IS SALT BAD FOR YOU?

The development in salt discourse, as key stakeholders begin asking the right questions on salt, and we ought to begin with the most primary question being asked, being: is salt bad for you? Now, in light of this question, it is worth noting that many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt. Over the years, there have been two main arguments for why salt is allegedly bad for you. The first argument states that salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided. Then, the second argument states that: with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Now, it is is worth noting that excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because if an excess amount of fluid accumulates in a compromised system (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate this fluid), it then overloads other parts of the body (such as by causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening). BUT, it is crucial to note that this is because of EXCESSIVE sodium consumption, meaning if you ingest far more than your body needs (typically through ultra-processed foods); and also excessive sodium consumed by a person with an already compromised system, that does not have the necessary means to metabolise the salt.

In any case, because of these two arguments, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it. But, unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments is less solid than it appears – especially when you consider how it came about.

In essence, since medicine revolves around making money, patient care is often structured to be as profitable as possible. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible on lifelong prescriptions. In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical. 

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). But, as we stated in the beginning of our discussion, the question on whether salt is bad for you, is quickly put to rest when we consider what happens when there is not enough salt in the body.

RE-CONTEXTUALISING SALT: RATHER THAN A CAUSE FOR ILLNESS, IT IS A NECESSITY FOR HEALTH

With this in mind, we then ought to correct the misconception in mainstream health discourse. As we’ve established, the general claim has for the longest time been that salt is detrimental to the human body. As alluded to earlier, salt consumption has been associated with health issues such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and kidney disease. This was part of a broader misconception that the science on food and macro-nutrients was long settled, and thus demands unquestionable compliance. Well, this is actually far from being true – especially when we examine the model that has long been used to dictate to people what healthy eating is – being the food pyramid. You might think that the food pyramid is a work of science that back in the 1970’s, scientists without vested interests, methodically reviewed to determine the healthiest diet, and then presented the food pyramid to the public. Unsurprisingly, this did not actually happen.

Instead, the backdrop to the story of the food pyramid begins in post war 1950’s America, when deaths from competing causes, namely war and infection had drastically reduced. And at the same time, rates of smoking were increasing. As a result, heart disease rapidly became the leading cause of death. And on this backdrop in 1955 President Dwight D Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. He was out playing golf in Denver when he felt what he thought was an episode of indigestion from a hamburger. And later that night, he worked with severe chest pain. So, his personal physician, not realising he was having a heart attack, gave him several shots of morphine and sent him back to sleep. It was only after an ECG was performed after he awoke at 1pm the next afternoon that it was understood that he’d in fact had a heart attack.

This was major news which struck a nerve with the US population. The life of their leader, due for re-election, was on a knife’s edge with heart disease, the new leading cause of death. The President and the American population was gripped by fear so, the hunt was on for the root cause of this deadly scourge. Unfortunately, scientists of the day did NOT seem to pay too much attention to Eisenhower’s heavy smoking. Especially considering that he was reported to be up to four packets a day; and indeed, this was in an age when doctors themselves promoted smoking (courtesy of big tobacco’s concealment of the dangers associated with excessive consumption of their product, while they also used doctors to market cigarettes).

And so, rather than examining the president Eisenhower’s habits, the scourge of heart disease was attributed to dietary saturated fat. But, how on earth did those scientists in the 1950’s come to the conclusion that saturated fat was the cause of heart disease and that ancient food consumed for millennia was supposed to be blamed for a modern disease? In essence, the answer can be traced back to research performed by the Russian Nikolai Anitschkow. It was in 1913 that he published a paper which has more than 100 years later been described as the birth of the lipid hypothesis – the theory that saturated fat can clog the arteries.

Nikolai had demonstrated that feeding rabbits (which are an obvious herbivore) a fat called lard, along with egg yolks or pure cholesterol dissolved in sunflower oil; led to increases in the rabbit’s blood cholesterol levels. And over time, arterial lesions similar to, but not identical to that of human heart disease developed. Now, there was a lot wrong with this study. For one, rabbits should NOT be eating lard anymore than people should be eating grass. But, nonetheless, this research planted the seed from which the diet heart hypothesis was born.

Then, Ancel Keys became almost singularly responsible for growing that seed of poor research into the twisted mess called the food pyramid. In essence, two years before Eisenhower’s heart attack, Ancel Keys had published a widely criticised graph plotting the average fat consumption in various countries against heart disease. In a study of 22 countries, Ancel Keys had actually carefully selected the data of six countries that support his claim on heart disease – which is essentially cherry picking, and was pointed out by the study’s critics. Inexplicably, however, he was able to establish significant influence within the American Heart Association. BUT, by 1958 the American Heart Association with Ancel Keys now at the helm, launched his study (despite its obvious flaws that were pointed out), and this went on to influence what the food pyramid looks like today.

So, what does this mean in light of the propaganda against salt? Well, all that we’ve discussed exposes the superficial nature of the science behind the food pyramid, and subsequently, how ingredients like salt are problematised. In fact, we can see a similar attitude towards saturated fats with salt based on the work of George McGovern. In essence, in 1977 George McGovern chaired the Senate nutrition committee that created the first US dietary guidelines, which advised a reduction in saturated fats and and salt. But, there was not a SINGLE STUDY proving that salt causes hypertension in humans until 1983, which is almost a decade after the dietary guidelines by George McGovern were made public.

But, this means that the prescription behind reducing salt intake, that is is still being used by the WHO today, was not based on studies on studies proving that salt was the cause of high blood pressure in humans; and was rather based on a study conducted on rats that were intentionally bred to be sensitive to salt.

