THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE APARTHEID REGIME’S WEAPONISATION OF HIV/AIDS

And now onto our main discussion regarding the introduction of HIV in Africa; and why this serves as a aase for vaccine rejection being justified; to begin with, we ought to start with the headline making the rounds. In essence, this article published on the 14th of December, titled “Plot to kill blacks with HIV exposed”, it details that: in the waning years of South Africa’s apartheid regime, as the inevitability of democratic transition loomed, a chilling development emerged.

In more detail, Retired High Court judge Chris Nicholson, in his recently published book Who Really Killed Chris Hani?, unveils allegations that the white minority government and its supporters explored biological warfare tactics, specifically leveraging the HIV/AIDS epidemic to undermine the black majority’s demographic strength.

Judge Nicholson’s work brings together apartheid-era documents, testimonies from former security operatives, and historical connections to global eugenics movements, to support the harrowing claim that the spread of HIV?AIDS was not merely neglected but, in some instances, deliberately facilitated – in other words, the sources explored indicate calculated efforts to exploit the virus. Additionally, the book argues that certain factions within the regime viewed AIDS, which surfaced globally in the early 1980s, as a potential tool to preserve white dominance without resorting to overt genocide. And at the core of these claims lies what is called “Project Coast”, and this was the apartheid state’s covert chemical and biological warfare initiative, directed by cardiologist Dr Wouter Basson, infamously dubbed “Dr Death.”

Project Coast was established in the 1980s amid regional conflicts and internal unrest, and it aimed to develop defensive and offensive capabilities against perceived threats. Judge Nicholson cites academic research, including Robin Jakob’s dissertation, indicating efforts at Roodeplaat Research Laboratories (which is a Project Coast facility) to weaponise HIV—potentially transforming it into a sterility-inducing agent targeted at black women to curb population growth and dilute political opposition.

Not only this but, former security policeman Paul Erasmus reportedly confessed to requests for HIV-infected blood samples. Operatives from units like Vlakplaas allegedly deployed what they called infected “askaris” (which were turned guerrillas) for targeted infections. Intelligence officer PJ Pretorius’s writings also reference studies predicting white resurgence due to AIDS’s impact. Similarly, scholar Jeremy Youde’s work reinforces this, noting substantial resources devoted to HIV manipulation. Community rumors in Zulu areas spoke of a mysterious “doctor of death” disseminating the virus, a moniker often linked to Basson. And testimonies from former operatives further add layers: where one operative recalled 1983 discussions among military figures about engineering a “natural-looking” population reduction method, rendering a disease sexually transmissible. Others allege operational deployments, such as instructing HIV-positive individuals to engage in intimate relations with targeted women or prostitutes in urban centers like Johannesburg’s Hillbrow district.

Now, despite the presentation of this information in the December 14th article as being “a shocking discovery” of sorts, this information is not necessarily new or revelatory to many South Africans. The first democratic election (that included ALL South Africans was in 1994 – which means South Africa’s democracy has in its belt just 31 years. As such, many of our parents or grandparents, who are even alive today, lived through Apartheid policies, which commenced in 1948. And so quite a number of South Africans grew up on stories about Dr Death who infected Africans with Aids, of the infamous farmer Ginny (who crippled his African farm workers), or even dodging bullets from African resistance fighters who infiltrated hostels, as they adopted a similar taste for murder as the Apartheid officials they once fought. And so, we know why the Kwa-Zulu Natal province has a large AIDS infection rate, or why the Hillbrow district is (still today) infamous for prostitution and crime. These are consequences of deliberate efforts, known to most South Africans.

This context is why it is nothing short of a miracle (brought forth by divine intervention) that peaceful co-existence occurred in South Africa. Part of the reconciliation process was the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, which prioritised reconciliatory justice with a compromise on retributive justice for crimes committed during apartheid and that left a scar on many.

Meanwhile, because of the lack of retributive justice, many officials who were part of or aided the works of the apartheid regime just continue in society. For instance, Dr Death himself, in 2021 was discovered to still be practising medicine, with no remorse for what he did!

