In a shocking expose, it’s clear that organ transplants, while a remarkable breakthrough in modern medicine, are also tainted by a corrupt and profit-driven system that prioritizes financial gain over human life. Behind the heartwarming stories of lives saved, a dark reality exists, where the pursuit of profit leads to unethical practices, putting vulnerable individuals at risk of exploitation. The organ donation system, a multibillion-dollar industry, is marred by a web of deceit, where the concept of “brain death” is often misused, and hospitals are accused of rushing to harvest organs from people who may still be clinging to life. Furthermore, grieving families are often coerced into giving consent, unaware of the true nature of the system. As we delve deeper into the underbelly of the organ donation system, it becomes clear that the very foundations of this life-saving practice are tainted by corruption, greed, and a blatant disregard for human life. The question remains, how can we trust a system that is driven by profit, rather than a genuine desire to save lives and improve the human condition?

The Harsh Reality of Organ Transplants

Federal investigators are blowing the lid off a shocking scandal, revealing that a staggering 30% of organ donors are still showing signs of life as surgeons prepare to harvest their organs. Nurses are coming forward to expose the disturbing truth that some donors are being sedated or paralyzed to make the process easier and more convenient for medical professionals. The alarming reality is that the definition of “death” was redefined decades ago, paving the way for this nightmare to unfold. While organ transplants do have the power to save lives, the system is undeniably corrupt, with patients being misdiagnosed as “brain dead” and displaying signs of life just as their organs are about to be harvested. The organ trade has ballooned into a billion-dollar industry, with transplants costing upwards of $2 million, creating a lucrative market that invites exploitation. Estimates suggest that a staggering 5-20% of kidney transplants are sourced from the black market, preying on the poor and imprisoned. Perhaps the most shocking truth of all is that the definition of death was deliberately redefined to facilitate easier organ harvesting. It was back in 1968 that Harvard introduced the concept of “brain death,” allowing for the legal harvesting of organs from individuals with beating hearts. Since then, numerous patients diagnosed as brain dead have miraculously revived, sometimes just moments before their organs were scheduled to be removed. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theories – it’s a harsh and disturbing reality that’s happening to real people who have lived to tell their stories. At the heart of the issue is a system that prioritizes profits over human lives, leaving countless individuals to suffer the consequences.

The Billion-Dollar Cash Cow: Profits Over Patients

The global organ transplantation market is set to explode from $19.21 billion in 2025 to a whopping $39.19 billion by 2034, with the US market alone expected to double from $4.18 billion in 2023 to $9.58 billion by 2032. This booming industry is fueled by the desperation of people who can’t afford life-saving transplants, leaving them with no choice but to rack up medical debt or rely on government programs like Medicare, which are funded by taxpayers. The cost of a single organ transplant is staggering, ranging from $2 million to over $3 million, with kidney transplants costing around $446,800, heart transplants reaching up to $1.66 million, liver transplants costing approximately $878,400, and double lung transplants hitting a staggering $1.3 million. And it’s not just a one-time payment – patients have to take expensive immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent rejection, which are sold by pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Novartis at outrageous prices. The kidney transplant medicine market is projected to surge from $12.84 billion in 2025 to $19.09 billion by 2032, forcing patients to rely on these pricey medications forever.

From a financial standpoint, this is a clear case of cronyism, where a handful of organ procurement organizations and the United Network for Organ Sharing have been given a government-backed monopoly on coordinating donations, pocketing federal funds while lobbying against reforms that could bring in real competition and lower costs. This system is rigged against taxpayers, who are subsidizing the waste and inefficiencies of the system. Organ procurement organizations are paid per organ procured, creating incentives to cut corners and prioritize profits over people. Federal investigations have uncovered widespread fraud, with at least five states’ organizations under investigation for overbilling and intimidating whistleblowers. A shocking report from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2025 exposed a “systemic disregard for the sanctity of life,” with hospitals rushing to procure organs even when patients showed signs of life. Nearly 20% of transplants last year bypassed waiting lists altogether, with organs being handed to the well-connected instead of those in dire need. This is a clear example of a system that prioritizes profits over patients, with the organ transplantation market being a lucrative industry built on the desperation of individuals.

The Chilling Reality of “Brain Death” Misdiagnoses: Harvesting the Living?

The “Brain Death” Myth: Not Dead Yet, But Organs Up for Grabs

Let’s blow the lid off the myth that “brain death” is a hard medical fact. The truth is, a Harvard committee concocted this concept back in 1968, not to save lives, but to tackle the organ shortage that came after the first heart transplant. Before this, death was straightforward – it was when the heart stopped beating. But now, doctors are declaring patients “brain dead” even when their heart is still pumping, their body is warm, and their organs are fresh and ready for transplant. The real reason behind this is jaw-dropping: dead organs are useless for transplant, and a living body is needed to keep the organs alive and viable for a successful transplant.

This scandal is unfolding as patients declared “brain dead” reportedly astonishingly showing signs of life. In a chilling 2021 incident in Kentucky, Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II was rushed into surgery to harvest his organs after a overdose – but he suddenly started thrashing, crying, and breathing on his own, forcing doctors to abruptly halt the operation. What’s even more disturbing is that TJ’s sister, Donna Rhorer, had already discovered he had regained consciousness during a heart test that morning, yet the organ procurement team still pushed forward with the surgery. A federal probe into this matter found some alarming stats – out of 351 cases reviewed, 103 raised serious concerns, including 73 instances where patients showed brain activity and at least 28 cases where patients may have been alive when the surgery started. Another jaw-dropping case is that of Misty Hawkins, a 42-year-old Alabama woman who fell into a coma after choking on her lunch. After being off the ventilator for 103 minutes, she was declared dead and surgeons began the operation – only to find her heart still beating, and she gasped and moved, raising serious questions about whether she was declared dead too soon. In California, a father’s desperate fight to save his daughter Brittany O’Connor from being declared “brain dead” was prolonged because the hospital was pushing for organ donation despite doubts about her condition. This is not just a case of careless medicine – it’s a deep-seated, systemic issue that’s putting lives at risk.

Nonprofit organ procurement groups, backed by federal contracts, are feeling the heat to hit their targets – and rural hospitals are the easiest targets due to their limited resources and vulnerability to manipulation. The pharmaceutical industry is cashing in big time on this system, as a steady supply of fresh organs means more transplants, higher success rates, and a constant need for immunosuppressant meds, generating a lifetime of revenue.

Hospitals are basically playing God, putting profits over people’s lives. RFK Jr., the new head of HHS, is calling out this disturbing trend: medical staff are inducing comas, intubating patients, letting infections take hold, and then giving up on them – all so they can harvest organs for cash. This is essentially a form of stealth euthanasia, masked as kindness. We can’t let the government and medical bigwigs get away with redefining death to line their pockets.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

]]> https://ln24international.com/2025/10/22/the-truth-about-organ-donations-and-transplants/feed/ 0 https://ln24international.com/2025/07/18/silence-around-surgical-errors-is-jeopardising-patients/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=silence-around-surgical-errors-is-jeopardising-patients https://ln24international.com/2025/07/18/silence-around-surgical-errors-is-jeopardising-patients/#respond Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:06:43 +0000 https://ln24international.com/?p=25967 SURGICAL ERRORS: A MAJOR CAUSE OF DEATH

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