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

Peel back the glossy press releases, and a darker narrative emerges—one echoed in financial circles wary of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” rhetoric. Independent researchers and African policymakers have revealed that GMO mosquitoes aren’t just about disease suppression; they’re a Trojan horse for depopulation and coerced medical interventions. The Gates Foundation, with its $50 billion endowment and deep ties to pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Moderna, has long been exposed of prioritizing population management over genuine aid. In a 2010 TED Talk, Bill Gates himself mused on reducing global population growth through vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services. Fast-forward to today: Oxitec’s malaria-focused strains, developed with Gates funding, will deliberately target human fertility in high-birth-rate regions.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes

Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

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

Consider the “flying syringe” concept, a Gates-backed idea to engineer mosquitoes that deliver vaccines via bites. A 2008 Grand Challenges grant explored transgenic mosquitoes secreting malaria antigens into human saliva during feeding, turning insects into inoculators. This blurs the line between consent and compulsion. This tech could enforce compliance under the guise of public health emergencies. Financially, the payoff is staggering: The global vaccine market, projected to hit $100 billion by 2030, thrives on perpetual crises. Gates’ investments in mRNA platforms during COVID-19 yielded billions; GMO mosquitoes could similarly prime markets for next-gen shots, funnelling profits to elite stakeholders.

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

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

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

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

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

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

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

FLORIDA SURGEON GEN: ALL VACCINE MANDATES IN FLORIDA WILL BE ENDED

And now onto our main discussion regarding the acceleration of the vaccine reckoning, and we ought to begin with the announcement from the state of Florida. Once again, on September 3rd, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo announced a plan to eliminate all vaccine mandates in the state, including those required for schoolchildren to attend public schools. This move, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, positions Florida as the first state in the US to attempt a complete rollback of vaccine requirements.

Now, Dr Ladapo, has also been known for being a vocal vaccine skeptic, but, it was particularly notable that – as a government official, and in the course of his announcement – he denounced vaccine mandates as “immoral” and likened them to “slavery,” arguing that they infringe on individual and parental rights. He went so far as to ask rhetorically (quote): “Who am I, as a government or anyone else, to tell you what you should put in your body?” and he asked this crucial albeit rhetorical question emphasizing personal choice over state-imposed requirements. Continuing, he declared that the Florida Department of Health would work to repeal all vaccine mandates, stating, “All of them. Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.”

Of course, for many, this was a welcomed announcement because Florida currently requires vaccinations for schoolchildren against diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, and hepatitis B. Some mandates fall under the authority of the state health department, which Ladapo said would be repealed immediately, while others require legislative action from Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature. Governor DeSantis expressed support for the initiative, announcing the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In addition, supporters expressed that the decision is a triumph for medical freedom; for instance, Dr Robert Malone,who warned about mRNA vaccines and has been recently appointed to the new and vaccine critical CDC’s advisory committee, well, he praised Ladapo as a “measured scientist” aiming to reform the system. In addition, posts on X from many Floridians and Americans reflected similar sentiments, with some users celebrating the announcement as a defense of bodily autonomy – which appears to be the main theme following the announcement from Dr Ladapo; in that not only did Dr Ladapo articulate the overreach in allowing governments to tell people what to put into their body (or children’s body), but also the great response from citizens is that many people want their inalienable freedom of choice and right to bodily autonomy to be respected. And so, as far as a government mandate is concerned, I’d say this is reflective of what a healthy execution of the government’s duty to care should look like: it is one where people can exercise the freedom of choice, and the government does not have power to mandate policies that encroach on this inalienable freedom and complementary rights. But let’s revisit the moment of the announcement.

Also quite notable is the alluded to announcement from Governor Ron DeSantis concerning the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Governor DeSantis said the new working group will recommend state-level integration of Make America Healthy Again principles.