BUT, while in no way justifying the heinous and satanically inspired conduct of the apartheid regime, I believe there is much to thank God for when looking at the post-apartheid reconciliation in South Africa. Not only did in put an end to violence, but it made it permissible to reject the ridiculous notions imposed by racist ideology and, and instead see all people through a kind lens: not for their presumed inferiority or their presumed deviousness, but as people who are capable of peaceful co-existence, when the option is granted. And that is why (despite some critique and controversy) the story of South Africa’s transition from the apartheid regime to a democracy is one of achieving what otherwise seemed utterly insurmountable.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VACCINATION AND THE INTRODUCTION OF AIDS IN AFRICANS

But, now, here is why this discussion ties to vaccinalogy, and has global applications: part of how Aids was introduced to African populations was through inoculation! As a user on X once put it, some things are darker than the anti-vaxx conspiracy realities actually reveal.

And this bears mentioning because in the annals of human atrocity, few revelations are as chilling as the realisations that a virus responsible for millions of deaths was weaponised as an instrument of racial extermination. But, before the December 14th article, this discussion also came from a 2019 documentary called Cold Case Hammarskjöld. While primarily investigating the 1961 plane crash that killed then-UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, which was long suspected to be an assassination tied to colonial interests, the film unintentionally unearths a bombshell: which is a confession from Alexander Jones, a former intelligence operative for the South African Institute for Maritime Research (SAIMR), admitting to deliberately inoculating Africans with the HIV virus in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As you would have inferred from the previously shown excerpt, the goal was to decimate black populations across the continent.

And so, SAIMR, ostensibly a maritime think tank, was in reality a covert arm of the apartheid regime—a mercenary and intelligence outfit bankrolled by Pretoria and allegedly supported by Western powers like the CIA and MI6. Under the command of the enigmatic Keith Maxwell, a figure likened to a “South African Josef Mengele,” the group orchestrated coups, sabotage, and assassinations across Africa to prop up the apartheid regime and its associated figures. 

Alex Jones,who (himself) served as an operative in the 1980s, recounts in the film how SAIMR exploited the guise of humanitarian aid. Posing as philanthropists, they set up mobile clinics in townships and rural areas, administering what victims believed were routine vaccinations against diseases like polio or typhoid. Instead, these injections carried HIV, sourced from apartheid’s notorious Project Coast bioweapons program, led by the infamous “Dr Death,” Wouter Basson.

Crucially, Jones’s testimony does not confine this horror to South Africa’s borders. He speaks of operations extending into neighboring countries like Namibia, Zambia, and Mozambique—which are nations that were destabilised by apartheid’s cross-border raids. This regional scope shatters any notion that the plot was a parochial vendetta of the National Party government. It was RATHER a pan-African assault, rooted in a supremacist ideology that viewed the continent’s indigenous peoples as existential threats to the apartheid regime. As a result, Keith Maxwell, harbored an “apocalyptic obsession” with AIDS, envisioning a virus that would “cull” black numbers to create a “white majority country” by the 21st century, which echoes the regime’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, which had already experimented with anthrax-laced cigarettes and poisoned chocolates targeted at liberation leaders like Nelson Mandela. 

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY’S ROLE IN THE SPREAD OF THE HIV EPIDEMIC

However, vaccination is not the only issue here as pharmaceuticals (in general) are implicated in the spread of the AIDS epidemic. In more detail, in the early 1980s, as the AIDS crisis emerged, thousands of hemophiliacs worldwide faced a devastating tragedy due to contaminated blood-clotting products. However, also during this time, Bayer’s subsidiary, Cutter Biological, which produced Factor VIII concentrate—an allegedly life-saving treatment for hemophilia derived from pooled human plasma. HOWEVER, this product became contaminated with HIV, leading to widespread infections.

Now, hemophilia prevents blood from clotting properly, often requiring frequent injections of Factor VIII to prevent fatal bleeding. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, manufacturers like Cutter pooled plasma from thousands of paid donors, including high-risk groups such as intravenous drug users, prisoners, and gay men in urban areas. Meanwhile, no reliable HIV test existed until 1985, so even one infected donor could contaminate an entire batch. But, by 1982-1983, evidence mounted that blood products were transmitting what was then called AIDS. The CDC warned in March 1983 that these products “appear responsible for AIDS among hemophilia patients.”

Then, Cutter introduced a heat-treated version of Factor VIII in February 1984, which inactivated HIV and dramatically reduced risk. In the US and Europe, the company shifted to this safer product as demand for the old version plummeted amid growing awareness. However, internal documents revealed by The New York Times in 2003 show that Cutter continued manufacturing and selling the unheated, higher-risk version overseas for months—into 1985 in some cases—to deplete inventory and fulfill contracts. Markets included Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan) and Latin America (Argentina and others).

Well, Company memos indicated financial motivations: avoiding losses on existing stock worth millions. One telex urged a distributor to “use up stocks” of the old product before switching. In Hong Kong and Taiwan alone, over 100 hemophiliacs contracted HIV from Cutter’s unheated Factor VIII, many dying prematurely. Broader estimates suggest hundreds or thousands infected globally from such products, though exact foreign tolls are hard to pinpoint due to lost records and delayed HIV testing.

As you would expect, the fallout was immense. In the US, thousands of hemophiliacs were infected; Bayer and other firms paid about $600 million in 1990s settlements. Foreign victims pursued compensation later, with Bayer contributing to funds in Europe and elsewhere. Similar scandals even hit other countries, like France and the UK, involving contaminated imports.

ADDRESSING DR ZEARS MILES JT, & HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE SPREAD OF HIV/AIDS

Similarly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, amid the escalating HIV/AIDS crisis, independent researcher Zears L. Miles Jr. emerged as a vocal proponent of what was deemed a highly controversial theory: that HIV/AIDS was deliberately engineered in a US laboratory as an ethnic bioweapon. Dr Miles, who was a former aerospace engineer turned self-taught AIDS investigator, argued to have uncovered “shocking truths” from declassified documents, including a 1969 US Congressional record where Deputy Director of Defense Dr. Donald MacArthur testified about the feasibility of creating synthetic biological agents that could attack the immune system.

According to Dr Miles, this testimony—part of a Department of Defense request for $10 million to research such agents—was not hypothetical but the blueprint for HIV. He alleged that the virus was developed under the US Special Virus Cancer Program (in 1962–1978), a real initiative exploring links between viruses and cancer, but repurposed for biowarfare. Dr Miles further pointed to Fort Detrick, Maryland, the former hub of US biological weapons research (ended by President Nixon in 1969), as the likely site of creation. He described HIV as a genetically engineered hybrid, combining elements like visna virus (from sheep) and human retroviruses, designed to target specific populations.

But, Dr Miles’s most notable argument was that the virus was deployed as a tool for population control and resource domination, particularly against Black communities. Domestically, he asserted it was introduced via contaminated hepatitis B vaccines tested on gay men and intravenous drug users in the late 1970s—groups disproportionately affected early in the epidemic. Internationally, he alleged that smallpox eradication campaigns in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, led by the World Health Organization (WHO), were covertly used to lace vaccines with HIV precursors. These programs, vaccinating millions in central Africa, coincided geographically with early HIV hotspots, fueling his narrative of deliberate infection to exploit African resources while depopulating the continent.

In lectures, interviews, and self-published works like that titled “AIDS: Made in the U.S.A. (circa 1994)”, Dr Miles presented flowcharts, purported government documents, and timelines to argue that AIDS was not a natural zoonotic spillover but a “man-made plague.” He echoed figures like Dr Robert Strecker (who claimed bovine and visna viruses were combined) and Jakob Segal (a Soviet-era biologist alleging U.S. splicing of visna and HTLV-1). Miles spoke at universities, churches, and radio stations, warning Black and Hispanic communities of genocide. His 1990 interview on “Wake Up” with researcher John Burns detailed these allegations over hours, emphasizing the 1969 testimony as proof of intent.

THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT: A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THE OBJECTIFICATION OF BLACK AMERICANS

Now, for all the potential inaccuracy that might have been expressed by Dr Miles, his arguments carry a great deal of weight in light of what we now know to be true about the AIDS virus, but also the arguments from Dr Miles resonated deeply in marginalised communities, amplified by historical mistrust from events like the Tuskegee syphilis study. 

To begin with, we ought to look at the Tuskegee experiment. The Tuskegee experiment began in 1932, at a time when there was no known cure for syphilis, a contagious venereal disease. After being recruited by the promise of free medical care, 600 African American men in Macon County, Alabama were enrolled in the project, which aimed to study the full progression of the disease. The participants were primarily sharecroppers, and many had never before visited a doctor. Doctors from the US Public Health Service (PHS), which was running the study, informed the participants—399 men with latent syphilis and a control group of 201 others who were free of the disease—they were being treated for bad blood, a term commonly used in the area at the time to refer to a variety of ailments.

The men were monitored by health workers but only given placebos such as aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact that penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947, some 15 years into the study. The US Public Health Service researchers convinced local physicians in Macon County not to treat the participants, and instead, research was done at the Tuskegee Institute. In order to track the disease’s full progression, researchers provided no effective care as the men died, went blind or insane or experienced other severe health problems due to their untreated syphilis.

Then, in the mid-1960s, a US Public Health Service venereal disease investigator in San Francisco named Peter Buxton found out about the Tuskegee study and expressed his concerns to his superiors that it was unethical. In response, the US Public Health Service officials formed a committee to review the study but ultimately opted to continue it—with the goal of tracking the participants until all had died, autopsies were performed and the project data could be analyzed.

Well, Peter Buxton then leaked the story to a reporter friend, who passed it on to a fellow reporter, Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Heller broke the story in July 1972, prompting public outrage and forcing the study to finally shut down. By that time, 28 participants had died from syphilis, 100 more had died from related complications, at least 40 spouses had been diagnosed with it and the disease had been passed to 19 children at birth. Then, in 1973, Congress held hearings on the Tuskegee experiments, and the following year the study’s surviving participants, along with the heirs of those who died, received a $10 million out-of-court settlement. But, additionally (and thankfully) new guidelines were issued to protect people in US government-funded research projects.

HOLMESBURG PRISON’S MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS IN PHILADELPHIA

Now, make no mistake: these actions are not exclusive to government actors. Evidently, the government’s experimental propensities have also been adopted by corporations. Dr Kligman may not be a household name today, but the products he developed are staples in the skincare and pharmaceutical industries. Perhaps the most well-known of these is the increasingly popular tretinoin, or Retin-A, a topical medication for acne that is also remarkably effective as an anti-aging treatment. But Kligman’s discoveries came on the backs of scores of incarcerated men—an overwhelming number of whom were Black—detained in Philadelphia’s now-shuttered Holmesburg Prison. Kligman’s development of Retin-A was directly made possible by the tests conducted on men imprisoned at Holmesburg. These men—and the family members to whom they returned upon their release–have maintained over decades that Dr Kligman’s experimentation was tortuous, unethical, and that it forever changed their lives. 

While Holmesburg is most widely associated with the development of Retin-A, many other products and chemicals were tested on incarcerated men at the facility through contracts with pharmaceutical companies and even the US military. For example, both a Mr Moore and fellow panelist Herbert Rice—who was incarcerated at Holmesburg for two years—spoke of their participation in what was known as the “milkshake tests.” In one of the more lucrative experiments, the tests required living in an isolated cellblock and only eating a milkshake product (the ingredients of which were unknown to participants) three times a day for six months. While Moore remains unsure of what he was served, he believes that these may have been safety tests of the earliest versions of what are now known as protein shakes. In a 2021 profile written about the Holmesburg experiments, Yusef Anthony, a formerly incarcerated survivor of a handful of tests conducted at the prison, notes that these milkshake tests gave him hemorrhoids that forced him to undergo numerous operations.

A COMPANY TESTED UNAPPROVED IMPLANTED DRUG ON LOUISIANA PRISONERS

Similar to the case in Philadelphia, in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must immediately investigate California-based BioCorRx, Inc and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ testing of an unapproved drug on prison inmates to determine its effectiveness in managing addiction disorders. The tests involved sustained-release naltrexone implants, which are surgically inserted under the skin in the abdomen. Although the FDA has approved naltrexone in oral tablet and injectable forms to treat alcohol and opioid dependence, the agency has never approved any surgically implanted form of the drug.

Not only did the experiment in Louisiana – which ended in the spring of 2019 amid criticism soon after it began – not follow regulations governing clinical trials, but BioCorRx apparently has conducted or may still be conducting similar clinical trials elsewhere in the US in violation of regulations. BioCorRx CEO and President Brady Grainer told a reporter in May that the company has used the unapproved implant in more than 1,000 people. The company also has announced other pilot programs. One in Philadelphia involved vulnerable homeless people struggling with addiction.  Another in Silver Spring, Md., evaluated use of the naltrexone implant for weight loss, even though no naltrexone product is FDA-approved for such use.

Clinical trials must always be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that people enrolled are provided certain protections, including being given adequate information before consenting to participate in the experiment and having safeguards to ensure that vulnerable people – such as prisoners – aren’t coerced into participating in the trial.

BUT, BioCorRx, Inc. and the Louisiana prison system had planned to conduct their experiment on 10 inmates without the approval of an IRB. A review of email correspondence between BioCorRx and Louisiana prison officials revealed that their participant consent forms lacked the elements of legally effective informed consent required under FDA human subjects protection regulations, leaving the participating prisoners unaware that they were part of an experiment or that the form of naltrexone they were to receive was not FDA-approved. But, while new drugs were tested on prisoners for the most part, it appears that the poor and homeless and the new targets!

We mentioned at the beginning of our discussion that “allegations” have once again surfaced that apartheid-era operatives orchestrated a campaign to spread HIV/Aids among (for the purpose of this discussion) black South Africans to reduce the population ahead of the country’s first non-racial elections in 1994. The claims point to a deliberate effort to use biological warfare as a tool of oppression.

Similarly, perhaps there is ground to separate the intent behind the Tuskegee Experiment from the AIDS epidemic in Africa, but one thing does remain: the weaponisation of biology against a group of individuals appears to be an idea that many have already experimented with. The question then is, if we see this as regrettable, then why is the WHO – an organisation which was formed with the same ideology of purporting for bacteriological warfare, insisting on being at the helm of  global health decisions?! Indeed, it would appear that these stories that explore historical developments have modern applications – in other words, it appears that history is once again offering crucial warning and lessons for the present.

I believe that the most important lesson is that these ills are not the works of unique regimes in history, but the works of satan who wants to steal, kill and destroy. Therefore, it is not past vaccines or pharmaceuticals that were a problem. Even in the present vaccine rejection is a pertinent act of resistance to an industry that profits when people are perpetually unwell. That should be the most significant takeaway from revelations about how the AIDS epidemic came to grow in Africa, for instance. Not that it is a consequence of the NP, but that the same evil influence that drove those works then, are unrelenting even now. This is why philanthropists who brought the polio-vaccine also brought a polio-vaccine that infected children with a live polio-virus.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

BUT PATIENTS EXPECT ERRORS, NOT LIES

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

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

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

DO INSTITUTIONS DO MORE BEYOND THE APOLOGY?

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

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

THE TERROR OF ERRORS: THE CASE OF LINDA KEHART

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

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

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

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

THE WAR ON HEALTH: WHEN DOCTORS INTENTIONALLY HARM PATIENTS

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

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

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

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ALSO CREATED DOCTORS WHO KILL

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

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

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

THEN THERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH FALSE DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS

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

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

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

written By Lindokuhle Mabaso