Healthcare as one of the 7 areas that globalists seek to manipulate, and we ought to start with some historical context, regarding how the COVID plandemic enabled globalists to test a militarised healthcare system.

Now, in former US president Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961, he stated that “…in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many understand what he was referring to. We’ve seen the cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretences. We’ve also seen the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatised soldiers that it spits out. Evidently, war, to some, has become big business! And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream (in other words – if they can weaponise the laws), the MIC will continue to grow.

In light of this contextualisation of the MIC, one would think that other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex; in that this MIC seemed a far more diabolical industry. Well, that was until the covid pandemic, but not forsaking a number of prior controversies. But this is really to say that among its many lessons, the Covid plandemic era has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you essentially get the same result. Meaning that not only is the “medical-industrial complex” every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, but, it is also every bit as real a problem, precisely because they are different sides of the same coin since the military industrial complex informed the weaponisation of the healthcare system in the COVID era. So, how did this happen?

Well, during the Covid era, one can infer interesting parallels to military operations. For instance, by early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the Covid “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared in March 2020, after the Covid response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) was ceded to the National Security Council. Civil liberties – including the freedoms of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, or to obtain legal relief – were rendered null and void. In addition, top-down diktats on how to manage Covid patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. Meanwhile, the mandated protocols also made no sense: they ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics; they shamelessly lied about well-known interventions, while their mandated protocols killed people.

What was also interesting to note during that time is that those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to de-license, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And the subsequent violence was no different.

But, speaking of lies about well-known interventions, you’d recall the ivermectin debate, that president Trump was involved in during that period. Well, as more evidence came out supporting Trump’s claim of the comparative benefit of using ivermectin in comparison to vaccines and all other protocols that were mandated, the FDA in the Biden era, even tried to back-peddle on their dismissal of ivermectin. In particular, the FDA claimed their Ivermectin smear campaign was only related to people self-medicating w/ a veterinary formulation of the drug.

However, in a 2021 interview with the American Medical Association, FDA Director John Farley discouraged physicians from prescribing Ivermectin, calling it a ‘tragic choice’. He stated that (quote): “Making that choice to choose Ivermectin over a vaccine can be a tragic choice that can lead to them getting very sick, getting admitted to the hospital, or even dying from COVID.

This ultimately means that the concerning tenets that have driven the military industrial complex were incorporated into the healthcare system. During covid, globalist debuted this militarised so-called healthcare response, and thus in seeking to manipulate healthcare, want similar control. Why else would there be a WHO pandemic treaty and IHR that try to centralise power to dictate health policy on the Director General, except to great a legal justification for a militarised top down approach to global healthcare?

MEDICINE BECAME BIG BUSINESS: THE COMMERCIALISATION OF SICKNESS AND INFIRMITY 

Now, in light of the parallels between the military and the medical industrial complexes, we alluded to the fact that in light of the operations of the military industrial complex, war has become big business. Well, as far as institutional capture is concerned, the medical establishment has done the same, especially with cancer. You’d recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ how not only is cancer man-made, but it is also big business, a multi-billion dollar industry. It involves getting people to get cancer, to be poisoned with chemotherapy, and large amounts of money spent on continuous research for a cure that apparently does not exist (which is a lie). And the biggest proof of this intentional weaponisation and commercialisation of cancer is that, simply put, cancer did NOT really exist more than 50 years ago but started booming with the introduction of processed food loaded with massive amounts of sugar and chemicals.

So, you’ve just heard the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. warn about the artificial and genetically modified food that causes cancer. Well, another crucial cause is exposure to carcinogenic systems. Now, a carcinogen is any substance, agent, or process that can induce cancer. They can cause cancer by damaging DNA or interfering with cellular processes (hence cancer is known as an attack on healthy cells by a cancerous cell). Examples of these carcinogens include asbestos, benzene, radon and even tobacco smoke.

This is critical to note because it exposes a detrimental irony when it comes to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is also a carcinogenic system! It is inherently a harmful concoction of chemicals that was initially created as a weapon, and then suddenly became rebranded as a highly profitable health intervention.