THERE IS A DECEPTIVE TREND IN THE MEDICAL DISCOURSE ON HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

Meanwhile, there is also a highly deceptive trend when it comes to the medical discourse on high blood pressure, and the medicine used to treat it. In fact, frequently, when you dig into medical myths, you discover that many of the dogmas that underlie a popular drug are actually sales slogans that a marketing company created. Similarly, when you research alleged illnesses, you discover that they were NOT based on scientific fact. For example, a chemical imbalance from low serotonin was never linked to depression (in fact patients who commit suicide are found to have elevated brain serotonin). Also, acid reflux is due to too little acid in the stomach (as acidity gives the stomach’s opening the signal to close). However, in medical school, doctors are taught it is due to too much acidity. AND so-called “sleeping” pills are actually sedatives that block the restorative phase of the sleep cycle, which is why sleeping pills do not produce REM sleep, where the body is rested and performing its restorative functions.

In the case of high blood pressure, when the blood pressure craze took off, there was a rush to bring the blood pressure lowering drugs to market before their benefit was actually proven (outside of a few short term studies which showed a small benefit for people with very high blood pressures). That mindset in turn cemented itself, and so as the years have gone by, without evidence to support it (and contrary data being ignored), the blood pressure threshold keeps on getting lowered and more and more people are being put on blood pressure lowering medications! 

HOWEVER, excessively lowering blood pressure cuts blood flow to parts of the body that can’t function without sufficient blood flow. For example, blood pressure medications increase the risk of kidney disease, while the risk of suddenly passing out (from insufficient blood flow to the brain) is one of the most common side effects of blood pressure medications. And yet, studies have shown that neither is high blood pressure a symptom not a cause of arterial damage; nor is there evidence that aggressively lowering blood pressure saves lives.

So, why is this misconception on high blood pressure still promulgated? First, is money: meaning that research funding is available for these areas (for instance, from the drug manufacturers) hence being a safe area of research for academics to explore. Second is greed, in that this illustrates the “if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” phenomenon, where the pharmaceutical industry’s  desire to find more justifications for using its products means that it invents reasons for people to do so. And then there is also plain corruption: particularly where the so-called “experts” on guideline panels are paid to create recommendations that result in more and more people taking the drugs, a sadly common phenomenon in medicine.

THE TREND: BIG PHARMA HAS A HABIT OF CHANGING MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR PROFIT

If you recall our discussion on statins and cholesterol, you would note that there is a propensity for big pharma to influence medical standards in an effort to create a market for their products. More specifically, before Statins entered the market, which was prior to 1987, the normal total cholesterol level used to be 300. HOWEVER, big pharma moved the goalpost.

Part of how big pharma moved the goalpost on cholesterol, in order to create a market for statins, is that there was a questionable dichotomy created between good and bad cholesterol. More specifically, cholesterol is generally described as a waxy substance essential for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Cholesterol travels through the bloodstream in particles called lipoproteins, primarily as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). LDL, often called “bad cholesterol,” carries cholesterol to cells and arteries, where it can form plaques, narrowing the arteries and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. For decades, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been commonly referred to as “bad cholesterol” due to its association with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as heart attacks and strokes. Conversely, high-density lipoprotein, known as “good cholesterol,” transports cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for elimination.

HOWEVER, numerous studies have challenged this claim, including even a recent study involving more than 4 million people across China, which suggests that low-density lipoprotein may not be as harmful as previously thought—at least, not for everyone. Research led by Dr Liang Chen and colleagues reveals a more nuanced picture. They found that while high low-density lipoprotein levels are linked to increased mortality in some groups, they do not pose the same risk for others. In addition, they found that the relationship between low-density lipoprotein and mortality varies significantly based on an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk and overall health status. 

These findings suggest two things: first, the medical industry ought to reconsider the one-size-fits-all approach to cholesterol; and rather opt for more personalised treatment strategies. But secondly, these studies are exposing the fact that the dichotomy between bad and good cholesterol is not well evidenced, and is highly misleading. Furthermore, questions have begun to accumulate about this so-called wonder drug. More specifically, questions around statins have ironically related to the link between Statins, Cholesterol, and Heart Disease.

All this is to say that big pharma has long been involved in the practice of falsifies studies about illnesses, in order to sell a product. They did it for cholesterol and statins, and they have done it for high blood pressure, through vilifying salt, in order to sell patented salt.

WHILE NATURAL SALT WAS BEING VILIFIED, BIG PHARMA WAS DEVELOPING SALT BASED MEDICINE

In fact, when we look at salt directly, as was exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSv. DD., you begin to realise that while natural, cheap and accessible salt was being vilified, pharmaceutical companies were developing interventions that were based on salt!

This is why it is critical that the US has a Secretary of the Dept. of HHS who is bent on ending the FDA’s aggressive suppression of natural remedies that big pharma cannot patent! It is not just about debunking the falsified science, it is about making people aware of the natural remedies that are available for them to consume in enjoyment, without having to be made a permanent consumer of big pharma interventions!

THE MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS NOT A SOURCE OF TRUTH

But, part of the problem is that people have been led to think of the medical and pharmaceutical industries as consisting of people with a vested interest in proclaiming what is true. These industries have for long been given an UNDESERVED assumption of credibility, especially when they claim that their actions are backed by credible science, and that their interventions are safe and effective. And yet, these are people who are selling a product; meaning they are people who have an obligation to their businesses first than they do you. Meanwhile, only God is the authority on what is true.

Which is critical to note because while the medical industrial complex was claiming that salt is hazardous to health, the Master Jesus, in Mark 9:50 states categorically that “Salt is good”… and to “Have salt in yourselves”… This is why placing a premium on God’s Word is paramount for everything concerning our well-being. Afterall, God told us through the Prophet Hosea that His people perish for lack of knowledge. But thank God that when we pray in the Spirit as He instructs, He guides us on these matters and more.

THERE ARE CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES COMING TO THE FDA AND MEDICAL BUREAUCRACY

But, the Church of Jesus Christ has been praying, and this continued to present tremendous changes. For instance, in the second Trump administration, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary has announced MAJOR New Policy aimed at limiting conflicts of interest in the FDA. Dr Marty Makary highlighted that he has presented a new policy limiting who can serve as members on FDA advisory committees, part of efforts to counter the perception that the FDA has been captured by Big Pharma and other industries.

This is to say that in a move to mitigate perceived industry influence and conflicts of interest, the FDA has announced a policy change that restricts employees of FDA-regulated companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, from serving as official members on FDA advisory committees. This policy change is in line with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to “radical transparency.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDICINE BECAME BIG BUSINESS: THE COMMERCIALISATION OF SICKNESS AND INFIRMITY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The MIC creates conflicts of interest, with physicians influenced by financial incentives from drug companies or corporate regulations, leading to overprescribing, inflated drug prices, and unnecessary procedures like complex surgeries that may not improve outcomes. The system profits from managing symptoms rather than curing diseases, as “a cured patient is a lost customer.” This is compounded by lobbying, with the pharmaceutical industry spending heavily to influence policy, blocking reforms like price caps on medications.

Defenders of the system argue that corporate involvement drives innovation, producing life-saving drugs and technologies. They claim profit motives ensure efficiency and that the U.S. leads in medical advancements, with American professionals among the world’s best. However, even proponents acknowledge waste—U.S. healthcare spending is one in five dollars, yet life expectancy has dropped to 76.1 years (2021) from a 2014 peak of 78.9. Alternatives proposed by critics, like those from the Health Justice Commons, emphasize holistic health, community-driven care, and the right to refuse treatment, challenging the MIC’s profit-first model. The debate remains heated, with some calling for systemic overhaul or abolition, while others see reform within the current framework as viable.

Dangers of the Medical-Industrial Complex

Medical-Industrial Complex: Profit Over People

Big Pharma thrives on managing chronic conditions, not curing them. A cured patient is a lost revenue stream, so the industry pushes lifelong prescriptions like statins or antidepressants. For example, the global pharmaceutical market was valued at $1.5 trillion in 2023 (Statista), with the U.S. accounting for nearly half. Companies like Pfizer or Moderna prioritize high-margin drugs over low-cost cures, citing cases like insulin, where prices have soared despite being around for decades.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Erosion of Individual Liberty

The MIC, often backed by globalist entities like the World Health Organization (WHO), pushes centralized mandates that strip away personal choice. Vaccine mandates, for instance, have sparked outrage among conservatives, with X users citing examples of coerced medical interventions or censored discussions on alternative treatments like ivermectin during COVID-19. The CDC’s 2021 push for universal vaccinations, despite low risk for certain groups, exemplifies this overreach, clashing with the principle of bodily autonomy. Dr. James Thorp, a veteran OB-GYN, delivered a shocking statement exposing the deliberate targeting of pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Systemic Corruption and Regulatory Capture

Big Pharma’s influence over policy is staggering. From 1999 to 2018, the industry spent $4.7 billion lobbying Congress, outpacing all other sectors. This ensures policies like extended patents or blocked Medicare drug price negotiations, keeping generics unaffordable. The revolving door between regulators and industry is blatant—over 60% of FDA’s senior leadership have ties to pharmaceutical companies. This corruption stifles innovation and keeps prices sky-high.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Iatrogenic Harm

The MIC’s overreliance on drugs and procedures causes significant harm. Medical errors and adverse drug reactions are the third-leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 250,000 people annually. The opioid crisis, fueled by aggressive marketing from companies like Purdue Pharma, led to 70,630 overdose deaths in 2021. Meanwhile, unnecessary surgeries—like spinal fusions, which cost $80,000-$150,000 each—often yield no better outcomes than conservative treatments.

Unsustainable Healthcare Spending

The U.S. spent $4.5 trillion on healthcare in 2022, or 17.3% of GDP—highest in the world. Per capita, that’s $13,493 per person, nearly double Canada’s $6,319. Yet, life expectancy has plummeted to 76.1 years, down from 78.9 in 2014, showing diminishing returns. This bloated spending diverts resources from productive sectors, crushing economic freedom.

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma. In 2022, Americans spent $405 billion on retail prescriptions. A single vial of insulin, costing $10 to produce, retails for $300-$500, with prices rising 55% from 2014-2019. Blockbuster drugs like Humira, used for arthritis, cost $6,000-$7,000 per month, despite being on the market for 20 years. Patent gaming and lobbying prevent generics, fleecing patients and taxpayers.

Exorbitant Hospital and Procedure Costs

A three-day hospital stay averages $30,000, with costs for procedures like heart bypass surgery hitting $200,000. For-profit hospitals, a cornerstone of the MIC, charge 2-4 times more than nonprofits for identical services. This gouging bankrupts families—medical debt contributes to 60% of U.S. bankruptcies, affecting 530,000 households annually. The MIC’s bureaucracy is a financial black hole. Administrative costs consume 8% of healthcare spending, or $360 billion annually. Compare that to Canada’s 1-2%. Insurance companies and compliance with federal mandates drive this inefficiency, burdening small businesses—key to conservative economic values—with premiums averaging $7,500 per employee yearly.

High healthcare costs stifle growth. Businesses face rising insurance premiums, reducing hiring and investment. Individuals lose disposable income, with 41% of Americans skipping care due to cost in 2022. This drags down productivity and innovation, core conservative priorities, while enriching globalist corporations. End lobbying loopholes and enforce transparency. Reject Globalist Control. Oppose WHO-driven mandates. Encourage natural and preventive health to reduce MIC dependency.

The medical-industrial complex is a financial and moral disaster, bleeding the people dry while eroding freedom and health. Its $4.5 trillion price tag, coupled with 250,000 deaths from errors and a globalized supply chain, demands a conservative overhaul: decentralize, deregulate, and put patients—not profits—first.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The medical industrial complex and scientistic cult evidently keep using the most vulnerable members of society (especially children) as a sacrifice in the pursuit of their efforts. But, with all that we know about the medical industrial complex, this is not news to anyone. In fact, what is expected is that there be progressive institutional reform in the status quo – especially in the second Trump administration – that directly challenges these issues. However, what is being exposed is just how deeply entrenched regulatory bodies are in their collusion with the medical industrial complex – especially pharmaceutical companies. But, today, we ought to discuss this further in light of Moderna’s mRNA COVID Shot getting Full FDA Approval for said to be “At-Risk” Infants.

U.S PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP THREATENS 35% TARIFFS ON CANADA STARTING AUG. 1

U.S President Donald Trump has threatened a 35% tariff on goods imported from Canada. [ROLL CLIP00:11-] Trump’s announcement of higher tariffs on Canada comes amid a flurry of letters the U.S President has sent to world leaders over the past week informing them what rates their goods will be tariffed at come August 1, absent any trade deals.

BRAZIL VOWS RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST US IF TRUMP FOLLOWS THROUGH ON 50% IMPORT TAXES

In a related matter, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said that he will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if President Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to boost import taxes by 50% over the South American country’s criminal trial against his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. Lula said he will trigger Brazil’s reciprocity law approved by Congress earlier this year if negotiations with the U.S. fail.

NETANYAHU SAYS HOPING HOSTAGE DEAL WILL BE FINALIZED ‘IN A FEW DAYS’

On the last day of his 4-day trip to the US, Benjamin Netanyahu released a brief clip detailing his discussions with US President Donald Trump as well as Israel’s plans for Gaza amid ceasefire talks. Netanyahu emphasised Israel’s previous goals in Gaza including the removal of Hamas, demilitarisation of Gaza.

UK, FRANCE ANNOUNCE AGREEMENT ON PILOT MIGRANT RETURNS PROGRAM

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have reached an agreement on a pilot programme to return migrants and refugees arriving in small boats, in a scheme to curb crossings over the English Channel. In a joint press conference on Thursday, Starmer said people arriving in the United Kingdom on small boats will “be detained and returned to France in short order”.

MODERNA’S mRNA COVID SHOT GETS FULL FDA APPROVAL FOR “AT-RISK” INFANTS

On July 10, 2025, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) in “at-risk” children aged 6 months to 11 years. The shot was previously available only under emergency use authorization. This approval comes despite a mountain of evidence linking the shots to catastrophic harms, some of which include heart damage, brain damage, cancer, and mass death. Once again, this decision is quite concerning as it shows that regulatory agencies remain captured by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. And so, one has to ask: How many more children must be sacrificed before accountability begins?

THIS MOVE COMPOUNDS THE LACK OF TRUST TOWARDS THE FDA

Now, this move certainly compounds the lack of trust towards the FDA, and necessarily so when you consider who influences the policy direction of the FDA. The general points of historical context to note regarding the FDA is that it was established in 1906 in response to public concern over unsafe food and drugs, such as spoiled food and counterfeit products. However, food industry lobbyists gradually gained influence, leading to the removal of the agency’s original leader. As a result, numerous harmful food additives were granted “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS) status and continue to be used today.

Then, in 1962, the FDA was given broad powers to oversee drug safety following the thalidomide incident. Unfortunately, the new regulations created strict standards for drug efficacy that were often selectively enforced, benefiting the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the FDA then increasingly targeted natural therapies, which led to many being erased from history – all of which is incredibly important to remember in light of our subsequent discussion on the propaganda against salt. Nevertheless, this historical context is why – despite the numerous attempts to reform the agency – issues of inefficiency and bias within the FDA persist. [PAUSE]

Now, evidence of the lobbyist factor in the FDA’s work, can be inferred in the agency’s work in food regulation. For instance, in the late 1800s, food producers were selling adulterated products, and pharmaceutical companies peddled medicines with secret ingredients like opium and alcohol. Public outrage grew, especially after exposés like Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’, which helped spark the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This law gave the Bureau of Chemistry the power to ensure accurate labeling and prevent harmful additives in food.

Well, the director of the Bureau of Chemistry (and thus the first head of the FDA), Harvey Wiley conducted tests on food additives, proving they made healthy volunteers sick. While the public and many scientists supported his findings, the food industry fought back with powerful lobbyists and legal tactics. Well, Wiley’s book “The History of A Crime Against The Food Law” went on to detail much of the same abhorrent industry tactics we see happening now. But, this is all to detail the contextual background behind the FDA’s propensity to be influenced by lobbyists from the industries it is supposed to regulate – which is the first aspect of the FDA’s problem with corruption.

THE FDA’S DECEPTIVE AND HARMFUL “GENERALLY RECOGNISED AS SAFE” STATUS

Let’s then proceed to discuss the FDA’s “Generally Recognised as Safe” status. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Well, GRAS food products presented two fundamental issues: food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the 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.

Now, 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. Here’s more on the FDA’s GRAS status.

Furthermore, companies currently self-certify their chemicals without independent oversight; which has resulted in ingredients like titanium dioxide – which is banned in Europe and other developed nations still being legal in the US despite mounting health concerns. Through GRAS, FDA has for the longest time applied an “innocent until proven guilty” approach to food! Which is a categorically dangerous approach; ingredients should not have to harm or kill people first before they are deemed unsafe!

PETER MARKS AND THE FDA’S COVER-UP OF THE HARMS OF COVID JABS

Let’s also look at vaccine cover-ups, as being part of the reasons behind the compounding lack of trust towards the FDA. Many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people. One of the ways people were made aware of this was through the recently leaked recordings showing how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division, being Peter Marks at the time, refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients, and even medical practitioners who were treating vaccine injured patients.

Here’s why this is important to note: generally, in looking through what transpired with the COVID-19 response, Anthony Fauci is commonly blamed for all that went amiss – and correctly so. However, we must not also miss the people who were also directly involved, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy. One such person is Peter Marks. Peter Marks is the primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were (quote unquote) “safe and effective”). He was also the person who kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID jabs (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). The parties involved in this process, which included, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause (who were the Director and Deputy Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, respectively); they reported that there were (at that point) no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Peter Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FDA ARE FURTHER ENABLES BY STANDARDS IN MEDICINE

So, while the FDA is central to focus on as far as recent developments are concerned, it’s important also to note that the problems with the FDA are FURTHER enabled by standards in medicine. And I say that because it occurred to me that even if we have bad regulators who approve bad medicine, if we had good doctors and medical standards, then the harms could easily be averted or mitigated. But if the medical standard is overmedication and trusting “the science”, while doctors function as pharmaceutical representatives, then of course the problems are worse.

Let’s look at medical education. No matter how you dice it, medical education is quite challenging as there is simply too much to learn, and so even the “brightest” students adopt a triage mentality where they cut out things that NOTt necessary (or low-yield) (specifically) for exams so they can pass and get a degree. And because of this medical education typically presents 3 issues as far as medical standards are concerned.

First, the present standard of medical education covers many aspects in a superficial manner (e.g., med students just learn the classic indications, simple mechanisms of action and commonly recognized side effects of drugs). Now, this is quite problematic as many of those simplistic facts students memorize aren’t always entirely correct (or become evidently contradictory once you take the time to understand them). However, since students are under such pressure to memorize them, they take the facts as verbatim facts they don’t question and become quite haughty towards those who do.

Second, there has been a strong focus in medicine on the key medical products on the market (e.g., doctors focus on how to use pharmaceutical drugs along with the key microbes and their pharmaceutical treatments, understanding what aspects of the body each speciality is responsible for, how to interpret imaging studies, and even how to understand surgery well enough to want to go into it or refer patients to it). Similarly, there is also a strong focus on just the basic skills necessary for being a doctor (this includes being able to recognize potentially life-threatening conditions, conducting a physical exam with enough details to complete a medical note and writing billable medical notes). That said, there is also (thankfully) a strong focus on anatomy and physiology, which along with recognising key diseases and medical emergencies, represent some of the most valuable aspects of conventional medical training.

Then the third issue presented as far as medical standards are concerned has to do with how medical training cuts out a lot of the subtle aspects of medical science and doctoring that make you an effective clinician (and this includes things like medical ethics). And because of this, there is always a subset of medical students who have that inherent capacity and excel at being clinicians but very few learn it through their training. Put differently, standard medical training does NOT really cover what is needed to make people healthy as there is never enough time for that and again and again, we hear stories of medical educators who try to incorporate it but get pushed to the side due to limited curriculum time.

So, in a world where medical standards prioritise pharmaceutical interventions, and medical education and training focuses purely on passing exams as opposed to being more concerned with aspects of medical science that make a med student an effective clinician, well then of course the FDA’s corruption will have crippling impact, because doctors themselves are trained to push what the FDA has approved.

Well, no wonder the medical industrial complex is so-multilayered. There are clearly various actors involved. But, this also gives broader context behind why doctors become progressively less focused at making their patients better, while becoming product pushers for the pharmaceutical industry. Take this testimony from a pharmaceutical representative of 32 years. She exposes the corrupt relationship between big pharma and doctors, primarily based on greed because it was about organising expensive gifts and experiences for doctors in exchange for their product loyalty.

WORST OF ALL IS THAT PATIENTS ARE DISADVANTAGED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEMS

I’ve had discussions with medical students and practitioners on the necessity of strict standards to enter medicine because it is one of those fields where there is no room for error. ANd I think many people still have that same perception of the medical field: which is that it brings in the best and trains them rigorously so they are less susceptible to making mistakes that can be the difference between life and death for some. BUT… while there absolutely are exceptions who are incredible doctors, it is also clear that the medical system is not as fool, corruption, and greed-proof as we thought. And worse of all is that there are many people who have not broken free from this presumption of excellence and efficacy in the medical field, and pay with their lives. And yet, the issues in medicine are quite nuanced because it is NOT just the FDA that has been financially bought out – it is almost everyone, down to the medical schools that teach the doctors that are supposed to practise evidence based and holistic medicine. In fact, the verdict from good doctors is that there is almost no such thing as evidence-based medicine anymore, in a world where big pharma has gained influence over regulators and academia.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war against vaccine religion, and 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 com- pany 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.” Well, Zuckerberg clearly violated what was the Facebook code of conduct on talking about vaccines during that period in saying this.

Because most of humanity did not understand what they were being injected with, the creators of this injection apparently perceived it necessary to erect something akin to a religion that deified the vaccines. This came naturally to them because many perceived that, with their new messenger RNA vaccines, they were using God’s language to direct the cellular machinery of the human body to do their bidding. And I’d like to just highlight here that (in saying this), it is not my creative interpretation or articulation of the events that transpired. In actual fact, proof of this god-complex can be found in that: in his 2006 book, titled The Language of God, former NIH director Francis Collins begins by quoting former US president Bill Clinton when he announced in early 2000 that the human genome had been sequenced. In fact, about 88 percent had been sequenced at that time, but as the leader of the Human Genome Project, Dr Collins was apparently keen to make the big announcement sooner rather than later. And so, at a press conference in the East Room of the White House, with Dr Collins standing next to him, president Clinton announced, (quote): “Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.” (end quote). Evidently, when president Clinton said they were “gaining ever more awe” as they were learning the language in which God created life, clearly he meant they were learning to modify and alter people’s DNA. And I say this because the “modified” mRNA produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna has been chemically altered to have this effect – as Zuckerberg was caught on camera warning. But, here is Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan explaining the signs of DNA integration seen in the COVID jabs..

THE SELF-PROCCLAIMED INFALLIBILITY OF THE ORCHESTRATORS OF THE SCIENTISTIC CULT

Then there is the self-procclaimed importance and infallibility of those who were persons orchestrating the scientific religion. In essence, from the outset of the pandemic, those who were said to be working “at the speed of science” to create a new vaccine were presented as high priests of molecular biology and vaccinology. They used lots of Latin and Greek words that lay people couldn’t understand. Anthony Fauci was presented by the adoring media as the Pope of the COVID-19 vaccine program. He frequently stated the mantra “follow the science,” which consisted of his edicts, issued like papal bulls, that no one was allowed to question. On June 9, 2021, Dr. Fauci implicitly invoked the doctrine of papal infallibility when he proclaimed, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.”

Then, those who did question Fauci in public forums and on the internet quickly ran afoul of an army of censors who worked for various internet policing organisations. Doctors who advocated treating COVID-19 with repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were branded as heretics and excommunicated from the college of physicians and from the rest of society. The medicines they recommended were banned as anathema that could not, under any circumstances, be dispensed, even to a patient dying in hospital to whom nothing else was being offered.

Well, this informs us of the religious cult leader-like inclinations of those who were at the helm of the COVID response. They played on the ignorance of many,allocated power over others to themselves, while making any dissent to their proclamations appear as an act of heresy. But, interestingly, Carl Sagan spoke about this potential danger years before we saw it at the scale with which it was displayed during the COVID era; while Dr Judy Mikovits ties the developments during the COVID era directly to the cult of scientism.

Now, this is a good time to state categorically that science itself is not inherently bad. In fact, scientism (as was referenced by Dr Judy Mikovits) is far different from science. Scientism is about declaring falsehoods to be true under the guise of science. Therefore, telling someone to (quote)  “trust the science” is the hallmark of a religious cult, and actually flies in the face of the scientific method which requires you to test the science.

This differentiation should even make it clear what other phenomena fall within the scope of scientism and not science – such as the climate change hoax, which has also produced a cult, as was articulated by Australian Senator, Malcolm Roberts, in 2023.

GOD ALLOWS QUESTIONS, AND YET THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE DOES NOT

Tied to the claimed infallibility of the persons behind the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion is the contempt for questions and the freedom of choice. Now, to underline the gravity of this audacious position, I’d like to highlight when we observe the Scriptures, like the moment when Abraham interceded for Lot and his family in Genesis 18, and when Moses interceded for the children of Israel in Exodus 32, God Almighty allows people to ask questions! In fact, God also respects the freedom of choice, because He is love and love connotes choice – so much so, that in the first Chapter of the Gospel of St John, he lets us know (in verse 11) that the Lord Jesus came to His own, but was rejected by them; and then in the successive verse St John proceeds to say that to those who received Him, Hesus gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. In other words, He came to His own people, they chose to reject Him, and He subsequently focused on those who received Him. In fact, even today, salvation is not by compensation: there are people we may preach to, who will reject the message.

Well, despite this, the members of the scientific religion saw themselves as far more infallible and omnipotent, thus completely negating men’s free will and option to question or dissent to the status quo. So much so, that a massive censorship industrial complex extending from federal agencies to every major digital tech platform was constructed over the last nine years, and went into full effect in 2020. This largely happened out of the public eye. Even five years ago, it was barely known. The cases of banned accounts and throttled postings seemed isolated and often just an unfortunate exercise of editorial zeal.

BUT, the FOIAs and court discovery have unearthed tens of thousands of pages of evidence, proving that the problem is neither isolated nor random but rather gargantuan and systematic. It involves dozens of federal agencies, non-government organisations working as contractors, universities on contract either directly or indirectly, and even embedded employees at social media companies. The censorship network is so elaborate at this point that it is truly an industry—and an illegal one, at that! And, at the very core of its existence is both the government’s desire for control, and the reality that the scientific cult has, for the longest time, presumed people to be too stupid to think for themselves. And we saw the Biden-Harris  administration leverage this form of thinking, in building a censorship industrial complex that serviced the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion.

THE SCIENTISTIC RELIGION ALSO REQUIRES BLOOD SACRIFICE

In case the discussion thus far seemed like a stretched analogy, let’s make the parallels between religion and scientism (as well as the vaccine enterprise) even more explicit. Now, as you’d already know, any religion and cult notably requires blood sacrifice. Well, it certainly is no different for the scientific religion that has tried to sensationalise vaccines as an irrefutable good intervention.

In fact, this parallel of blood sacrifice can be traced to the use of aborted foetus tissue in the development of vaccines. A lot of vaccines that are presented as simple clear solutions ACTUALLY contain fetal tissue that was taken from aborted babies – so much so, that human fetal cell lines are used to culture a number of vaccines today. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6. In more detail, WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus. And MRC-5 (also called Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

In addition, Human Embryonic Kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture. And the PERC-6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion. Now, the newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.

Then you might ask, which vaccines utilised aborted fetal materials? There is a long list of them; and it includes: the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine/MMR. There is also the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccine (the DTaP/TdP). There is the varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine and the shingles (zoster) vaccine. The hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines; the rabies vaccine; and even some coronavirus vaccines! And so, this is clearly a long established practice in the vaccine industry.

And you’d recall that this was highlighted from the testimony of Stanley Plotkin, under oath. This is the same Stanley Plotkin who is widely regarded as a leading author and contributor to vaccinology; and has been a consultant to Moderna, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid vaccine.

THE SCIENTISTIC RELIGION IS AIMED AT SELLING A DEFECTIVE AND DETRIMENTAL PRODUCT

Of course, the sacrifice of lives does not end with the foetuses used in the development of vaccines. It is also the lives harmed and destroyed in the rollout of various vaccines – which has been happening for years, since the very first vaccine, which is the smallpox vaccine. In 1798, the smallpox vaccine hit the market. Once it hit the market, it was observed to frequently cause smallpox outbreaks (rather than prevent them) and to cause a wide range of debilitating and complex injuries that many of the doctors had never seen before (and many of which I believe were examples of “blood stasis”). Curiously, rather than recognising this was a mistake, most of the medical profession endorsed the smallpox vaccine, and governments around the world mandated it as cases kept on increasing, leading to a downward spiral that was eventually broken by mass public protest against those mandates.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killed a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (ence-phalitis) or brain damage (ence-phalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations!

But, now, in addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period: First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (we note this when observing the example of how the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).

Then the second issue that stood out is that public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since it was said that no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, this medical doctrine rested on a faulty premise because effective treatments did IN FACT exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections). And so, the scientific religion and vaccine enterprise has always operated with a willingness to sacrifice lives, while covering it up as acts of necessity, which is why aborted foetuses are used even today for the development of vaccines.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

And now onto our main discussion regarding Dr Robert Malone; and the War Against the Medical Industrial Complex; and we ought to start with the latest development; which is that the HHS Secretary, being Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has appointed Dr Robert Malone to the Advisory Committee for Immunisation Practices. You’d recall that in the previous weeks, the secretary had fired all 17 members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee for immunization practices (ACIP) – which is a group of alleged scientific experts who recommend how vaccines should be administered and distributed.

In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy stated that (quote): “The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. It has never recommended against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make matters worse, the groups that inform ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust.”.

Well, the 17-member ACIP panel was scheduled to meet later in the month of June to review recommendations, including those involving COVID-19 vaccinations for children. That meeting will still go ahead, but without the current panelists, some of whom Kennedy said were ‘last-minute Biden appointees’ whose terms would have otherwise extended until 2028.

So, on the one hand, those supporting this move say this is exactly the kind of bold move needed to break the credibility crisis surrounding vaccine science and government health agencies. This is especially considering that Secretary Kennedy remarked that the new appointees won’t directly work for the vaccine industry” and will “refuse to serve as a rubber stamp,” instead fostering “a culture of critical inquiry”. But, on the other hand, those against this decision argue the opposite, insisting that the move reeks of ideology and raises concerns that Kennedy will stack the committee with vaccine skeptics or unqualified appointees, thus further eroding trust – and you typically heard this argument from Democrat officials, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bill Cassidy; and the liberal media.

PUBLIC TRUST IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WAS ALREADY ON A STEADY DECLINE

Now, during the period that Secretary Kennedy fired those committee members, a number of media houses and publications reported that the immediate concern for public health officials, scientists and vaccine researchers was both the erosion in trust AND who will fill the newly opened seats. Let;s address the public trust issue first. In essence, here is what was ignored by the critics and skeptics: the erosion of trust in the public health system FAR pre-dates the firing of all 17 members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee for immunization practices! The erosion of trust occurred because patients have long been bearing the brunt of a corrupt medical system that puts them in debt (at times even rendering them homeless), through charging them for insanely expensive and unnecessary procedures, tests, and medication. Public trust was eroded by doctors and nurses who were murdering patients and getting away with it because of the lack of adequate oversight in the medical industry.

Trust further eroded when mothers were dying at alarming rates after giving birth in first world countries. And eroded even more when the COVID debacle was exposed, and pro-vaccine individuals were being gaslit when reporting vaccine injuries. But, worse of all, this erosion erupted because people discovered that the regulatory bodies that were supposed to hold pharmaceutical and medical corporations accountable had a revolving door relationship with the entities they were supposed to keep from doing any harm. In fact, even the CDC was reporting a fall in vaccine rates by 2024. More specifically, a Centers for Disease Control report titled, “Influenza, COVID-19, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination Coverage Among Adults — United States, Fall 2024”, found that, by November 9, 2024, only an estimated 17.9% of adults aged 18 years or above had received the updated COVID-19 booster injection. But, ultimately, these failures of the public health system are where the public trust problem emanates from.

And in light of this (and also responding to the claim that this change reeks of ideology) I’d like to point out that the issues resulting in the erosion of public trust in the medical system that we’ve just outlined – they took place in Democrat administrations as well (in fact more, when considering that America has largely been under Democrat leadership more times than Republican). Therefore, if this measure strengthens accountability by removing people with conflicts of interest, and does this in a field of medicine that has become incredibly controversial – it sounds like the problem is being addressed and not exacerbated.

Secondly, what would be a careless exacerbation of the problem with a lack of public trust is keeping a status quo where public trust is already eroded. Therefore, responding by removing people who have been complicit in the creation and keeping of the problem seems like a fairly sensible thing to do. But, here’s more on how public trust in the health care system was long on a steady decline; including a concession from officials of the CDC and NIH during the Biden Harris administration on their role in decreasing public trust.

Now, I find it interesting that each of the officials we just watched highlighted the need for better transparency in their respective agencies – which sounds like exactly what Secretary Keneddy was advocating for in firing people who had a conflict of interest, while simply rubber stamping vaccines without much enquiry or transparency. But, of course, those officials never actually lived up to their words about transparency, following their concessions in 2024 on how their respective agencies fuelled public distrust. Additional proof of this is the fact that the concession excerpt we just watched followed another meeting in 2023, where Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) questioned witnesses about school reopening procedures during the pandemic at a House Energy Committee hearing on “Assessing the CDC’s failures in fulfilling its mission”.

Well, it sounds like the CDC has long had issues with public trust. And removing members of an advisory committee in the CDC that is riddled with a conflict of interest, is a necessary response. Now, there is also the media aspect in this – in particular the publications and media houses that were (quote unquote) raising the alarm about this shift in the advisory committee. It’s really simple: the medical industrial complex funds a significant portion of the media, and has made them into their media intermediary, responsible for spreading and the proselytising of a polluted science. The COVID-19 period has shown a very high level of scientific censorship, causing many people difficulties to access relevant health information. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industries are known for their propaganda in favour of the disease. Pharmaceutical industries are known to provide inaccurate and misleading promotional information about their medicines, but also inaccurate information on diseases and disease risks, which can lead to unnecessary medication and induce side effects caused by these medicines. They pay government officials and even medical practitioners to keep themselves from being exposed. But, evidently, they also capture the mainstream media through advertising revenue, which allows them to regulate what is said about pharmaceutical products.

DR ROBERT MALONE APPOINTED TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IMMUNISATION PRACTICES

Well, we mentioned earlier that in addition to the claimed issue of a decrease in public trust, critics also expressed concern about who would replace the dismissed advisory committee members. This was a question that was quickly answered as Secretary Kennedy has also announced the new members making up the ACIP panel. These members include Drs: Robert W Malone; Martin Kulldorff (who was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, along with Dr Jay Bhattacharya, who is president Trump’s pick for the director of the National Institutes of Health); there is also Cody Meissner (and he is a professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at Dartmouth. He previously held advisory roles at the FDA and CDC, including ACIP from 2008-2012. In 2021, Meissner co-wrote an editorial with Dr Marty Makary, who is now the head of the FDA, which criticised mask mandates for children).

Also named in the advisory committee is Vicky Pebsworth (Pebsworth is a nurse and the former consumer representative on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee. She is also the Pacific regional director for the National Association of Catholic Nurses). Fifth on the committee is Retsef Levi (Levi is a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management who Kennedy described as an “expert in healthcare analytics, risk management and vaccine safety). Then there is Michael A. Ross (Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, with a career spanning clinical medicine, research, and public health policy). Seventh in Joseph R. Hibbeln (who is a California-based psychiatrist who previously served as acting chief for the section of nutritional neurosciences at the NIH); and finally is Dr James Pagano (who is an emergency medicine physician from Los Angeles “with over 40 years of clinical experience”, and a “strong advocate for evidence-based medicine).

Now, one of the most notable names is Dr Robert Malone, who is a biochemist who made early innovations in the field of messenger RNA but in more recent years has been a vocal critic of mRNA technology in Covid-19 vaccines. His announcement has made those in support of the medical industrial complex run amok. As such, they have responded with instant, coordinated character assassination efforts and desperate attempts to erase his record. Their terror is quite palpable!

WHY THE MEDICAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OPPOSES DR ROBERT MALONE

Once again, the backers of the medical industrial complex have responded to Dr Maone’s appointment with instant, coordinated character assassination efforts and desperate attempts to erase his record – because they are concerned about what this appointment means for their nefarious plans. Well, they should be concerned. Dr Robert Malone is particularly equipped to dismantle this collection of corrupt systems and subsystems from the inside, thus the wisely alarmed position of the opposition on large horse statue gifts from the Trojans. Afterall, they don’t attack nobodies. They don’t coordinate against empty suits. They target people who threaten the machinery.

What is interesting about Dr Malone is that he was never inherently interested in public office – much like Donald Trump in his early career as a businessman. In the case of Dr Robert Malone, he is regarded as someone driven by a moral imperative that compels him to serve and to do it outside of politics, especially seeing he had already suffered through that crucible during Covid crackdown on dissenting doctors; and thus knew the political terrain. And so he has preferred working with states or private partners, where bureaucratic constraints would not muzzle urgent action. And so, he did not seek a federal appointment, but when Kennedy asked him – with the moral urgency of a country in collapse – Malone chose service over safety.

In any case, Dr Malone’s appointment triggered a predictable media offensive, laced with insinuation and omission. Major outlets, operating in lockstep, flooded the digital landscape with headlines crafted to imply fraud without making refutable claims. Phrases like “played an early role in mRNA development…” and “claims to have invented…” flooded mainstream media discussions. And they did this in an effort to plant seeds of doubt without offering substance – which is a classic psyop strategy.

But, let’s make this plain: the establishment isn’t reacting this way because Dr. Malone lacks credibility. They’re reacting this way because he threatens everything upon which they rely to maintain control. This is to say that: Dr Malone isn’t just a critic of captured science – he helped build the scaffolding of modern molecular medicine. He holds dozens of issued patents, including foundational work in mRNA and DNA vaccine platforms. He understands the system from the inside out – its science, its politics, its regulatory gamesmanship. And now he’s turned that knowledge toward exposing and repairing the institutional rot that has poisoned public health policy.

For instance, Dr Robert Malone in 2022, warned parents about the contents of mRNA technology – at a time when only a few voices such as the president of loveworld Incorporated were at the forefront of exposing the dangers of mRNA technology. In addition, Dr Robert Malone also exposed the “military-grade psychological operation” otherwise known as the “Covid-19 pandemic”. He has publicised how Western governments, non-governmental organisations, transnational organisations, pharmaceutical industry corporations, media and financial corporations have co-operated via public-private partnerships—which he calls a euphemism for fascism—to deploy the most massive, globally harmonised psychological and propaganda operation in the history of the world.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso