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

In his in depth report, Whitaker accuses major medical organizations and media outlets of downplaying or obscuring research that links prenatal exposure to antidepressants with a host of serious developmental and health risks. Among the potential outcomes: altered fetal brain development, low birth weight, preterm delivery, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), neonatal withdrawal symptoms, and increased risks for ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and even depression later in life.

Whitaker cites both animal and human studies that consistently warn of long term effects, but claims these findings have been largely dismissed or ignored by the psychiatric establishment often in the name of protecting pharmaceutical interests or maintaining the status quo in mental health treatment.

“The silence is not scientific,” Whitaker writes. “It’s institutional.”

The report has sparked calls for greater transparency, more informed consent, and a re-evaluation of antidepressant prescribing guidelines for pregnant women. Critics argue that too often, pregnant women are not fully informed of the risks to their unborn children, and that safer alternatives to pharmaceuticals are not being prioritized.

Supporters of Whitaker’s findings say it’s time for honest dialogue in maternal mental health one that respects both the mother’s well being and the child’s long term development.

As awareness grows, so does the demand for accountability.

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

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

BUT PATIENTS EXPECT ERRORS, NOT LIES

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

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

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

DO INSTITUTIONS DO MORE BEYOND THE APOLOGY?

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

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

THE TERROR OF ERRORS: THE CASE OF LINDA KEHART

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

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

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

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

THE WAR ON HEALTH: WHEN DOCTORS INTENTIONALLY HARM PATIENTS

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

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

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

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ALSO CREATED DOCTORS WHO KILL

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

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

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

THEN THERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH FALSE DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS

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

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

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

written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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