There you have it, this same chemical agent that was used to kill people is now being used to allegedly treat cancer. And ironically, despite the modifications on it, chemotherapy can also function as a carcinogen! More specifically, chemotherapy drugs are designed to target and destroy rapidly dividing cells, including cancer cells, but they can also affect healthy cells that divide quickly, like those in the bone marrow, hair follicles, and digestive tract. However, some chemotherapy agents, particularly alkylating agents, have been linked to an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia or other secondary cancers. And the risk of developing a second cancer after chemotherapy is influenced by factors like the type of chemotherapy drugs used, the dosage, the duration of treatment, and the individual’s overall health. ALL of this is to say that (IRONICALLY) chemotherapy also functions as a carcinogen, meaning that it is a cancer causing agent.

And so this details the institutionalisation of the commercialisation of sickness and infirmity. The medical industrial complex sees sickness as an opportunity to form a market or customer base; and so, this industry interventions that it knows are harmful or not effective in the long run, and merely brands them as an acceptable panacea. What makes this a problem of institutional corruption, as opposed to mere isolated cases of unethical business conduct is that this is standard practice in the medical industry – all while legitimate or just better cures are hidden.

Take Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who we recently discussed. So, in an interview with Tucker Carlson he detailed that there actually is a medical breakthrough in fighting cancer. However, because of politics, the Deep State and Big Pharma it’s being suppressed. Meaning that there is an intervention for which he has the data and research to prove has been helpful, yet special interests block it – pointing to systemic institutional corruption in the medical industry. Meanwhile, Dr Mark Hyman also told Tucker Carlson about the keto diet’s ability to fight cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and more. And so, literally eating certain good organic foods, is a comparatively far better option to chemotherapy.

MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS: THE MEDICAL CARTEL’S TOOL FOR WEAPONISING LAWS

We then also have to address how the medical industrial complex weaponised laws, through formal legal avenues and also through the establishment of organisations that serve special interests. For instance, we’ve spoken about the audacious incident where the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have filed a federal lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr for withdrawing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women.

The cartel also demanded a federal judge reinstate the COVID shot recommendations (again for children and pregnant women)—and block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed them. Then, they also argued that Kennedy’s directive violates (quote) “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel, and undermines their ability to push the shot to patients and secure insurance coverage. This revealed a jarring display of the audacity of the medical industrial complex to use laws to fight or undermine progress. Because they obviously know that there are serious ramifications from the COVID jabs, but were adamant to use formal legal structures to block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed those jabs from the recommendation list.

Similarly, we’ve been told to “listen to scientists” for years, while their credibility was tied to medical societies and associations that vouched for their alleged credibility. BUT… the dark and corrupt history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption.

Thankfully, the corruption of these medical associations is being exposed on the regular today. For example, files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (also called WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical. The American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine.

And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.” Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Meanwhile, WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine. In any case, the WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.

Then there is also the American Heart Association. This association exposes systemic corruption in the medical industry in that it also serves to propagate false and detrimental health directives. You’d recall that we had a discussion of the hoax behind the claim that humans need to consume very little saturated fats and salt, which heavily implicated Ancel Keys, who had the backing of the American Heart Association. Well, even in the status quo the American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves less than 6% of total calories from saturated fat. This is to say, that for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat – the same saturated fat that has now been proven to be essential for your health and to play an essential role in the functionality of your body!

Well, this unaccountable attitude towards accurate nutritional science in the present (as well) is actually less surprising when you consider that the AHA has been operating as a corrupt, anti-health lobby institution for the medical industrial complex, and even food companies. For instance, this year, the American Heart Association sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering unhealthy items such as candy and soda—part of the MAHA initiatives.

Well, when you follow the money, you understand why the AHA has these inclinations. Not only is it funded by many pharmaceutical corporations, but General Mills and Pepsi Co are both forum members of The American Heart Association.