Under Kennedy, the US Department of HHS is reportedly “taking bold, decisive action to reform America’s food, health, and scientific systems to identify the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic to ultimately Make America Healthy Again.” DeSantis thus added that the commission will focus on complimentary principles including “individual medical freedom, informed consent, parent rights and also market innovation.”

THE OPPOSITION TO ENDING FLORIDA’S VACCINE MANDATES REVEALS THE VALIDITY OF THE MOVE

Now, as expected, the so-called public health experts swiftly condemned the decision to end all vaccine mandates in Florida, warning of potential outbreaks of preventable diseases. For example, Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated, “Today’s announcement by Gov. DeSantis will put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.” Similarly, Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), called the move “frightening,” noting that unvaccinated children could endanger immunocompromised individuals. The American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, ironically, the opposition to ending Florida’s vaccine mandates actually reveals the validity of this move – especially considering the people and organisations opposing it.

First, the CDC is quite literally the centre of vaccine controversy (as we have been discussing recently), ranging from the blatant disregard for scientific evidence and financial corruption – therefore, their support for vaccines does not hold the weight that Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the CDC thinks it might. Which then brings us to Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, following her remark that ending vaccine mandates in Florida will allegedly “put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.”

So, for some context, the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

Secondly, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also 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 quite literally 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).

THEREFORE, their contribution to Florida ending vaccine mandates has nothing to do with health and the well-being of children, but everything to do with money and a disregard for human rights and the protection of inalienable freedoms like choice. And so, considering that bodily autonomy is a massive theme in discussions about ending the vaccine mandates in Florida, I would thus argue that the AAP’s opposition to ending vaccine mandates serves to validate the move more than to lessen its credibility.

Then, still in opposition towards Florida’s ending of the vaccine mandates, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

Secondly, the dark and corrupt Rockerfella-linked 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, when it comes to the medical industry, as you’d recall from one of our previous discussions here on ‘The War Room’.

Ultimately, critiques on moves away from vaccination might seem plausible to the unsuspecting mind, until you actually consider that those offering the loudest critiques do so, not out of genuine concern, but out of concern for their pockets, and those of the pharmaceutical companies funding them.

THIS IS THE TIME TO DOUBLE-DOWN ON SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SHOWING THE HARMS OF VACCINES

But, now, to push the envelope further, I would like to argue that it is time to double down on scientific findings showing the harms of vaccines in general because the evidence exists in abundance now, and we need to capitalise on the events in the status quo that we referenced in the beginning. For instance, with mRNA jabs, the largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to-date, provides robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death via multiple organ systems. We found that 73.9% of the deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by the shots. This study has endured relentless censorship in its journey to final publication.

Among the 240 deaths adjudicated as related to the vaccine, the primary causes of death were: Sudden cardiac death (at 35%), Pulmonary embolism (12.5%), Myocardial infarction (12%), Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) (7.9%), Myocarditis (7.1%), Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and Cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%). This means that the consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggest there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death.

Similarly, another autopsy paper focused solely on myocarditis deaths—proved that COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis can be fatal. In all 28 autopsy-confirmed cases, the vaccine was causally linked to the death, with most deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination. In more detail, applying the Bradford Hill criteria, the researchers confirmed a strong causal relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and fatal myocarditis, particularly in young, previously healthy individuals. These results shatter the false narrative that vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare and benign—as they show that it can and does result in sudden cardiac death.

Therefore, the temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis – this all suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis.

THIS IS ALSO THE TIME TO REFUTE THE SCIENTISTIC CULT, AND MAKE ROOM FOR DISSENT

Since 2021, critics of the new generation of mRNA so-called “vaccines” have been bewildered by the immunity of this enterprise to empirical data showing that the products are neither safe nor effective. And many of the critics did not seem to realise that they are challenging beliefs that are not rooted in scientific evaluation, but in claims from the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion. This is why the plausibility of vaccines rests on claims of their claimed almost miraculous emergence with the smallpox vaccine, while also being sustained by unqualified heroic deeds about how vaccines got rid of some of the worst diseases in human history. Well none of this is true (as we have discussed previously) and yet, to say this is regarded as heresy! And the reason lies with how the vaccine enterprise and the medical industrial complex have leveraged religion.

In actual fact, when we look back at the 2020 – 2022 period, we can observe the workings of this scientific religion. For instance, after being locked down and systematically terrorised by the mass media for most of 2020, most of humanity anxiously awaited the vaccine that was heralded as their savior and liberator. As vaccine investor, enthusiast and self-proclaimed philanto-capitalist Bill Gates repeatedly stated in the spring, the world would only be able to go back to normal (quote) “when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.” Now, this was an uncanny thing for anyone to say, considering that the freedom of people does not rest on the proclamations of mere man. But, the proclamation that “almost every person on the planet” needed to be injected with a novel substance (about which they knew nothing) seemed like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel. And yet, that was the script: that entire playbook (from predictive programming through Event 201 – to the utter erosion of human rights, the destruction of economies, closure of businesses, learning institutions and closure of Churches) all of this was part of their script, and what can be called their claimed sacred document.

Well, when the emergency-authorised mRNA vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, most of humanity was apparently unaware that they were not vaccines in the traditional sense of inactivated or attenuated pathogens that would induce an immune response (which, as we’ve previously discussed, is not sound or scientific logic). In any case, the new injections were the genetic code for instructing the body to create a foreign, toxic protein. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg understood this, and he starkly contrasted with the public when, during an internal meeting with company executives on July 16, 2020, he stated that (quote): “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modify- ing people’s DNA and RNA to directly code in a person’s DNA and RNA. Basically, the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.” But, people could not say this openly, because the vaccine enterprise and scientistic cult has made dissent something akin to heresy. However, in this time when we are seeing the vaccine reckoning accelerating, we ought to capitalise on this by forcing discourse on those who tried to hide behind the “trust the science” slogan.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are engaged, and held accountable. Which brings me to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

Since 2020, Yvonne has been a leading voice exposing the flaws in covid vaccine rollouts. Now, with government mandates intensifying, she brings together medical and legal experts to discuss:

• The science behind vaccine safety in children
• The legal implications of mandatory shots without parental consent
• The global data on vaccine side effects, including myocarditis
• What parents and communities can do to respond

This powerful interview is more than a discussion it’s a wake-up call.

Watch now and share with every parent, teacher, and student you know.

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 U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REFUTES THE CLAIM OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE

And now onto our main discussion on the recent war against gender affirming care. To begin with, children diagnosed with gender dysphoria a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

Recently, an umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing. In addition, while advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving,” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—but not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias. But, ultimately, the review amounts to a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” IS BASED ON A DIGRESSION FROM MEDICAL ETHICS

First, at the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms. To appreciate this, we would have to consider that in many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations. However, in the case of gender affirming care, the opposite occurred!

This is to say that despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences. This includes irreversible consequences such as infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

For example, puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis. When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function. And yet, many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

However, another issue with the child led model used in gender affirming care (in addition to its existence as a model), is the fact it is not based on any credible science – because children do not have a valid and objectively factual reason to claim gender dysphoria, without influence from environmental factors (i.e. social contagion, or the impact that contaminated food and pharmaceutical interventions have on hormones and biological development). This cannot be stressed enough, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria – there literally is no scientific basis for it AT ALL! RATHER, where its normalisation comes from is the intercession of medical science and social politics, meaning that it is the product of medical science being heavily influenced by pressure from those lobbying to make sectors of society bend towards political correctness and the LGBT agenda – thus leading to social contagion!

ARE CHILDREN CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO LIFE-ALTERING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS?

This brings us to one of the most critical issues to consider in the discussion on so-called gender affirming care – being child consent. More specifically, we ought to ask: Are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions? Generally, we understand informed consent as meaning more than simple agreement informed consent requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact (meaning consequences of a choice or action).

