HE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY: AN ACTOR LURKING IN THE SHADOWS OF MEDICAL CORRUPTION

Looking at the Transplantation Society, as an actor lurking in the shadows of medical corruption. To begin with, we ought to look at what exactly is the Transplantation Society. And once again, the Transplantation Society, presents itself as a humanitarian alliance of medical professionals dedicated to advancing the science and ethics of organ transplantation. It was founded in 1966, it operates from Montreal but exerts influence far beyond its modest headquarters, functioning as the central nervous system of global transplantation policy. Meanwhile, its mission, on paper, seems noble: as they state that they exist to spread clinical expertise, to promote fair organ allocation, and to raise ethical standards in donation practices. YET the structure and relationships that sustain the organisation tell a more intricate story; and one where medicine, politics, and economics literally interlock around a single institution.

Additionally, at the top of TTS sits a governing council of presidents, treasurers, and regional representatives, formally tasked with setting global policy. Around that nucleus spreads a web of committees devoted to research, education, and ethics. Those groups feed into the society’s two primary platforms of influence: its scientific journal (called Transplantation) and its World Congresses, where professional guidance often becomes de facto international policy.

Then, beneath the pleasant fiction of open deliberation also lies a concentrated form of authority. And here, a handful of senior surgeons and bioethicists; mostly Western, draft guidelines that ministries of health later adopt wholesale. TTS then issues so-called “recommendations.” But, because it holds consultative status with the World Health Organization, those so-called recommendations are actually promptly incorporated into the WHO’s declarations and then disseminated to hospitals as hospital policy. And so, what begins as advice in a conference hall can soon determine who receives a heart, kidney, or liver on the other side of the planet.

And so, ultimately, the Transplantation Society functions much like a modern scientific guild; an exclusive, self‑governing body that defines legitimacy, enforces orthodoxy, and safeguards the privileges of its members under the banner of ethics. Its council and committees act as gatekeepers, determining which research is deemed credible, who may participate in professional circles, and what qualifies as “ethical” medical practice. Through its partnerships with institutions such as the World Health Organization and major pharmaceutical sponsors, it has been able to exert soft authority that resembles a guild’s monopoly power, controlling access to professional recognition, funding, and even policy influence. And, of course, like guilds of old that combined moral mission with economic protectionism, TTS blends humanitarian rhetoric with structural self‑interest, ensuring that dissenting voices are marginalized while institutional consensus is enforced. In essence, it operates less as an open scientific association and more as a closed order of credentialed so-called elites managing global transplantation as both a craft and a domain of influence.

Now, just give insight into what this looks like in a real world setting, and emphasising how it affects the livelihood of people, I’d like (once again) to reference a point stated earlier, which is that the TTS holds consultative status with the World Health Organization, which has meant that their so-called recommendations are promptly incorporated into the WHO’s declarations and then disseminated to hospitals as hospital policy – which means that, what begins as advice in a conference hall can soon determine who receives a heart, kidney, or liver on the other side of the planet. Well, I think the world saw this in play when, in February 2025, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital denied a child a heart transplant because she was NOT vaccinated for covid due to religious beliefs.

THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S INFLUENCE ON COVID POLICIES

Now, just in case it seems like a stretch to assume that the hospital policy of children’s hospital in Cincinnati has anything to do with the TTS, I’d like to zero in further on the TTS’s actions during the COVID era. So, during the COVID‑19 era, the Transplantation Society assumed an unusually activist role, crafting and promoting global transplant policies that extended well beyond scientific guidance into behavioral enforcement.

Notably, it urged transplant centers to prioritize vaccination as a prerequisite for both recipients and living donors, describing compliance as an ethical duty rather than a personal choice. And that language, which mixed medical caution with moral obligation, quickly translated into hospital protocols that removed unvaccinated patients from transplant waiting lists! And not only this, but the TTS further advised that transplant programs could be suspended or postponed during outbreaks, that donors who test positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 be excluded, and that clinical staff adhere to strict immunisation mandates themselves. And so, I believe at this point, the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital incident is probably looking more and more like a manifestation of a universal problem than an isolated issue.

In anycase, although these measures were presented as safeguards for immunosuppressed patients, they effectively created a regime of medical conditionality, in which access to life‑saving surgery hinged on conformity with public‑health directives. And by defining vaccination as an “ethical prerequisite,” the TTS transformed voluntary compliance into institutional coercion, thereby legitimizing discriminatory policies that lacked long-term outcome data and ignored emerging evidence of the limited efficacy of vaccines in immunosuppressed individuals. 

Furthermore, the emerging evidence of vaccine-related cardiac damage was ignored by the TTS, which ended up forcing many patients with cardiac disease to get vaccinated despite ample evidence indicating it could worsen their condition. But, through its networked influence with regional transplant bodies and the WHO, the TTS ensured that these standards were adopted globally, embedding pandemic control measures into the fabric of organ‑transplant ethics itself (and we will address in a moment why this is concerning in light of the already poor ethics in the organ transplantation industry).

But, to demonstrate how global this influence of the TTS was, there are numerous individuals in Australia (not just America) who were denied an organ transplant because they did not meet vaccination requirements. In more detail, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021–2022, certain Australian hospitals and transplant programs imposed requirements for COVID-19 vaccination among patients awaiting organ transplants. In Queensland, health authorities mandated a minimum of two doses of an approved vaccine for eligibility in kidney, lung, or heart transplant procedures.

Similar considerations applied in other states, such as New South Wales, where hospitals like St Vincent’s cited vaccination status as a key factor in assessing transplant viability, arguing that proceeding without it could endanger the patient, waste a scarce donor organ, or pose risks to healthcare staff and others. The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) noted vaccination as one of multiple medical factors in decision-making, aligning with international practices where stewardship of limited organs prioritized candidates with better predicted survival.

These policies were thus coercive, effectively presenting patients with a stark choice: between vaccinating or facing indefinite delays on waitlists, EVEN when COVID-19 posed minimal community threat. As such, some patients expressed feeling “backed into a corner,” fearing vaccine side effects amid their vulnerable health states. Meanwhile, reports also emerged of specialists dismissing concerns, including references to Pfizer’s clinical documents or safety data, because the specialist were prioritising compliance over individual inquiries.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY: HOW THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S FUNDING MODEL BENEFITS PHARMAKEIA 

Let’s also follow the money, because as with many (if not all) organisations and developments, when you follow the money, you understand better where control lies. Well, in light of the money trail, the Transplantation Society relies on a funding model that blends membership dues with substantial sponsorships from the pharmaceutical industry. Major companies producing anti-rejection medications, immunosuppressants, and advanced biological therapies – and these are pharmaceutical companies such as Roche, Novartis, Astellas, and several others – and they provide financial support to the TTS.

These financial contributions primarily underwrite the TTS’s international congresses, educational programs, research grants, and various outreach initiatives.This partnership thus grants pharmaceutical firms significant influence over the direction of transplant medicine. And by funding high-profile events and so-called continuing medical education, the pharmaceutical companies ensure that their products, clinical priorities, and research agendas remain central to scientific discussions, guideline development, and professional training. In fact, presentations at the TTS congresses are said to often highlight data favourable to sponsored therapies, while alternative approaches or critical perspectives on long-term immunosuppression risks may receive less emphasis.

Additionally, the financial arrangement affords the TTS extraordinary global reach and organizational capacity. With industry backing, the TTS can convene thousands of specialists, publish influential journals, shape international guidelines, and coordinate registries that inform transplant policy worldwide – which as we’ve established, is a concerning thing seeing as their policies have empowered hospitals to deny people transplants on the basis of vaccination status.

But, despite the global reach of the TTS, this financial dependence on pharmaceutical companies has also inevitably eroded institutional independence. This is to say that although TTS is registered as a nonprofit scientific body, its operations more closely resemble a sophisticated clearinghouse for global transplant governance than a traditional charity focused solely on patient welfare or public health advocacy. And you see when considering that decision-making about conference content, educational priorities, and even ethical statements often reflects the interests of corporate patrons. And so, these entrenched industry ties have promoted the prioritisation of commercial goals – such as advocating for expanded lifelong drug regimens and higher procedure volumes.

