Senator Graham accused what he called the “health care cartel” major insurance companies of reaping record profits at the expense of ordinary Americans. He cited UnitedHealth Group’s 1,177% stock surge as evidence of corporate gain while consumers endure skyrocketing premiums.

“We’ve got a health care cartel getting rich while families are paying twice as much for coverage,” Graham declared on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, Senator Hoeven shifted focus to the broader impact of the shutdown, calling for the immediate reopening of essential programs such as SNAP, WIC, and military pay.

“It’s unacceptable that our service members and low income families are being caught in the middle of political gridlock,” Hoeven said.

The debate underscored deep divisions in Congress as the shutdown entered another week, with no clear resolution in sight.

The AAP Declared War on Vaccine Choice

AAP recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines

The American Academy of Pediatrics last month officially recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines—pushing for government-mandated shots regardless of faith. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for an end to all religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in ALL 50 States in the U.S. This is a very dangerous and telling admission that vaccines are not about protecting the population… it’s about controlling the population and stripping parents’ rights to make decisions for their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has abandoned science, betrayed parents & pushed dangerous child mutilation. They urged removing religious vaccine exemptions, promoted puberty blockers for kids & endorsed gender transitions.

RFK Jr’s CDC Kicks Out Tyrannical AAP After Push to Remove Exemptions

In a stunning reversal of power, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—the same group that recently demanded the elimination of all personal and religious vaccine exemptions nationwide—has been expelled from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine policymaking process. Dr. Susan Monarez, confirmed by the Senate in 2025 as CDC Director, now leads the health agency’s day-to-day operations under the oversight of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to an email from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the AAP, along with more than a half-dozen other prominent medical organizations, has been kicked out of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) workgroups, which play a central role in shaping the nation’s vaccine recommendations. The AAP’s authoritarian demand to erase centuries-old religious protections and force medical compliance as a condition for education was a dystopian overreach—one that now has cost them their seat at the table. The latest development comes on the heels of a June 2025 decision by HHS Secretary Kennedy to fire the entire ACIP—accusing them of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers—and replace them with a new group that includes vaccine-skeptical voices.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Profiting from Childhood Sickness

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children’s faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP’s members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing paediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner.

The erosion of trust in the medical field, which has been ongoing since 2020, is thankfully dispelling the myth that organizations like the AAP are driven by a selfless desire to serve the greater good, rather than prioritizing the interests of their own members. The recent release of the AAP’s priorities, which were crafted by its own members, is likely to further fuel this mistrust, and although the approach may seem unusually harsh, it will ultimately contribute to the strengthening of public health by laying bare the motivations of those who stand to gain from the escalating rates of illness, and shedding light on the ways in which they profit from it.

AAP sets Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

The American Academy of Paediatrics is actively working to strip parents of their authority in deciding whether to vaccinate their children with commercially produced substances, largely sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that fund the AAP’s initiatives. This move is absurd except to the ultimate beneficiaries – including paediatricians and pharmaceutical manufacturers – exert substantial influence over the US Congress through hefty campaign donations. Notably, the AAP’s efforts to promote or facilitate chronic disease in children essentially guarantee a lifelong struggle with these conditions, thereby creating a steady stream of loyal pharmaceutical consumers. As profit-driven entities, pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to maximizing their revenues, with CEOs and executives tasked by shareholders to prioritize financial gains. By pushing for such policies, the AAP is effectively serving as a willing accomplice, enabling pharmaceutical companies to reap substantial benefits from the creation of a lifelong customer base.

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it). However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

AAP is prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures

The American Academy of Pediatrics is actively pushing to eliminate parental rights and religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations, but notably, their top ten priorities fail to address the alarming rise in obesity and autism epidemics that are wreaking havoc on children’s health. Despite the CDC sounding the alarm on the extraordinary proportions of autism cases, the AAP is solely focused on identifying and managing these conditions, rather than investigating their causes. Nowhere on their list of priorities is there a mention of tackling the root causes of the soaring rates of chronic illnesses in children. The closest they come is a vague reference to reducing the cost of insulin injections for kids. By prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures, the AAP is turning a blind eye to the devastating decline in health status among the very population they claim to serve, with diet and physical activity levels being glaringly overlooked.

Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary.

Parents are seen as an Obstacle to Return on Investment

Many parents are uncomfortable with the role of cells harvested from induced aborted fetuses, often still alive at the time of harvesting. Again, many AAP members may believe the rhetoric that this is untrue, but nonetheless it is factual. It is how we derive cell cultures to develop many vaccines, so the DNA of these dead unborn humans can still contaminate the injection. The AAP, as an institution, officially holds that cultural and religious concerns arising from this should be overridden. So, in the end, the AAP’s argument seems to come down to one of two possible drivers. Either (1) they have an ideological belief that they should simply be the authority or decision-makers on children’s healthcare rather than parents (a medical-fascist approach), or (2) they see their role as promoting an extremely lucrative market for their sponsors, from which they also directly benefit, and setting children up for an entire lifetime of chronic illness and pharmaceutical consumption. It is challenging to decide which is less noble. A third possibility is also possible. Most AAP members are simply going with the flow and have not actually stopped to think through the implications of their union’s policies. However, the motivation for willfully ignoring rational thought probably does come down to a mixture of money and ego, which goes back to the two potential drivers mentioned above. There are tens of thousands of doctors who disagree with these medical associations but are too afraid to speak out.”

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

It’s been over 24 years since the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human” report was published, drawing broad attention to medical mistakes that kill up to 98,000 Americans (alone) annually. The exact number of deaths is controversial, mostly because there isn’t a standardised way to collect and report this kind of data. Death certificates don’t reliably code medical errors leading to death, further obscuring the problem. A 2016 study found about 250,000 deaths annually are due to medical error, making it the third leading cause of death in the United States, where it’s more problematic than other developed countries. For instance, and looking at a specific reported case study, Louise Aron was injured during surgery—her small intestine was nicked during a liver stent procedure—and she died shortly afterward. Though she had stage 4 colon cancer, the surgery wasn’t considered high-risk. The mistake prompted the surgical team to suture her and transfer her to immediate hospice care.

Her daughter, Dr. Rosia Parrish, stated that she’s still overwhelmed with regret and sorrow and has yet to review the medical records to understand how the situation was handled. She added that “The sudden shift to hospice was heartbreaking, as the surgery was initially expected to be life-saving or at least life-extending, but it did not achieve either of these outcomes.” Well, of course, surgery accounts for about a quarter of medical errors, but others might involve care received before or after an operation. For instance, medication, communication, and infection are common sources of mistakes outside a surgeon’s purview. BUT, regardless of who’s to blame, the lack of accountability—or even acknowledgment—breaks a learning feedback loop that protects patient safety in the future and reduces major catastrophes.

BUT PATIENTS EXPECT ERRORS, NOT LIES

Perhaps the irony of medical errors is that honesty turns out to be the best policy for hospitals, doctors, and sometimes even patients. A great deal of research shows that patients who are told about mistakes are more likely to follow medical advice, and continue with care while being less likely to seek malpractice lawsuits, according to “Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses.” This book further states that “Patients have the right to know; patients and the public strongly desire disclosure. Failure to disclose mistakes and unanticipated outcomes limits opportunities for evaluation of systems and processes, and for sharing knowledge gained by publishing safety alerts across organisations, conducting educational sessions, modifying practice, and offering opportunities for improved performance.”

Well, Louise Aron’s daughter, Dr. Parrish, found herself once again facing the horrors of surgical complications a year after her mother’s death when she had an emergency caesarean birth. In this case, the staff didn’t thoroughly review her medical history. Dr. Parrish experienced cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), postpartum hypertension, and nocturnal hypoxia—a condition characterised by low nighttime oxygen levels. She used an oxygen tank for more than a month, had a series of pulmonology and cardiology appointments for several years, and continues to have no nerve sensation above and below her c-section scar.

In stark contrast to her mother’s death after which there were no apologies, Dr. Parrish’s hospital provided postoperative care with additional visits and even provided her with internal medical records that were not part of her file. Apologies facilitated healing. Dr Parrish also stated that she worked with them for approximately six months, and that their support was invaluable.”she also added that “In her case, there were apologies from her main surgeon, who acknowledged the shortcomings of the surgery and the birth.”This brings us to another development on the matter of surgical errors – the apologies.

DO INSTITUTIONS DO MORE BEYOND THE APOLOGY?

Many states have “apology laws,” which are designed to allow for honest communication between physicians and injured patients. However, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics said they don’t go far enough. For instance, few states have laws protecting expressions both of sympathy and of fault from being entered into medical malpractice lawsuit evidence. This puts an unofficial gag on doctors! On the other hand, only 10 states even require physicians to disclose an error to the patient. Some doctors hide behind the fact that the definition of “medical error” is vague. More specifically, adverse events are a type of injury that often happens in surgical treatment that isn’t really caused by the underlying medical issue of the patient. Adverse events are preventable, but not all are the result of an error, according to medical error and prevention training for clinicians. Preventable adverse events occur when there is a “failure to follow accepted practices.” There are also 29 “serious reportable events,” dubbed “never events” for the fact that they should never happen to patients. The list was created in 2006 by the National Quality Forum. And so, it appears that there isn’t a lot that institutions (private of public) are doing to remedy surgical errors beyond the apology.

So, why are surgical errors called “never events?” Because they are never supposed to happen – but they do. Mayo Clinic surgeon Dr. Juliane Bingener discusses a study in which Mayo researchers identified 69 never events among 1.5 million physically invasive procedures performed over five years and chronicled in minute detail why each occurred.

THE TERROR OF ERRORS: THE CASE OF LINDA KEHART

Let’s also look at the case of Linda Kehart, where errors seemed probable but the situation was full of ambiguity, which can be the case with surgery. Risks are heightened when patients are under anaesthesia. In such situations, the only witnesses to errors are the health care team. Fear of negative consequences—retribution, job security, malpractice lawsuits, and reputation damage—might mean providers only report those errors associated with harm or those that can’t be “covered up.”Earlier this year, Ms. Kehart woke up in an intensive care unit unable to get answers for why she was there after a standard stent procedure. She was told she needed a longer hospital stay. She thought she overheard someone mention that she had coded—medical language for a cardiac arrest. There was also talk amid staff of contrast dye allergy listed on her chart that she repeatedly told them was an error. Despite large teams of clinicians going in and out of her room, nobody seemed interested in anything she asked.

Frustrated by the lack of transparency, she demanded to be discharged. The hospital refused to let her leave in a wheelchair and made her sign paperwork, which later disappeared, on which she wrote that nobody would answer her questions about what transpired during her surgery. She used her connections and story to challenge the local system. She had never met her surgeon prior to the procedure, and later discovered she had an arterial hematoma, an injury to a blood vessel in her neck. One hospital administrator did ask her to write about how the ordeal made her feel so he could use the example with residents that he teaches.

Most patients don’t believe filing reports will make a difference. Four in 10 of those who didn’t report medical errors in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) poll said they didn’t know how to. Confusion is understandable. There is no universal system that patients can use for reporting errors. Most states have few guidelines, and the burden of creating a system for reporting errors falls on each individual hospital or health system.

Errors can be reported to the state public health department and the state medical licensing board to make a complaint about a physician, as well as to the Joint Safety Commission, a nonprofit organisation that accredits hospitals and is responsible for patient safety. There are some voluntary reporting systems, too, such as the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, which takes complaints related to medication errors from patients and health care providers.

THE WAR ON HEALTH: WHEN DOCTORS INTENTIONALLY HARM PATIENTS

Now, here on ‘The War Room’ we have discussed many issues that emanate from the medical and pharmaceutical industries – including the harmful medication from big pharma, to doctors being bought by pharmaceutical companies to prescribe drugs or procedures that are harmful to patients. But one issue from the medical industry that is difficult for many to come to grips with is when doctors intentionally harm patients, outside of error or even sinister motivations from the industry. There are a number of reasons society has a difficult time acknowledging that this happens: in part, it is based on the idea that being a medical practitioner is incredibly time intensive, and so the general perception is that people who are in this industry are in it due to passion to care for those who require medical assistance. In addition, doctors (as people who are supposed to make others well) have generally been given a presumption of good intent for the longest time.