This means that, by definition, children often lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making – because they do not possess sufficient maturity and mental reasoning or processing capacities to understand the gravity of irreversible decisions, beyond a temporary fixation of an assumed benefit. Therefore, when medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by an under-age patient!

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED “MATURE MINOR DOCTRINE

But, the medical industrial complex that benefits from these procedures created a loophole to this issue on minor consent, through collaborating with lawmakers to form the mature minor or minor consent doctrine in a number of states – starting with vaccination and thus creating precedent for gender transitions. In essence, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child.

Well, in an interesting shift in events, even members of the alphabet community are recognizing that there is no basis for informed consent in so-called gender affirming care. For instance, Jamie Reed testified on the 9th of May in Maine in support of bill LD380, which would require parental consent to medicalise a minor. She correctly differentiates between consent and assent, detailing that in medical procedures driven by minors, at best all those children can provide is assent, meaning agreement to allowing the procedure to take place. However, this does not amount to informed consent, because often the children do not know the extent of the changes and harm they are agreeing to. The pendulum is swinging towards common sense.

Based on this concession from even the alphabet people, it further emphasises that supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Especially considering that any children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety all of which can impair decision-making. Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

But, once again, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria (meaning gender dysphoria that is not influenced by environmental factors). And not only is there no organic gender dysphoria, but the actual mental illnesses that children are struggling with are being ignored, in order to justify the claim of gender dysphoria. There was even a trend (especially among medical professionals) of not questioning the unstable nature of gender dysphoria claims, and rather affirming the so-called transgender children, in the name of compassion. But, Vivek Ramaswamy correctly stated that that trend was based on a false dichotomy, that resulted in the assumption that compassion can only come with affirming gender dysphoria claims.

Ultimately, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding), and they are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right: as I’ve said before, this is part of the reason why five year olds do not drive, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why it is considered negligent for an adult to leave a child alone near a large body of water. And so, what is claimed to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Furthermore, it is to fail the parental or medical duty to care when children are allowed to transition, while making permanent decisions based on temporary feelings.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” REPRESENTS A MORAL PROBLEM IN MODERN MEDICINE AND LAW

Considering that the medical industrial complex has manufactured a doctrine of minor consent to perform mutilation procedures on children despite the irreversible harms, it becomes evident that the problem is not only medical it’s moral. In light of this, in the aforementioned HSS report, the HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: which is to protect vulnerable patients. The HHS argues that ideology and activism have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

This is to say that the evidence of the benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. And among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support. Research suggests that most cases of claimed paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments. Meanwhile, medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience the claimed gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies. This means that they perform treatments that aren’t based on a genuinely conceived mandate to care for the patient, but based on a careless disregard for their duty to care! A detransitioner adds to this account..

Well, you’d recall that in light of this, the Supreme Court in the US heard arguments of gender affirming care in December 2024, and indicated that the majority was leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts so-called gender transition treatments for minors. Now, this case (in essence) decides whether, under the US constitution, states are allowed to outlaw child mutilation in the name of gender ideology. But, now, a few years or even months back, this case would have been inconceivable because it was considered inherently wrong to allow children to consent to irreversible harm, which would be inclusive of the almost irreversible procedures that are conducted of so-called transgender children. Of course, what then happened is that trans activists intimidated people who opposed gender ideology (especially through the incorporation of cancel culture). What also happened is that there were a number of woke activist judges who were co-opted into the court system.

For instance, while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on whether banning the medical transitioning of minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Justice Sotomayor argued that children denied “gender affirming care” may kill themselves or become drug addicts.