But, in all honesty, this is not new at all. Any allegedly independent health body or society, is often funded by pharmaceutical corporations and ends up churning out information in favour of said pharmaceutical entities, RATHER than advocating for the best interests of its focus group. In fact, you’d recall that we discussed this in light of the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Paediatric’s here on The War  Room, proving that this financial conflict of interest has become ubiquitous among medical academies and societies.

THE TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY’S STANDARDS CONTRIBUTE TO ALREADY POOR ETHICS IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION

Now, we discussed earlier that through its networked influence with regional transplant bodies and the WHO, the TTS ensured that its COVID policy standards were adopted globally, embedding pandemic control measures into the fabric of organ‑transplant ethics, and I then flagged that we would address why this is concerning in light of the already poor ethics in the organ transplantation industry – and this is where we zero in on that.

We’ve discussed here on The War Room, the fact that the diabolical definition of brain death evolved in the mid-20th century (in part) due to technological advances in critical care, BUT also due to the need for organ transplantation – and so, for the purpose of this discussion, we ought to look further into this intersection between brain death and organ donation and transplantation. 

So, organ donation is frequently portrayed in mainstream media as an unequivocally noble act, emphasizing stories of one individual’s selfless sacrifice saving multiple lives. This narrative frames it as a classic utilitarian triumph: the greatest good for the greatest number, where one death enables many to survive. BUT, this optimistic view actually obscures a profound ethical and medical controversy, which is that for organs to remain viable for transplantation, they must be harvested while still perfused with oxygenated blood, thus requiring the donor to be alive. As such, this requires the donor to be biologically alive – despite being labeled “brain dead.”

This is in part why the term “brain death” is highly controversial, as it literally allows organ removal from patients whose hearts are still beating. In effect, the act of organ removal becomes the cause of true biological death, because the person would otherwise be alive if their organs were left intact, especially since bodily processes like homeostasis, hormone regulation, and even gestation in pregnant women can persist despite so-called brain death. And so, in light of this controversy, many are calling organ harvesting a ritual: a ceremonial determination of death preceding a sacrificial extraction, all under the guise of medical necessity.

HOW BRIAN DEATH INFLUENCED THE COMMODIFICATION OF ORGANS

So, let’s also follow the money. In essence, given how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from over $400,000 to just under $2 million, depending on the organ—and with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it seems reasonable to deduce that some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (for example, in overseas wars, or with a pharmaceutical company pushing a lucrative drug they know can kill). And unfortunately, this is the case – which is to say that the brain death phenomenon, coupled with a need for viable organs, has fueled a commodification of organs that has in turn created human rights abuses – and all for money.

For instance, individuals being tricked into selling a kidney. For example, in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 – which is approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden

Similarly, a 2009 and 2024 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments. As such, approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care.

Additionally, the US Department of Health and Human Services reported, after an investigation, that hospitals have been allowed to begin the organ procurement process while the so-called organ donors were still showing signs of life! This is to say that the Department’s investigation has exposed systemic, life-threatening failures in America’s organ procurement system in general (beyond hospitals themselves), and this includes cases where patients were NOT even dead when doctors began harvesting their organs, like we’ve just heard.

Then, in addition, the Department of HHS’s independent review found 29% of 351 cases had “concerning features,” including 73 patients with neurological activity and at least 28 who may have still been alive when organ procurement began. And the cause of all of this is shoddy death certifications, pressure to secure organs, and misclassification of overdose cases as “brain death.” 

Meanwhile, all of this had been covered up for a long time because the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the self-regulating body overseeing transplants, ignored red flags and dismissed concerns as “misinformation.” And when the Department of HHS ordered an investigation, an industry trade group (being the Association of Organ Procurement Organisations) publicly attacked the probe as a “conspiracy campaign” – which tells you where their priorities lie, considering the findings of the investigation.

Ultimately, all of this is to say that the organ transplantation industry is ALREADY rife with poor ethical conduct, exploitative practice, and a jarring disregard for human life. Therefore, the standards of the Transplantation Society only make this industry worse, by making genuine help for people who need it impossible to achieve without risking your life any further. And so, evidently, there is a need for competition and even the replacement of the TTS.

But, thank God that even in this glorious year of Manifestation, all satanic and globalist agendas are still under suspension. The world will instead see a profound manifestation of the truth and the sons of God, in a way that will make divine realities undeniable, as we look forward to the imminent manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

IT WAS ALWAYS A FAKE VACCINE

They were never vaccines to begin with. It was always a lie from the beginning.  

Dr. Ryan Cole: 15 Ways the COVID Shots Injure and KiII

According to Dr. Ryan Cole, the COVID shots can cause harm in 15 distinct ways. Researchers have revealed how nanoparticles are being utilized in these shots, and what the effects are of the persistence of synthetic RNA in the body. Additionally, scientists are exposing the circulation of synthetic spike protein and its impact on human health. The spike protein itself is a harmful agent that can have far-reaching consequences. Experts are also examining the brain accumulation and impact of these shots, as well as the potential for peripheral nerve damage and organ damage. Furthermore, the COVID shots have been linked to myocarditis and heart issues, and are also affecting the adrenal glands and elastic fibers. The shots are also causing reproductive harms, weakening immune systems, and leading to vascular damage and clotting. Moreover, abnormal protein accumulation, immune tolerance, and increased cancer risk are all being actively studied as potential consequences of the COVID shots. Dr. Cole’s insights highlight the need for continued research into the effects of these shots on human health and the need to stop them.

Vaccine injections altered human immunity on a global scale

According to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, vaccine injections have drastically changed human immunity worldwide, and he’s sounding the alarm. By analyzing the electronic medical records of thousands of patients before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Hulscher has uncovered compelling evidence of vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or VAIDS. The shocking spike in autoimmune diseases, chronic infections, and even cancer cases is prompting Hulscher to call for immediate and thorough scientific scrutiny of the long-term consequences of these vaccines, with the ultimate goal of potentially bringing an end to the mRNA vaccine era. Hulscher’s findings are sparking intense debate and raising critical questions about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and he’s urging the scientific community to take a closer look at the devastating impact they may be having on human health.

 mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform

Under oath, Dr. Robert Sullivan confirmed it. mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform. It forces the body to produce toxic spike proteins, causing lung, heart, and organ damage. It is linked to autoimmune disorders and abnormal cell growth, and they KNEW IT. These are crimes against humanity were committed, the truth was censored to protect Big Pharma and billions were made — at the cost of YOUR health

What is Gene Therapy, and Why the Interest?

Gene therapy involves modifying or introducing genetic material to treat or prevent diseases, often targeting conditions like genetic disorders, cancers, or viral infections. It’s a broad field, encompassing mRNA vaccines (which some call gene therapy due to their use of genetic instructions) and approaches like CRISPR or viral vector therapies. According to dubious researchers and institutions, it offers potential cures for previously untreatable conditions, rapid vaccine development (as seen with COVID-19), and massive commercial opportunities. Biotech giants like Moderna and Pfizer, backed by government contracts, have poured billions into this space, with mRNA platforms alone generating tens of billions in revenue during the pandemic.

mRNA is about Centralized Control and Power

The push for gene therapy is tied to powerful institutions—Big Pharma, governments, and organizations like the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation—that are centralizing control over health. Globalist entities—think WHO, GAVI, or multinational corporations—are accused of using gene therapy to standardize medical interventions worldwide, bypassing national sovereignty. mRNA vaccines, rolled out globally during COVID-19, were a test case for mandating experimental tech under the guise of public health. gene therapies could be weaponized to alter populations, either through sterilization, genetic selection, or other dystopian outcomes, echoing historical eugenics programs.

Eugenics, as practiced in the early 20th century, involved elites promoting policies to “improve” populations, often targeting marginalized groups. Figures like Bill Gates, whose foundation funds vaccine and gene therapy research, has made comments on population control through health interventions. While Gates frames this as reducing poverty to lower birth rates, its a slippery slope toward eugenics-like goals, especially when gene-editing tools like CRISPR could target specific genetic traits.

mRNA is a Trojan Horse

mRNA vaccines as “gene therapy” because they introduce genetic instructions into cells. They’re a gateway to normalizing genetic manipulation. Kennedy’s recent cancellation of $500 million in mRNA funding cited safety, resonating with those who see mRNA as a tool for globalist agendas rather than public good.

mRNA for Profit and Power Concentration

From a finance angle, gene therapy is a goldmine. The global market is projected to hit $13 billion by 2026, driven by high-cost treatments (some therapies cost $2M+ per dose). This enriches a small elite—pharma CEOs, investors, and their political allies—while tying healthcare to corporate control. The gene therapy’s push isn’t just about health but about creating dependency on proprietary tech, with potential for social engineering if access is gatekept or tailored to certain groups.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

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

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, the vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that 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!