The question then is, why have these associations averted scrutiny for all these years? Well, for one the people who back them, like the Rockefellers have deep pockets: they not only pay for their operations, but pay to insure they either receive positive coverage (think the mainstream media and vaccines), or pay to ensure they remain under the radar. The second reason is that these organisations play on the liberal inclinations of society, in a world where identity politics are also expected to govern organisational culture. For instance, (and this is not a joke), the American Medical Association declared WEIGHT measurement, through the Body Mass Index (or BMI) to be RACIST, of all things – which obviously fit well in a culture of “body positivity”, and negative reinforcement for unhealthy habits.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war against the pandemic industrial complex, and we ought to begin with some recapitulation. To begin with, it is essential to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.

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

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

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

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

DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS

Let’s talk about a development in light of the IHRs. For clarity, the IHR are an existing legal agreement outlining the rights and responsibilities of WHO and its member states in handling international public health events, while the Pandemic Accord is a potential new international agreement being negotiated to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response. Therefore, the IHRs and the Pandemic Agreement serve complementary but somewhat distinct purposes in global health governance – differing primarily in scope, objectives, and focus (but are ultimately serving the same purpose – which is the functionality of the WHO, and its potential increase in power), hence, they IHR and the pandemic accord are often discussed in conjunction. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on amendments to the IHR since 2005.

Well, much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and this is what countries would be making themselves subject to after July 19th, if they do not withdraw. However, many nations are actually raising concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed, and conflict of interest – and we ought to emphasise why these are valid concerns, and not mere considerations that do not end up having a weight in the value judgments made by nations concerning the IHR, and the pandemic accord.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS CURATE AN EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY

But, first, with IHR, on Saturday 19 July, amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) become binding international law (which I think is a dangerous paradoxical statement). In any case, these IHR give the WHO legal authority to influence lockdowns, travel, medical mandates and digital health IDs across major Western nations. How this happens is that through these amendments, the WHO can declare a global emergency — even if there’s no outbreak in your country. That means unelected officials in Geneva could trigger lockdowns, jab campaigns, or border closures in your city based on events somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in the current amendments to the IHR, they deleted the requirement that health measures respect your dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those exact words are scrubbed, and are replaced with vague “equity” language that paves the way for coercion & censorship. Then, because they know that international law is not actually binding (like we;ve discussed previously here on The War Room, the amendments the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land.

Then, if after Saturday 19th, your government is pressed to exit, they have made that option incredibly difficult. This is because July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. And so, the fact that we are having this conversation now is quite jarring seeing that many leaders and citizens have been speaking out against this attempt at a power grab for years.

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS ALSO DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Now, I mentioned earlier that the IHR and the pandemic accord ultimately serve the same purpose even though they are presented as different bodies of law. And to drive this further, I’d like to indicate how parallel (and frankly identical) their provisions are when it comes to the erosion of sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’d like for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.

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

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

KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

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

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

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

MEANWHILE, THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS ARE A MONEY MAKING PLOT

What is most aggravating about this discourse on the IHR and the pandemic accord is the fact that it is all ultimately a plot by greedy psychopathic people who want to make more money. More specifically, in the 20 years prior to Covid-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (and you can find this in the section on “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) deaths are attributed to Swine flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. IN CONTRAST, about 1.3 million people are reported to die yearly from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. But, undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak like swine flu and ebola constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.

Then, the World Bank teamed up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in their official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases; such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But, to justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high-burden diseases, they needed to show that pandemics cost economies far more. And what they did is that they presented a graph, in which they drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e. probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then they drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.

Based on this graph, covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria, and HIV combined. This means that the WHO considers a virus with a less than 1 percent mortality rate (being the COVID virus) to require orders of magnitude more finances than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years. This math does not make sense, except you’re trying to justify funnelling money towards the pandemic industrial complex!

And this is not even the gist of it all: there is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media, and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. It is a deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations, and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member States go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.

And so, even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, if nations are not careful and quick to use this opportunity to resist this agenda, they may come into force in their respective nations. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid; taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting this agenda – it is nothing short of diabolical and abhorrent and a threat to the principles of sovereignty and the more plausible aspects of democracy that we are supposed to protect.

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

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the WHO is not even competent to be given such a potentially expanded role. And here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso