up to 300%, and even reversing chemotherapy resistance, all while exhibiting minimal side effects. Meanwhile, Big Pharma continues to peddle expensive treatments costing upwards of $100,000 annually, while this safe and affordable alternative remains shrouded in secrecy – what’s driving this glaring disparity?

Researchers like Dr. Bryan Ardis are now uncovering that many tumours initially thought to be cancerous are actually parasitic in origin. This discovery explains why ivermectin, a anti-parasitic medication, has been remarkably effective in curing these tumours. As Dr. Ardis points out, “there are affordable and natural alternatives available to eliminate parasites from the human body, providing a much safer option compared to chemotherapy and radiation, which can be detrimental to the entire body and even put the patient’s life at risk.” By exploring these alternative treatments, medical professionals can potentially save countless lives and reduce the need for harsh and often ineffective cancer therapies.

Pharmaceutical giants are openly prioritizing profits over people, with a business model that relies on the notion that “a patient cured is a customer lost”. The harsh reality is that the pharmaceutical industry is deliberately designed to capitalize on disease, rather than eradicate it. By focusing on treatments that merely manage symptoms, rather than addressing the root cause of illnesses, the industry ensures a steady stream of revenue. Meanwhile, natural remedies and holistic approaches that could potentially cure diseases are being deliberately dismissed, discredited, or even outlawed, simply because they cannot be patented and exploited for financial gain. The ultimate objective of Big Pharma is not to restore your health, but to create a lifelong dependency on their products, a strategy that generates billions of dollars in profits each year.

Dr. Paul Marik: chemotherapy is essentially a massive scam

Dr. Paul Marik boldly state that chemotherapy is essentially a massive scam, asserting that it barely extends a patient’s life by a mere two to three months. He further emphasizes that for certain types of cancer, chemotherapy actually has a devastating effect, ultimately reducing the patient’s life expectancy. Marik vehemently argues that this so-called “treatment” is nothing more than a lucrative scheme concocted by Big Pharma, deliberately designed to exploit and profit from the suffering of countless individuals, all while masquerading as a legitimate medical solution.

As the 20th century gave way to the 21st, the field of oncology was rocked by a slew of corrupt clinical trials, marked by shoddy control groups, subpar post-trial care, and blatant crossover practices that lined corporate pockets while leaving patients high and dry. Cancer specialists were allegedly on the take, pocketing payments from these companies and peddling a narrative that put profits ahead of people. The sheer scale of corruption and decay that had taken hold of this system had become so entrenched that it was almost impossible to see its inherent toxicity. Historians will likely view this era as a bleak period in the history of medicine, one in which dubious medications were pushed on terminally ill patients, while governments taxed struggling citizens to subsidize these ineffective treatments. Meanwhile, doctors, in the pocket of corporate interests, were complicit in promoting these products, even as the United States careened towards bankruptcy due to the staggering costs of misguided, harmful, and useless care. We must confront the severity of this crisis head-on and acknowledge that awareness is the first step towards driving real change. The medical community has a profound obligation to put genuine healing and patient welfare above financial gain, and it’s crucial that we reexamine our approach to cancer treatment, demanding greater transparency and accountability from the individuals and corporations that wield significant influence over this industry. Ultimately, it’s only through a collective effort to reform this broken system that we can create a more just and equitable healthcare landscape, one that puts patient well-being above all else.

Family Court Enforces Child’s Chemotherapy Against Parents’ Wishes

Australian parents are being stripped of their fundamental rights, with the government wielding absolute control over their children’s lives. A recent Family Court ruling has left a family reeling, forcing them to subject their child to chemotherapy against their explicit wishes. The debate surrounding the merits of chemotherapy takes a backseat to the far more pressing issues of consent and medical autonomy. The fact that the system can override a parent’s decision regarding their child’s health, education, or even end-of-life care raises a disturbing question: do parents truly have ownership over their own children? This alarming trend is not an isolated incident, as state control continues to tighten its grip, while parental authority is gradually being eroded. It’s high time for parents to take a stand and reclaim their rights, as the very fabric of family autonomy hangs in the balance. The Australian government’s overreach into family matters is a stark reminder that the notion of parental rights is rapidly becoming an illusion, and it’s crucial that we acknowledge the severity of this issue and demand change.

Force Medical Intervention: the Parker Jensen Case

But this is not the first time such things would happen. Have you heard of the case of Parker Jensen? It’s a horrific story of where the government tried to force a 12-year-old boy to get chemo and radiation against the will of the parents, and even worse, he never even had cancer in the first place. But Parker had strong and determined parents who refused to accept the diagnosis and barbaric “treatment”, wanting to find a second opinion and talk to other doctors first. After they refused and before any bloodwork was done, the diagnosing doctors reported to the state that Parker had 2 weeks to live and needed chemo/radiation immediately, which led to a court order and then the parents refusing to honour it. They then charged his father with Kidnapping his own son because they fled the state to prevent them from taking their kid, and then eventually caught and arrested him in Idaho, but not the mother and son. Parker and his mom remained on the run for weeks, before eventually proving he had no cancer in the first place and a judge eventually dismissing the charges. This started Aug 20th, 2003, and the judge finally dismissed the charges on Oct 25th, 2003. The Jensen family sued the state and lost. No justice was delivered, and they could have killed Parker with the chemo on a false diagnosis. This is still happening to this day.

Forced chemotherapy on a 10-year-old Amish girl

Here is another example of forced chemotherapy on a 10-year-old Amish girl. Her name was Sarah, and she got diagnosed with lymphoma in April 2013, and the Amish family was convinced by the doctor to do chemo and radiation. Couple months later, Sarah started getting severely ill (like most do on toxic chemo) and was begging her parents to stop the treatment, so they did and went for alternatives and second opinions. As soon as the parents stopped treatment, Akron children’s hospital staff notified CPS and took them to court and got guardianship over Sarah. After the court ruling, the guardian sent out a taxi to the family to get Sarah and go to the hospital for more toxic chemo, but the family was gone. They fled to Mexico. While safely in another country, their lawyers fought the case and won in court on claims of religious freedom. 2 years later, she got bloodwork to confirm that she had no cancer without any chemo and was in perfect health. The medical and legal system is straight up corrupted and harms/kills far more people than it helps. It’s absurd that they are still trying to treat cancer with radiation and chemo, when all the data clearly shows how dangerous it is and how it rarely works.

Written By tatenda Belle Panashe

The MIC creates conflicts of interest, with physicians influenced by financial incentives from drug companies or corporate regulations, leading to overprescribing, inflated drug prices, and unnecessary procedures like complex surgeries that may not improve outcomes. The system profits from managing symptoms rather than curing diseases, as “a cured patient is a lost customer.” This is compounded by lobbying, with the pharmaceutical industry spending heavily to influence policy, blocking reforms like price caps on medications.

Defenders of the system argue that corporate involvement drives innovation, producing life-saving drugs and technologies. They claim profit motives ensure efficiency and that the U.S. leads in medical advancements, with American professionals among the world’s best. However, even proponents acknowledge waste—U.S. healthcare spending is one in five dollars, yet life expectancy has dropped to 76.1 years (2021) from a 2014 peak of 78.9. Alternatives proposed by critics, like those from the Health Justice Commons, emphasize holistic health, community-driven care, and the right to refuse treatment, challenging the MIC’s profit-first model. The debate remains heated, with some calling for systemic overhaul or abolition, while others see reform within the current framework as viable.

Dangers of the Medical-Industrial Complex

Medical-Industrial Complex: Profit Over People

Big Pharma thrives on managing chronic conditions, not curing them. A cured patient is a lost revenue stream, so the industry pushes lifelong prescriptions like statins or antidepressants. For example, the global pharmaceutical market was valued at $1.5 trillion in 2023 (Statista), with the U.S. accounting for nearly half. Companies like Pfizer or Moderna prioritize high-margin drugs over low-cost cures, citing cases like insulin, where prices have soared despite being around for decades.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Erosion of Individual Liberty

The MIC, often backed by globalist entities like the World Health Organization (WHO), pushes centralized mandates that strip away personal choice. Vaccine mandates, for instance, have sparked outrage among conservatives, with X users citing examples of coerced medical interventions or censored discussions on alternative treatments like ivermectin during COVID-19. The CDC’s 2021 push for universal vaccinations, despite low risk for certain groups, exemplifies this overreach, clashing with the principle of bodily autonomy. Dr. James Thorp, a veteran OB-GYN, delivered a shocking statement exposing the deliberate targeting of pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Systemic Corruption and Regulatory Capture

Big Pharma’s influence over policy is staggering. From 1999 to 2018, the industry spent $4.7 billion lobbying Congress, outpacing all other sectors. This ensures policies like extended patents or blocked Medicare drug price negotiations, keeping generics unaffordable. The revolving door between regulators and industry is blatant—over 60% of FDA’s senior leadership have ties to pharmaceutical companies. This corruption stifles innovation and keeps prices sky-high.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Iatrogenic Harm

The MIC’s overreliance on drugs and procedures causes significant harm. Medical errors and adverse drug reactions are the third-leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 250,000 people annually. The opioid crisis, fueled by aggressive marketing from companies like Purdue Pharma, led to 70,630 overdose deaths in 2021. Meanwhile, unnecessary surgeries—like spinal fusions, which cost $80,000-$150,000 each—often yield no better outcomes than conservative treatments.

Unsustainable Healthcare Spending

The U.S. spent $4.5 trillion on healthcare in 2022, or 17.3% of GDP—highest in the world. Per capita, that’s $13,493 per person, nearly double Canada’s $6,319. Yet, life expectancy has plummeted to 76.1 years, down from 78.9 in 2014, showing diminishing returns. This bloated spending diverts resources from productive sectors, crushing economic freedom.

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma. In 2022, Americans spent $405 billion on retail prescriptions. A single vial of insulin, costing $10 to produce, retails for $300-$500, with prices rising 55% from 2014-2019. Blockbuster drugs like Humira, used for arthritis, cost $6,000-$7,000 per month, despite being on the market for 20 years. Patent gaming and lobbying prevent generics, fleecing patients and taxpayers.

Exorbitant Hospital and Procedure Costs

A three-day hospital stay averages $30,000, with costs for procedures like heart bypass surgery hitting $200,000. For-profit hospitals, a cornerstone of the MIC, charge 2-4 times more than nonprofits for identical services. This gouging bankrupts families—medical debt contributes to 60% of U.S. bankruptcies, affecting 530,000 households annually. The MIC’s bureaucracy is a financial black hole. Administrative costs consume 8% of healthcare spending, or $360 billion annually. Compare that to Canada’s 1-2%. Insurance companies and compliance with federal mandates drive this inefficiency, burdening small businesses—key to conservative economic values—with premiums averaging $7,500 per employee yearly.

High healthcare costs stifle growth. Businesses face rising insurance premiums, reducing hiring and investment. Individuals lose disposable income, with 41% of Americans skipping care due to cost in 2022. This drags down productivity and innovation, core conservative priorities, while enriching globalist corporations. End lobbying loopholes and enforce transparency. Reject Globalist Control. Oppose WHO-driven mandates. Encourage natural and preventive health to reduce MIC dependency.

The medical-industrial complex is a financial and moral disaster, bleeding the people dry while eroding freedom and health. Its $4.5 trillion price tag, coupled with 250,000 deaths from errors and a globalized supply chain, demands a conservative overhaul: decentralize, deregulate, and put patients—not profits—first.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

 “The Medical Cartel Sues RFK Jr for Pulling COVID Shot Recommendations”; and we ought to begin with some context. So, in the month of May, the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr,  announced the removal of the COVID vaccine from the CDC’s immunisation schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. Well, generally, even before this announcement, Kennedy noted that established side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine prove its detrimental nature. For instance, the ramifications from the COVID vaccine have included a form of heart inflammation called myocarditis and a related condition called pericarditis. He also pointed out that 15 vaccinated participants in Pfizer’s clinical trial died, compared with 14 participants who did not receive the company’s vaccine. And so, this announcement of removing the COVID vaccine from the immunisation schedule would seemingly follow the concerns that were expressed concerning it. Here’s the announcement video from the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Important to note is that the announcement is that the COVID vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy women and children. This unfortunately means that they have NOT explicitly removed the COVID jabs completely for pregnant women and ‘healthy children’. They just removed the recommendation from the CDC schedule. Meanwhile, the COVID jab still shows part of the recommended list of vaccines on the CDC’s website. And so, this development seems mostly symbolic – which is not an insignificant development – however, it does lack the requisite resoluteness in opposing the biological weapon that is the COVID jab.

THE HSS ANNOUNCEMENT ON COVID JABS PROMOTED A DISCUSSION ON THE IMMUNISATION SCHEDULE

Well, the HSS announcement on covid jabs further promoted a discussion on the immunisation schedule. The US has gone from 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025. Another way to say this is that, in 1986, before vaccine makers had broad immunity to liability for injuries, the CDC’s schedule had 7 routine childhood injections and none for adults or pregnant women. HOWEVER, the CDC’s 2025 schedule has 5 routine injections during pregnancy, over 70 routine childhood injections (from birth to age 18), and over 130 routine adult injections (up to age 79). And when we count non-routine injections, there are even more!

Well, Attorney Aaron Siri exposed that not one childhood vaccine on the CDC schedule was licensed with a true placebo-controlled trial, as chronic diseases skyrocket in kids. In an explosive testimony to COngress, he exposed a critical gap in vaccine safety research that demands attention. More specifically, and as Attorney Siri detailed in his 66-page submission to Congress, not a single routine childhood vaccine on the CDC’s current schedule (except COVAXIN for ages 12+) was licensed based on a clinical trial using a true placebo control group! This means that if a control group received another vaccine, that vaccine also lacked a placebo-controlled trial. And all of these claims are backed by FDA clinical trial documents—which is undeniable evidence that challenges the narrative of so-called “settled science.”

Therefore, Attorney Siri’s testimony raises a pressing question: Why haven’t there been studies on the safety of childhood vaccines with the rigor they deserve? And in light of this, he points to a pandemic of chronic disease plaguing America’s children. In the early 1980s, less than 13% of kids had a chronic illness. Today, over 50% suffer from conditions like asthma, allergies, and autoimmune disorders—many rooted in immune dysregulation. So, what has changed? Attorney Siri notes the CDC’s vaccine schedule has ballooned from 7 injections in 1986 to 29 by age one today, including in utero shots. This staggering increase, coupled with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shielding manufacturers from design defect liability, raises red flags. Furthermore, the absence of long-term, placebo-controlled trials leaves a gaping hole in a general understanding of vaccine safety, which means that the immunisation schedule could well be the reason why over 50% of children now face a health crisis.

So, clearly, vaccination has become a religion, and the vaccine enterprise has capitalised on this through the production of many vaccines that have been inserted into the schedule – so much so, that the moment a child is born, the vaccine enterprises regards that baby an automated consumer of their product, and thus a conduit for making a profit. Which then brings us to the crucks of today’s discussion, being the medical cartel that has protested the removal of COVID shots for children and pregnant women from the CDCs recommendation list.

THE MEDICAL CARTEL SUES RFK JR FOR PULLING COVID SHOT RECOMMENDATIONS

As referenced earlier, in what can be described as a disturbing attempt to continue pushing deadly genetic injections on the most vulnerable, 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.

In addition, the Cartel is demanding 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 argue 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. Finally, the plaintiffs claim Kennedy lacked evidence.

Let’s directly respond to this. First when these plaintiffs (being the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America) argue that the directive removing COVID shots from the CDCs recommendation list violates “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel – this complaint disregards the institutional and functional issues with the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) within the CDC.

Meanwhile, in a publication in the Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy Jr stated that (quote): “The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. It has never recommended against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make matters worse, the groups that inform ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust.” (end quote).

All this is to say that the so-called “norm” that the plaintiffs argue Kennedy disregarded was an implausible consideration because the CDC and ACIP were riddled with corruption, conflict of interest and disregard for scientific enquiry. Therefore, there is no inherent burden to preserve a status quo that does NOT work. In addition, this removal of the COVID jabs from the recommendation list is exactly the kind of bold move needed to break the credibility crisis surrounding vaccine science and government health agencies (like the CDC and ACIP). This is especially considering that Secretary Kennedy remarked that the new appointees will NOT directly work for the vaccine industry, and will “refuse to serve as a rubber stamp,” instead being focused on fostering “a culture of critical enquiry.

BUT (as far as the plaintiff’s complaint on the violation of norms is concerned), it is also worth noting that unless norms are legally enforceable (meaning codified into law), they do not have absolute weight in legal considerations anyways.

So, that is our first response to the initial complaint from the plaintiffs. The second complaint they submitted was that Kennedy lacked evidence behind the directive to remove the COVID jabs from the recommendation list. Now, I’m certain that most of us know that there is an overwhelming amount of data that fully justifies pulling these jabs – all which these organisations are pretending does NOT exist. Let’s begin with the harm to pregnant women and their unborn babies.

First, we can make reference to the study by Chen et al, that confirmed that mRNA injections cross the placenta and reach the fetus. In particular, mRNA-1273 crosses within 1 hour, accumulates in fetal organs, translates into Spike protein, and persists after birth. Second, Thorp et al found that the CDC/FDA safety signal thresholds were breached for 37 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth, premature infant death, fetal cardiac arrest, neonatal respiratory distress, fetal malformations, and many more.

Then third, in animal models, a study by Karaman et al found that mRNA injections destroy over 60% of female’s finite egg supply — when looking at primordial follicles, which are the most immature stage of ovarian follicle development, representing the fundamental reproductive units in a female’s ovary; but again, this was in the animal studies. In human datA (which focused on approximately 1.3 million women), Manniche at al found that COVID-19 vaccinated women had approximately 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women.

Fourth, in light of the harms to the reproductive system specifically, Dr Naomi Wolf proceeded to detail the diabolical extent that Pfizer targeted the reproductive function of the human body. She states that they knew they were blocking women’s ovaries with lipid nanoparticles, they knew the lipid nanoparticles traverse the placenta. Furthermore, Pfizer KNEW there’s something with the biological seed of vaccinated men that is possibly dangerous to women or foetuses because Pfizer warned vaccinated men not to have intercourse with childbearing age women and that if they do, they ought to use 2 reliable forms of contraception.

If we, here at LN24 International – be on Yvonne Katsande Live, CTD, Talking Politics or The Watchmen (and even right here on The War Room) – if we can find all of this information and corresponding studies DESPITE not having a unique focus on vaccinology, then there is no excuse for the ignorance of the plaintiffs in the case we’re discussing! Which shows that their claim for a lack of evidence on the harms resulting from COVID jabs is selective amnesia coupled with premeditated deception – especially when we consider that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer knew about these harms!

But, let’s then proceed to look at the harms on children (in addition to the unborn children) as we have referenced. First, a recent study by Friedberg et al, involving 493,705 children and adolescents aged 1–21, found a 23% increased risk of developing autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 vaccination, with onset typically occurring around 9 months post-injection. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was NOT associated with any increased risk of autoimmune disease – which means that it is not even the strain of the virus that causes the health problem, but the vaccine! Meanwhile, Feldstein et al (who interestingly were from the CDC) found that children vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 159% more likely to get infected and 257% more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection.

Secondly, in a study by Berg et al, they found that among adolescents, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a 20% increase in emergency room visits and a 17% rise in doctor visits months after injection, indicating a measurable uptick in healthcare utilization likely due to post-vaccination syndrome. Thirdly, the OpenSAFELY study included more than 1 million adolescents and children and found that myocarditis was documented ONLY in COVID-19 vaccinated groups and NOT after COVID-19 infection. There were NO COVID-19-related deaths in any group. A&E attendance and unplanned hospitalization were higher after first vaccination compared to unvaccinated groups.

Then, in the largest review to date on myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination, Mead et al found that vaccine-induced myocarditis is not only significantly more common but also more severe—particularly in children and young males. The findings make clear that the risks of the shots overwhelmingly outweigh any theoretical benefit. Here’s Dr Peter McCullough providing more insight on vaccine induced myocarditis, who is also among the authors of the just referenced paper from Mead and company.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Hosted by Yvonne Katsande, the conversation pulled no punches challenging decades of global vaccine narratives, questioning pandemic decision-making, and exposing a crisis of trust in modern public health institutions.

 “We were taught vaccines were safe and miraculous. But the truth? Repeated disasters, covered up for decades,” Dr. Stuckelberger told Yvonne in the wide-ranging interview.

A PhD, author, and senior lecturer at the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne, Dr. Stuckelberger has served as a consultant to the WHO, the United Nations, and various EU health projects. She says what she witnessed from within the system convinced her that the public was not getting the full truth.

Here is a full Interview :