In addition, 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).

Similarly, 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.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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.

In simple terms, Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she works/worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

By the way, ARPA-H is also modeled after DARPA, meaning that an alleged health research body is modelled to function as a military body – which is why I’ve often argued that the COVID plandemic policies were a militarised response, and not a health response. Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

This information came to the fore after Susan Monarez was nominated by Trump for CDC Director, many of his voters argued that she is not consistent with the vision for which Americans who voted for Trump expect to see implemented. Furthermore, people who were implicated in the consolidation of the COVID plandemic and the tyrannical pandemic preparedness efforts, are likely incompatible with the ambitions of an administration that is against such an abuse of power. Therefore, Susan Monarez, who also worked in the Biden-Harris administration, was likely going to be against a lot of what the Trump administration stands for anyways. Which is even exemplified by the fact that Susan Monarez was (in part) fired as CDC Director for trying to keep mRNA shots on the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and claiming that “vaccines save lives”.

And so, I think both these points (especially from the point of view of what voters want) (once again), as far as the Trump administration is concerned, Susan Monarez was removed because her works and inclinations are incongruous with what the VOTERS behind the second Trump administration want – and this is the catalyst that led to other CDC leadership like Demetre Daskalakis resigning: it is because they shared in Susan Monarez’s works and inclinations, which were against what voters wanted from the second Trump administration.

So, having covered this recapitulation or contextual background for today’s discussion, we ought then to proceed to analyse the letter that has become a notable feature in the present discourse pertaining to the CDC.

THE ISSUES WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER FROM DEMETRE DASKALAKIS

So, when Demetre Daskalakis resigned as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, his letter to leadership carried a tone of finality and moral conviction . In the letter, he declared “Enough is enough,” explaining that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s leadership had made it impossible for him to continue. As alluded to earlier, those on the left (and certainly the far left) have praised the letter as being principled, but when read closely it is less a defense of science than a portrait of the very rhetorical habits that drove the public to distrust the CDC in the first place: particularly rhetorical habits that include appeals to authority, catastrophic predictions, ad hominem attacks, and factual distortions.

Consider his charge that he can no longer serve in an environment that (quote) “treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.” First, this is a false dichotomy; in that it frames the choice as binary: either one accepts the CDC’s so-called “scientific reality,” or one is accused of designing policies to harm. Yet the last five years have shown what most Americans already know: which is that what CDC has called “science” has often been neither transparent nor replicable, but political judgment dressed in a white coat. And this includes associates of the CDC and the plandemic response, when we consider that when asked in a hearing, Fauci conceded that six foot distance during covid was not based on scientific evidence, and was rather a product of this thinking that this was a reasonable idea.

In any case, Demetre Daskalakis further accuses the new HHS of narrative enforcement, when, in reality, the CDC has become infamous for the same on his watch. Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates were not the inevitable products of neutral science — they were policy choices, frequently contradicted by the very data the CDC refused to release. Kennedy did not cause that collapse of trust. Power overreach and failed policy did.

And in light of our reference to Fauci, I found it funny that when his credibility was being ruined by his lies and back-tracking statements (like we just saw), in 2024, Fauci did not hesitate to make it clear that the CDC was the responsible party for the implausible guidelines articulated during the COVID plandemic – thus perhaps, inadvertently proving that the CDC is response for the collapse of trust towards it – not the second Trump administration of Robert F Kennedy.