Let’s (once again) address this alleged threat of suicide, where children are denied so-called gender affirming care, as also articulated by Justice Sotomayor. I believe that this threat only has an impact because it is not actually analysed. And I do not necessarily blame parents for this: when a parent is told that their child is at risk of ending their life, that easily seems like the worst case scenario and thus has the potential to dilute their concerns about child mutilation, if they do not understand the full extent of the harms that child mutilation also brings. And so, compassion will likely move parents to want to save their children (at least as they are coerced to) – especially if they do not fully understand what the transition would mean for their children.

And so, to address this claim of suicide, let’s look at children (or former children) who are now speaking out against allowing minors to make choices that have an irreversable impact on them. SPOILER ALERT: these children and young adults are advocating hard against allowing minors to make such decisions because they are now dealing with the consequences of having been allowed to make decisions with permanent ramifications on the basis of temporary feelings. This is an excerpt from a documentary titled ‘THE GENDER AGENDA’, produced by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, and available on the Ceflix platform. He documentary zoomed in on cases of minors who were reflecting on having been allowed to make the decision to mutilate themselves.

What is interesting to note, is that children who opted for child mutilation, were actually coerced into it because even they were told they would end their lives if they did not transition! So, it appears that the threat of suicide originated from the medical practitioners who perform these surgeries of distribute the puberty blockers! SECONDLY, if children are not being told that THEY will end their lives if they do not opt for mutilation, they are often already struggling with mental health issues, like depression. Therefore, even in this instance, parents are not risking the lives of their children by refusing to opt for child mutilation – because the depression and mental health issue would exist independent of the option for mutilation or “transitioning”.

Finally, in refuting the suicide claim tha tis used to coerce parents, it is worth noting, especially from the young lady towards the end of the excerpt we just watched from the documentary, that a massive contributor to mental illness or depression is the regret that comes from having undergone the child mutilation processes and then realise that even when you detransition, you may never gain back your biological experiences and privileges, like starying a family. We all watched her weep and lament the sense that she does not think anyone can love her anymore, which I genuinely hope she knows is not true, because even if she was the only person on earth, Christ would have still died for her in his unwavering love for her.

THE GENDER ARE GENDER AS A WEAPON OF POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

But, seeing how gender affirming care has been systematically pushed, we also have to not miss that it has been organised as a political weapon – that is even being wielded by activist judges. And the idea that the gender agenda is a tool of political manoeuvring is not a mere statement or semantics – it really has become utilised in this manner. For instance, those who are proponents of the agenda use it to gain certain privileges or to institute changes in society that are to their favour – no matter how ridiculous. For instance, LA City in June 2024 took down a couple “no U-turn” traffic signs in Silver Lake, California because the signs are anti-LGBTQ. Really, it is almost disturbing how much this is a group that so desperately wants to be “oppressed” or “marginalised”, because that somehow validates their existence.

But, the use of the gender agenda as a political manoeuvering tool is not exclusive to privileges of the change to social standards and law; the gender agenda is now also mechanism for targeting those who dissent to it. In fact, we recently discussed the story of the DOJ’s charge against Dr Ethain Haim in Texas. More specifically, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Dr Eithan Haim, who last year leaked evidence of cross-sex hormone procedures being performed at a Texas hospital despite the facility claiming to have halted them, with the surgeon facing four felony counts for alleged violations of a medical-records law that could land him in prison for up to 10 years. The DOJ announced on June 17 that it had charged Dr Haim for obtaining protected individual health information for patients who were not under his care, allegedly acting without authorisation and with intent to cause malicious harm to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).

We also discussed the fact that, in this case, the controversy actually centers on the fact that the TCH, which the largest children’s hospital in the country, publicly declared in March 2022 that it was halting “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services” for minors, citing potential legal and criminal liability after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that prescription of puberty blockers was “child abuse” under Texas law. And that, however, the documents leaked by Dr. Haim purportedly showed that the hospital continued to perform some “gender-affirming” therapies after the announcement, including one procedure on an 11-year-old three days after it made the declaration. And so, he was actually functioning as a whistleblower against an institution that was breaking the law in this case.

Written y Lindokuhle Mabaso