But, history and even developments in the status quo provide a sharp rebuttal to these assumptions. Consider the documentary titled ‘Sickened to Death’. In this documentary, the President of Loveworld Inc highlights the critical truth that there is nothing natural about sickness, and that the emergence of sickness can be traced back to Genesis Chapter 3, and since the fall of men, there was a corruption of creation – including the entrance of sickness and disease. Furthermore, the documentary also highlights that the second and last Adam, being Jesus Christ, brought us divine health, and therefore the end of sickness. However, we are still seeing so much today that brings into question the medical industry; and the realisation that it was never there to make people well! In fact, most doctors are doing things that are against the hippocratic oath (or at least the original one, and not the modified version that was inspired by the pharmaceutical lobby).

For instance, you would have heard of Dr Death. More specifically, Christopher Daniel Duntsch is a former American neurosurgeon who has been nicknamed Dr. D. and Dr. Death for 33 incidents of gross neuro-surgical malpractice while working at hospitals in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, which maimed 31 patients and caused 2 deaths. But, here what makes this a concerning systemic issue, and not an isolated case: Dr Death was accused of injuring 33 out of 38 patients in less than two years – BUT, this was a track record so unlikely that hospital administrators and district attorneys simply felt that it was too unbelievable to be true, AND THEN ALLOWED Dr Duntsch to continue to practice before his license was finally revoked by the Texas Medical Board, and to avoid prosecution for years. Then, in 2017, Dr Duntsch was eventually convicted of maiming ONLY ONE of his patients and sentenced to life imprisonment. This is to say that not only did Dr Duntsch (AKA Dr Death maim and kill patients, but the medical industry simply thought the issue was unlikely, and allowed him to practice. Then when he was eventually convicted, it was for maiming only one of his patients – this is a systemic lack of accountability for doctors in the medical industry.

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ALSO CREATED DOCTORS WHO KILL

But, and as alluded to earlier, the pharmaceutical industry is also culpable in the creation of this problem of doctors who kill. For instance, chemotherapy is literal poison that destroys cells indiscriminately, with its consequences mostly being experimental – so much so that 97% of the time, chemotherapy actually does not work to kill cancerous cells – while destroying other cells in the body, and thus causing more harm to the patient! But, despite this, chemotherapy is almost always what is prescribed to patients with cancer. So, why would doctors do this – why would they prescribe an intervention that does not work 97% of the time?

Well, a doctor blew the whistle, and exposed that it is for one reason , and the reason is financial greed. In particular, he explains that if you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. However, if he prescribes 5,000 products of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might offer him an indirect remuneration, like sending him to a conference at a holiday destination. BUT, it is not this indirect with chemotherapeutic drugs. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the ONLY classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. And so, if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, he is able to get a monetary cut from the prescription. Here’s Dr Peter Glidden detailing this corruption.

This means Doctors literally have a financial incentive to prescribe chemotherapy to patients that do not have cancer. But, someone might say, that would be too drastic; at best doctors would perhaps just coerce patients who already have cancer to take chemotherapy. But, there is empirical evidence of the fact that this financial incentive for big pharma has motivated doctors to prescribe chemo to patients who did not have cancer, thus proving that the pharmaceutical industry is also culpable in creating doctors who kill.

THEN THERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH FALSE DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS

Then there is also the issue with false DNR orders, and how hospital protocols allow medical practitioners to literally get away with murder. For instance, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden exposed a chilling case in a Wisconsin jury trial where the Schara family sought justice for their daughter, Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome, allegedly euthanized under a false DNR order at Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital.

Admitted for COVID-19 in October 2021, Grace was given a lethal combination of morphine, lorazepam, and Precedex without family consent, leading to her death, which the family claims was not due to COVID but hospital protocols.

Dr. Bowden, having reviewed similar patient records, confirms such practices

written By Lindokuhle Mabaso