But still, Daskalakis (in his letter) appeals to institutional sanctity. He states that (quote) “unvetted and conflicted outside organizations seem to be the sources that the Department of HHS uses over the gold standard science of the CDC.” [PAUSE] But, now, the claim that the CDC represents “gold standard science” rings hollow. The agency’s failures are well documented: think of the contaminated Covid tests, the shifting guidance on masks that left the public whiplashed, how the CDC withheld vaccine safety data buried in VAERS and VSD, and the FOIA evasions that stonewalled independent scrutiny. AND SO, to describe this record as “gold standard science” is an appeal to authority wholly unsupported by the evidence!

Then, furthermore, the catastrophism in Daskalakis’s letter is both striking while also ringing hollow. So, he warns that Kennedy’s policies will (quote) “bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer.” (end quote) Now, this is a combined fallacy: being both a false dichotomy and slippery slope. And this is because questioning the safety of excipients, the timing, number, or necessity of vaccines does not condemn the country to Darwinian misery.

In fact, mortality from infectious diseases like measles, pertussis, and diphtheria had already declined long before mass vaccination, thanks to sanitation, nutrition, and reduced exposure to livestock reservoirs. The fact of loss of protection due to waning immunity is not found in his resignation. But, in addition, balanced debate about risks and benefits does not mean “returning to the dark ages.” It means practicing science as it should be — open, skeptical, and transparent and with full accountability on scientific claims.

Then, finally on the catastrophism where Daskalakis claims that Kennedy’s policies will bring people “to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive”, this rhetoric becomes openly and unnecessarily hostile. And this is considering that in this letter, the new Kennedy-appointed and vaccine-critical ACIP members are dismissed as “people of dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor,” and Kennedy himself is cast as an “authoritarian leader.” These are ad hominem attacks, not arguments. They dismiss individuals rather than engage with data or reasoning. But, in contrast, here is what I think should be highlighted: the actions taken against people like the recently fired CDC Director Susan Monarez are not based on ad hominems from the Trump administration, but careful considerations of their failures and how incompatible they are with the mandate received. This is a crucial contrast, because these actions from the Trump administration reveal efforts towards institutional reform, and not the authoritarianism that people like Kennedy are accused of.

But then, the gravest claim in the letter by Daskalakis states that (quote) “eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated.” Meanwhile, Daskalakis gives us no quotations, policies, or documents to support this claim. AND YET, Ironically, the accusation is not only unsubstantiated but inverted. Kennedy has consistently warned against coercive health policies and corporate capture, both of which he argues worsen inequality. To portray the Trump administration’s emphasis on transparency and medical freedom as eugenics is a straw man — really, a distortion intended to silence rather than to debate.

But goes further, blaming Kennedy for violence. In particular, he states that (quote) “I am resigning because of the cowardice of a leader that cannot admit that his and his minions’ words over decades created an environment where violence like this can occur.”  So, this refers to a shooting at CDC. Again, no hint of evidence has been offered by Daskalakis or anyone else to connect Kennedy’s words to the crime. It is a post hoc fallacy, in which he is exploiting tragedy to smear a political opponent: it is shameless and ripens the fruit of his letter to rot.

DID THE BIDEN-ERA CDC EMPLOY A SATANIST TO MAKE HEALTH DECISIONS?

Then, finally, regarding the contents of the letter by Daskalakis, well, perhaps most jarring is his claim that Kennedy’s HHS has sought to (quote erase) “erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research to support equity.” This rhetoric here is catastrophic, baseless, and false. In reality, under Dr Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH has made HIV a top research priority. Far from “ceasing HIV programming,” Kennedy’s administration has pledged to tackle the epidemic with fresh eyes, free from the pharmaceutical capture that distorted earlier approaches. To suggest otherwise is not just hyperbole; it is disinformation.

But, now, if you’re wondering why discussion about the CDC necessitates references to transgender people, well, Dr Demetre Daskalakis was appointed to a senior CDC role as part of Biden’s push to diversify federal health leadership (in pursuit of DEI policies and standards)! He served as the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. And, notably, he claimed to have expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community – which is an aggravating thing to publish, because what does he mean “expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community”?! Outside of HIV/AIDS, I do not think that diseases like e-coli, influenza, or chickenpox manifest differently on people based on sexual orientation.

But, of course, DEI appointments were not really meant to be backed by credibility. People just had to be or say things that make them employable under DEI standards. But here’s more about the concerning person that Dr Demetre Daskalakis is, and why it has even led to questions concerning whether the Biden-Harris-era CDC employed a satanist to make health decisions that were affecting Americans?

THE URGENT NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AT THE CDC

But, let’s proceed to discuss the need for institutional reform. First, we’ve spoken about the fact that one of the fatal flaws of the CDC is that it always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID). It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies that president Trump and RFK Jr have been working to enact.

But, the twist is that the CDC interestingly has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer, which states that (quote): “CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

But, in actual fact, the CDC is prone to financial corruption through a legal loophole. One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to (quote) “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

HOWEVER, this problem is not just evident in the CDC Foundation, but also in the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or the ACIP). In particular, a Congressional report confirmed that the CDC’s ACIP has been compromised since the 1990s! In particular, in the year 2000, a House report revealed that 7 of 10 ACIP rotavirus advisers had direct conflicts; not only this but members voted on vaccines while holding pharma stock or patents; every member received a conflict-of-interest waiver—”freely”; the ACIP also approved Rotashield before FDA licensing—and the pharmaceutical was later pulled for harming infants; and finally, since the year 2020, the ACIP had rubber-stamped mRNA shots despite mass injury and death. But, this issue of jarring rubber stamps for vaccines occurred even in 2018, as you’re about to see in this excerpt from an ACIP meeting.

Evidently, this shows that the CDC (and its ACIP) are implicated in the staggering financial conflict of interest at the heart of America’s vaccine schedule! In fact, Dr Paul Offit, who is a frequent CNN medical analyst and leading voice for vaccines, sat on the very committee (being the ACIP) that voted to add a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule.

While on the committee, Dr Offit had his own rotavirus vaccine in development. By voting to mandate the entire category, he virtually guaranteed a market for his own product—a competitive lock-in. The vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies—a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then what happened next is that his vaccine, developed with partners Stanley Plotkin and et al., it replaced the failed one; all while he remained on the committee. Then he and his partners sold that vaccine to the pharmaceutical company Merck for $186 million – to which he told Newsweek that he had “won the lottery.” But, in actual fact, Dr Offit did NOT win the lottery; he voted himself rich. Which means that this is NOT just a conflict of interest; it is a catastrophic breach of public trust. And this is because the very experts that were tasked with safeguarding children’s health were making decisions that directly led to a massive personal windfall, after a voted-on product HARMED children. And so, evidently, this is the rot at the core of the system that has necessitated institutional reform in the CDC. It is not just that there is corruption, it is that those who are corrupt are so emboldened that they are even making hundred million dollar deals to profit from this corruption!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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 interview comes as the world marks five years since the global rollout of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines a campaign that, according to critics like Dalgleish, may become known as one of the most consequential and controversial public health decisions in modern history.

“We were told the vaccines were safe and effective, yet there was no transparency,” said Prof. Dalgleish, who has been a vocal critic of COVID-19 vaccine policy, particularly around the mRNA platform. “Many respected researchers and physicians raised early concerns but were silenced, defunded, or discredited.”

A Veteran Voice in Oncology and Ethics

Professor Dalgleish, best known for his work in cancer immunology and HIV research, has more recently gained public attention for challenging mainstream COVID-19 narratives. In this sit-down with Yvonne Katsande, he offers what he calls a “scientific and ethical post-mortem” of the COVID response from vaccine mandates to the suppression of alternative treatments.

Yvonne Katsande, known for her bold interviews on topics often ignored by legacy media, did not hold back.

“We are not here to provoke fear,” she said“We are here to uncover truth, challenge systems, and spark conversations that matter.

Looking Back: Five Years Since the Global Rollout

As governments and institutions mark five years since the first vaccines were administered, public opinion is still deeply divided. In the interview, Prof. Dalgleish asserts that many of the warnings from independent scientists have since come to light, and that the global narrative may have deliberately excluded crucial long-term safety data.

He also argued that the comparative health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should prompt serious re-evaluation of public health policies moving forward.

A Call for Accountability

This calls for greater transparency in pharmaceutical regulation, media reporting, and governmental public health decisions.

As many countries begin reviewing their pandemic response strategies, conversations like these are expected to shape how history judges the actions of institutions during the COVID era.

The full interview is now available: