BIG CHEMICAL IS TRYING TO CHEAT PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH CORRUPTING LEGISLATION

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “Glyphosate & Big Chemical’s War on Nutrition”; and to begin with, I’d like to highlight that, in the Trump administration the MAHA movement is among the initiatives that have produced a significant amount of progress, especially considering that the second Trump administration set itself up for a tough, fundamentalist approach to health care, which would challenge misconceptions sponsored by diabolical actors, while empowering people with information that helps them to make an informed choice about their health.

Part of the progress we’ve seen has included banning petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food, ramping up heavy metal testing in infant formula, the first-ever ban on adding fluoride to public water supplies, tighter restrictions on school meal additives and ultra-processed diets, limits on using SNAP (food stamps) benefits for soda and junk food, rethinking the outdated food pyramid, and even scaling back some recommended childhood vaccines. These changes quickly materialized because we saw political will align with grassroots demands from Americans.

But in the same way that the propagators of the COVID debacle are unrelenting, the corporations that profited from making Americans and people around the world sick were not going to passively stand by as their corruption was exposed and their profits curtailed. And, in the status quo, we see this not only with the fear mongering of vaccine manufacturers, but notably because “Big Chemical” is actively trying to infiltrate and undermine the MAHA initiative and movement, while Republicans have unwittingly (or deliberately) helped by allowing Big Chemical-friendly provisions into legislation.

Which brings us to a controversial provision of legislation that has been at the centre of much controversy – which is Section 453 – in the House Interior Environment Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2026. This section, notably buried in a massive, unrelated spending package (made up of over 20,000 pages)… this provision sought to preempt stricter state and local pesticide regulations and grant broad immunity to manufacturers from “failure-to-warn” lawsuits. It would have also blocked timely updates to pesticide warning labels (while the EPA’s reviews occur only every 15 years) and prioritized corporate protection over public health.

And so, this provision directly contradicted MAHA’s goals of reducing toxic exposures; and despite Big Chemical’s efforts to hide this immunity in an unrelated 20,000 page document, the public found out about this; and public backlash was swift! Then, after significant outrage, the provision was stripped from the bill around January 5, this year. But, here’s more about Section 453, and here, Kelly Ryerson was discussing this in 2025, before public backlash forced a reversal on that provision.

BAYER HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY LOBBYING FOR PESTICIDE PROTECTIONS

But, the question then is: why was this sneaky “immunity for pesticide manufacturers provision” added to section 453 of an unrelated 20,000 page legislative document? In short, the answer lies in special interests, and the lobbying power of diabolical actors.

In more detail, you’d recall that we highlighted the diabolical attempts of a major actor in efforts to shield pesticide producers from liability, which is the Bayer corporation (which also acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, largely for the Roundup/glyphosate portfolio). And what is uniquely diabolical about Bayer’s role in all of this is that Bayer aggressively lobbies for pesticide protections while simultaneously profiting from cancer treatments – thus creating a perverse conflict of interest. And the perversion here lies in the revelation that glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the Roundup pesticide, faces thousands of lawsuits “alleging” it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. She references There is actually even ongoing litigation, including Bayer’s appeal to the Supreme Court in cases like Monsanto v Darnell (which is a $1.25 million verdict), arguing that federal EPA approval of labels should preempt state-level failure-to-warn claims, which is somewhat an annoying argument considering that pesticide manufacturers are known for corrupt actions including churning out industry-influenced data, delayed reviews, and past data manipulation.

Now, in all of this, it is unmistakable that lobbyists do not lobby themselves. In other words, what makes the lobbying capacity of certain actors and corporations dangerous is that there are some politicians or strategic actors who are impressionable; and this is unfortunately visible in the MAHA initiative. In fact, you see this with the removal of explicit pesticide restrictions from official MAHA action plans, delays in enforcing bans on “forever chemicals” (or PFAS), and even inaction on neo-nicotinoid insecticides or glyphosate itself (which RFK Jr has repeatedly called a major driver of chronic disease).

Additionally, former pesticide lobbyists – such as Douglas Troutman and Nancy Beck – now occupy key regulatory positions, which they use to push liability shields at the state level. You see this in laws passed in North Dakota and Georgia; where Georgia’s 2025 legislation (effective on the 1st of January 2025) immunizes pesticide makers from cancer-risk lawsuits, despite the state having elevated cancer rates (especially thyroid cancer in northeast Georgia). Meanwhile, regional health disparities are also key to note: in particular, the Southeastern region of the US shows disproportionately high cancer incidence, potentially linked to heavy agricultural chemical use rather than solely poverty or racial factors. Louisiana’s infamous “Cancer Alley” corridor is also notable, where industrial pollution correlates with cancer rates that are 50–700 times the national average in some areas.

But, again, the reason these threats to health and nutrition are so prevalent is because there are actors serving as enablers.

WHY BAYER/MONSANTO ARE CAPITALISING ON LOBBYING, TO TRY TO SAVE GLYPHOSATE

Now, we also ought to address why Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto are capitalising on lobbying tactics to try to save glyphosate. And really the answer lies in the fact that, despite previous leadership from Bayer or Monsanto having emphasised the company’s confidence in containing litigation risks and defending glyphosate’s alleged safety based on regulatory consensus, internal documents unearthed during US litigation paint a different picture of glyphosate. And these are the same internal documents, called the “Monsanto Papers,” that were released through court discovery, and expose systematic efforts by Monsanto to shape narratives around the glyphosate-based herbicide RoundUp’s alleged carcinogenic properties.

So, a key tactic that was used by Monsanto to shape narratives on its products involved ghostwriting scientific literature. In one prominent example, a highly influential 2000 review article published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded that Roundup posed no health risks to humans. The paper, authored by external scientists Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was retracted in December 2025 due to “serious ethical concerns.” Court emails showed Monsanto employees drafted significant portions, selected only favorable unpublished company data, and downplayed conflicting evidence on chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Despite this hidden involvement being revealed in 2017, the paper remained widely cited for over two decades, influencing regulators worldwide and bolstering claims of safety.

Then secondly, Monsanto also mobilised to counter unfavorable science, particularly after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. The company orchestrated campaigns to discredit IARC scientists, pressured journal editors, and supported third-party allies—like industry-funded groups—to publish attacks accusing critics of fraud or bias.

Then in addition, and beyond scientific journals, efforts extended to media and public relations. Documents indicate Monsanto worked with consultants and front groups to monitor and influence coverage. In some cases, operatives posed as journalists to gather intelligence at trials. The company tracked journalists, activists, and public figures—leading to a 2021 fine in France for illegally compiling dossiers to sway opinion on glyphosate. Allies published articles dismissing concerns about pesticides as fearmongering, sometimes in outlets like Forbes (later retracted due to undisclosed ties). This broader strategy weaponized so-called “fact-checking” and science communication by flooding discourse with industry-aligned content, often presented as independent. As such, this created an echo chamber that undermined legitimate health concerns, even portraying them as ideological rather than evidence-based.

Now, all of this matters in light of today’s discussion because it exposes that even Bayer and Monsanto know there is cause for liability with their product. In other words, they know that their glyphosate based herbicide is more than just alleged to be carcinogenic, because otherwise they would not be litigating lawsuit after lawsuit, and they also would not be asking to be shielded from future liability.

PUSHES FOR IMMUNITY CAME AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE GHOST WRITTEN STUDY ON GLYPHOSATE

Also, the push by pesticide and herbicide manufacturers to be shielded from liability comes at a particularly curious time, in that it follows the removal of the ghost written bogus study on glyphosate. Crucial to note here is that the long‑standing regulatory confidence in glyphosate, which is the world’s most widely used herbicide, once rested heavily on a single review published in 2000 by Williams, Kroes, and Munro. For decades the paper was treated as an independent, authoritative synthesis of toxicology, repeatedly cited by the US’s Environmental Protection Agency and international regulators as a foundation for the assertion that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic.” Well, this review has (finally) been retracted, per the journal, “to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal.”

Well, the glyphosate facade collapsed this year, in 2025, when the journal titled “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology” formally retracted the article after new disclosures revealed that Monsanto employees substantially ghostwrote the manuscript, directed its conclusions, and concealed their financial involvement. The retraction, coming a full twenty-five years after publication, arrived in the midst of a wave of scientific, legal, and policy developments that together render the EPA’s continued reliance on the review indefensible.

Furthermore,the Williams et al paper was central to the EPA’s internal cancer classification documents, including the 2016 Glyphosate Issue Paper, which cited it as a key summary of toxicology studies in support of its “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” designation. The paper was also repeatedly referenced in the 2017 Draft titled “Human Health Risk Assessment” and the 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision. EPA staff even used the Williams paper to bolster claims that glyphosate had no oncogenic potential in rodents and minimal risk to humans, often citing its summary tables of Monsanto-conducted studies.

BROLL PIC – REDACTED

But, in essence, the Williams paper became such an esteemed feature in the EPA and international regulatory institutions because when first appeared, it seemed to provide regulators with precisely what they wanted: which is a comprehensive rebuttal to mounting concerns about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. Internally, Monsanto also viewed the paper as a strategic asset. HOWEVER, disclosures from the “Monsanto Papers” litigation—including email exhibits released during the Johnson v. Monsanto trial—show that company scientists were actually involved in the drafting and editing of the manuscript. 

And although the authors listed were academic toxicologists, none of them disclosed Monsanto’s editorial or financial role, which obviously influenced the outcome of the study, seeing as Monsanto had a financial stake the glyphosate based herbicide market, being a producer of Roundup, the most famous glyphosate based herbicide. Before we proceed, here’s more about glyphosate and why it is important to remove a study that has shielded it from intense scrutiny.

THE BOGUS GLYPHOSATE STUDY EXPOSES THAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD CAN INFLUENCE GENERATIONS OF POLICY

In 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally retracted the Williams, Kroes, and Munro review after its handling co-Editor-in-Chief conducted an investigation into longstanding concerns about the paper’s authorship, data sources, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The retraction notice explained that the journal sought an explanation from the sole surviving author, being the lead author of the review Gary M. Williams, and received no response. The editor documented that the article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate were drawn solely from unpublished Monsanto studies, while multiple long-term carcinogenicity studies available at the time of writing were omitted without explanation.

Then, the notice further cited evidence from US litigation showing that Monsanto employees may have contributed to the writing of the article without acknowledgment, raising “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” It referenced misrepresentation of contributions, undisclosed financial compensation from Monsanto, ambiguity regarding which portions of the article were authored by corporate personnel, and a biased weight-of-evidence approach shaped by unpublished industry studies. Concluding that these issues “undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions,” the co-Editor-in-Chief stated that confidence in the review’s findings had been lost and that retraction was necessary to preserve the integrity of the journal.

Now, here’s the crucial nuance: this reckoning did not arise in isolation. Earlier in 2025, Environmental Science & Policy published a landmark paper by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes titled The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse. Their bibliometric analysis showed that the year 2000 review by Willians et al remained one of the most cited toxicology reviews on glyphosate worldwide—used in over 700 academic papers, EPA filings, and even AI training datasets. They documented how the paper’s influence extended into public knowledge platforms like Wikipedia, where editors referencing the review rarely noted its conflicts of interest or ghostwriting origins, even after legal revelations surfaced. AND SO, their work underscored that scientific fraud, when embedded in citation networks and reinforced by regulatory institutions, can literally influence generations of policy – which I would argue is what we’re seeing in the status quo. And it is no surprise that this is occurring at a time when many begin to tie glyphosate to fertility issues.

TWO THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT ONCE: GLYPHOSATE IS BAD, BUT MAHA REMAINS AN IMPERATIVE MANDATE

Finally, in light of all that we’ve discussed, I’d like to highlight that two things can be true at once: it is true globasate is bad and there should be a push for Republican leaders and all leaders not support it, but it is also true that MAHA remains imperative. And MAHA’s importance lies in how it focuses on tackling root causes of America’s chronic disease epidemic, including ultra-processed foods, artificial additives, environmental toxins, and overmedicalization. And (once again) MAHA has driven real progress: states have passed laws banning or restricting synthetic food dyes, the FDA has worked to phase out petroleum-based dyes, and initiatives target junk food in schools and SNAP programs. These efforts resonate deeply with parents, especially mothers concerned about children’s health, and long-term wellness.

And yes, recent debates and events on glyphosate highlight differing positions within the broader conservative coalition. HOWEVER, amid this, mainstream media coverage has been amplifying controversies to portray divisions in the Republican base. Stories about food dyes, for instance, have been framed in ways that exaggerate setbacks or voluntary industry delays, in an effort to fuel frustration among health-conscious voters. Some reports even seem designed to aggravate MAHA advocates, while sowing doubt about the movement’s sincerity or effectiveness, and discouraging support for Republican candidates in upcoming midterms.

Now, I highlight this to say that, this is where discernment becomes essential. Not every headline warrants immediate outrage or mobilization. Some stories represent genuine policy challenges or compromises in a complex political landscape, where agricultural interests, national security, and health priorities intersect. But, other stories are nothing more than coordinated efforts to exploit divisions – they are classic psy ops aimed at fracturing unity among conservatives and independents drawn to MAHA’s message of cleaner food, fewer toxins, and healthier families.

And so, it is important to learn to differentiate which stories are worth responding to and drawing your Senator or Congressman’s attention on; and also which stories are planted by the mainstream media to try to sow discord among the conservative coalition, and even to undermine the MAHA movement.

MAHA’s imperative endures because America’s health crisis. As such, glyphosate concerns are valid and should fuel advocacy, seeing as we’ve seen a response already, with section 453; but these concerns do NOT negate the broader fight for nutritional reform, reduced additives, and transparency. By staying focused, differentiating real threats from manufactured discord, and continuing to build pressure constructively, MAHA can maintain momentum and deliver lasting change for families nationwide. And this is very important because this is not a fight that started in the present; it is a fight that dates back to when glyphosate was discovered, and even a fight that is interconnected with the efforts of diabolical actors to undermine the security of America through destroying food and nutrition.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

And now onto our main discussion, in which we look at yet another comical lawsuit; and well, in a development that perfectly captures the absurdity of the COVID era, Bayer, through its subsidiary Monsanto, has filed patent infringement lawsuits against major COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers: Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. The complaints, filed in US federal courts in Delaware and New Jersey on the 6th of January 2026, claim that these companies unlawfully used Monsanto-developed technology, which was originally pioneered in the 1980s for genetically modified crops, to create and produce their COVID-19 vaccines.

Now, the core of the dispute revolves around methods to stabilise messenger RNA (mRNA), which is said to be a notoriously fragile molecule. Back in the 1980s, Monsanto scientists developed techniques to enhance mRNA stability and boost protein expression in plants. This involved identifying and removing what they call “problem” or destabilising genetic sequences while optimising codon usage (through substituting alternative codons) to increase protein production. And for clarity, codons are a sequence that forms a unit of genetic code in a DNA or RNA molecule. And so, what this means in light of what we’ve just outlined is that what Monsanto scientists did was to remove what they called problematic sequences and replace them with alternative codons (or alternative sequences) that had a unit of genetic code that increased protein production, to create a stabilising effect in messenger RNA. Ultimately, these techniques developed by Monsanto were aimed at creating more resilient, pest-resistant genetically engineered crops. And a related patent (which was issued in 2010) forms the basis of Bayer’s claims.

Then, according to the lawsuits, these same stabilization and optimization approaches were essential for overcoming key hurdles in mRNA vaccine development. mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax), instruct human cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, thus ALLEGELY triggering an immune response. However, natural mRNA degrades quickly, limiting protein output. Bayer alleges that the defendants applied Monsanto’s patented methods to redesign the spike gene – specifically by stripping out roughly 100 destabilizing sequences – to ensure the mRNA remained intact long enough to generate sufficient spike protein for effective vaccination.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of Johnson & Johnson adds another layer: its vaccine uses what is called a viral vector (being the adenovirus) RATHER than pure mRNA, yet the Bayer/Monsanto corporation contends that a DNA-based manufacturing process for the Johnson & Johnson shot still infringed their  patent by relying on similar genetic engineering techniques to stabilise and amplify protein expression.

Now, in all of this, the Bayer/Monsanto corporation is not trying to make an argument about the risk in the appropriation of its supposed  technology for the creation of mRNA vaccines – no; what the Bayer/Monsanto corporation wants is to orchestrate a money grab through (pursuing monetary damages) AND, they also want royalties on past and future sales of the vaccines, which have generated tens of billions in revenue globally. And so, once again, these lawsuits where there is no definitive winner (regardless of what the outcome would be) because the premise of the lawsuit is that bad actors are about to litigate an entitlement to use a dangerous technology that was weaponised against people and nature.

But, as you’d probably be aware, this is not the first time that Bayer or Monsanto are in the news decrying patent infringement; this has long been occurring with various developments, including a case from thirteen years ago concerning genetically modified soybeans.

WHY THE BAYER/MONSANTO CORPORATION IS NOT A VIRTOUS ACTOR

Now, to cut through the legal terminology which paints the Bayer/Monsanto corporation as a plaintiff that has been wronged, let’s actually establish why the Bayer/Monsanto corporation is not a virtuous actor in this lawsuit, and in light of its broader operations. To begin with, if you had told someone two decades ago that by 2018 the company that commercialised chemical warfare for the Nazi government and the company that commercialised Agent Orange for the US government were going to team up to control a quarter of the world’s food supply, chances are you would have been labeled a conspiracy theorist. Unless (of course) your name was Robert B. Shapiro. He was CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000, and in 1999 he told Business Week that the company’s goal was to wed (quote) “three of the largest industries in the world—being agriculture, food and health—that were at the time operating as separate businesses. But there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Well, here former Monsanto CEO Robert B. Shapiro made known the rationale behind why two of the most diabolical corporations would merge.

Now, during this time, corporate messaging around the merger painted a euphemistic picture: this corporate message spoke of benefits for the environment, farmers, and global hunger relief, while conveniently boosting shareholder profits. In truth, the union reflected a deeper commitment to concentrating power in the hands of genetic engineers and agrichemical giants, prioritizing market dominance over genuine sustainability or public good. Shortly after the 2018 takeover, Bayer made a telling move: it dropped the Monsanto name entirely, folding the agrichemical operations under the banner of Bayer Crop Science. This rebranding was no coincidence. Monsanto had long been one of the world’s most reviled companies, dogged by controversies over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aggressive patent enforcement against farmers, and the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), linked to cancer claims in numerous lawsuits. Bayer sought to distance itself from that reputation.

Yet Bayer also carries its own grim legacy of harm. Formed in 1863, the company merged into the IG Farben conglomerate in 1925, which became a cornerstone of the Nazi war machine. IG Farben produced chemical weapons, including gases used in World War I and later innovations, while exploiting slave labor from concentration camps and conducting horrific medical experiments on prisoners. It manufactured Zyklon B, the gas used in Holocaust extermination chambers (as we alluded to earlier on). After the war, the Nuremberg Trials convicted IG Farben executives of war crimes, including mass murder and slavery, though many served short sentences and later rejoined corporate leadership.

Similarly, Monsanto’s dark chapter includes its role as one of the key producers of Agent Orange, the defoliant sprayed by US forces during the Vietnam War (1961–1971). Over 20 million gallons were deployed, devastating landscapes, crops, and lives. The dioxin contaminant in Agent Orange has been linked to cancers, birth defects, and other severe health issues affecting millions of Vietnamese civilians, US veterans, and their descendants – effects persisting generations later. Additionally, the Bayer-Monsanto merger continued to face criticism for their role in antitrust divestitures, amplified concerns about reduced competition, higher costs for farmers, and concentrated control over the food chain. This included facing massive legal fallout from Roundup lawsuits, paying billions in settlements while its market value plummeted. And so, despite this lawsuit painting the Bayer Monsanto corporation as a plaintiff with a basis to decry being wronged, they are far from a noble actor in the status, and this goes back to what informed their cultures and operations in history.

BAYER/MONSANTO IS NOTORIOUS FOR CORPORATE INFLUENCE OVER SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE

Additionally, despite previous leadership from Bayer or Monsanto having emphasised the company’s confidence in containing litigation risks and defending glyphosate’s alleged safety based on regulatory consensus, well internal documents unearthed during US litigation paint a different picture. These internal documents, called the “Monsanto Papers,” were released through court discovery, and expose systematic efforts to shape narratives around the product’s alleged carcinogenic properties.

A key tactic that was used by Monsanto to shape narratives on its products involved ghostwriting scientific literature. In one prominent example, a highly influential 2000 review article published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded that Roundup posed no health risks to humans. The paper, authored by external scientists Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was retracted in December 2025 due to “serious ethical concerns.” Court emails showed Monsanto employees drafted significant portions, selected only favorable unpublished company data, and downplayed conflicting evidence on chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Despite this hidden involvement being revealed in 2017, the paper remained widely cited for over two decades, influencing regulators worldwide and bolstering claims of safety.

Then secondly, Monsanto also mobilised to counter unfavorable science, particularly after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. The company orchestrated campaigns to discredit IARC scientists, pressured journal editors, and supported third-party allies—like industry-funded groups—to publish attacks accusing critics of fraud or bias.

Then in addition, and beyond scientific journals, efforts extended to media and public relations. Documents indicate Monsanto worked with consultants and front groups to monitor and influence coverage. In some cases, operatives posed as journalists to gather intelligence at trials. The company tracked journalists, activists, and public figures—leading to a 2021 fine in France for illegally compiling dossiers to sway opinion on glyphosate. Allies published articles dismissing concerns about pesticides as fearmongering, sometimes in outlets like Forbes (later retracted due to undisclosed ties). This broader strategy weaponized so-called “fact-checking” and science communication by flooding discourse with industry-aligned content, often presented as independent. As such, this created an echo chamber that undermined legitimate health concerns, even portraying them as ideological rather than evidence-based.

Now, all of this matters in light of today’s discussion on the Bayer/Monsanto corporation’s recent lawsuits against pharmaceutical corporations because all of these issues extended to the legal realm, where plaintiffs who sued the Bayer/Monsanto corporation alleged that courts have encountered judges and systems vulnerable to corporate influence. And so, part of what is quite somewhat agitating about this lawsuit is that it was filed by a corporation with a history of manipulating what were supposed to be systems of checks and balances, including courts. THAT SAID, their lawsuit is also against pharmaceutical corporations that are said to do the same – and so, I will not bemoan these corporations experiencing what they have subjected others to – HOWEVER, it should be of concern when the systems of checks and balances are perceived to be SO penetrated by diabolical actors, that the integrity of litigation (even) among diabolical actors themselves is seen as a comical plot at best.

THE BAYER/MONSANTO LAWSUITS PROVE COVID JABS HAVE GENE-EDITING CAPABILITIES

Now, to balance this discussion, we ought to highlight that it is not only the plaintiff that is a notorious actor here: the defendants themselves are anything but virtuous actors. And here, I should note that responses from the defendants have been limited: thus far, only Moderna stated it is aware of the lawsuit and will defend itself vigorously, while others (being Pfizer and J&J) have not yet commented publicly.

But, regardless of their lack of response, here is what I think this lawsuit exposes, which has the potential to deliver accountability and vindication, despite how the litigation process itself would proceed. Now, you’d recall that I mentioned earlier that the basis for the Bayer/Monsanto corporation’s lawsuit is that back in the 1980s, Monsanto scientists developed techniques to enhance mRNA stability and boost protein expression in plants, and as such what Monsanto scientists did was to remove what they called problematic sequences and replace them with alternative codons (or alternative sequences) that had a unit of genetic code that increased protein production, to create a stabilising effect in messenger RNA. And a related patent (which was issued in 2010) forms the basis of Bayer’s claims. 

Additionally, I mentioned that, according to the lawsuits, these same stabilization and optimization approaches were essential for overcoming key hurdles in mRNA vaccine development. And this is said to be in consideration of the fact that mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, instruct human cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, thus ALLEGELY triggering an immune response. However, since non-modified mRNA degrades quickly, limiting protein output, Bayer then alleges that the defendants applied Monsanto’s patented methods to redesign the spike gene.

The key thing to note here is that non-modified mRNA is said to degrade quickly, and as such the defendants (being the pharmaceutical companies being sued) are thus said to have applied Monsanto’s patented methods to redesign the spike gene. Well, for the longest time, people were gaslighted and told that there was no resultant harm as far as spike proteins from vaccines are concerned, and that mRNA vaccines also do not have the capacity for gene-editing, and that they remain localised at the injection site. BUT, the lawsuit from the Bayer/Monsanto corporation seems to have the implication of proving, first, that the mRNA in COVID jabs, doses in fact contain a stabilised mRNA that does not degrade easily and stays in the body for an extended period of time, which is why contrary to what they said about mRNA vaccines, they do not remain localised at the injection site, and invade the body for an extended period.

Secondly, the lawsuit from the Bayer/Monsanto corporation seems to have the implication of proving that, contrary to the claim that spike protein production induced by an mRNA or protein-based vaccine helps to trigger an immune response, it proved that the spike protein induced by the mRNA vaccine is actually an installation of genetic code, seeing as how the Bayer/Monsanto corporation alleges that it developed the techniques contested in the lawsuit for the purpose of creating more resilient, pest-resistant genetically engineered crops. In other words, if the Bayer/Monsanto corporation is saying it developed and used this technology to create a type of genetically engineered crop, then it is reasonable to infer that that same technology when inserted into a human being will have a gene editing effect.

And, truly, it did. For instance, Dr Peter McCullough explains that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines install the genetic code for the lethal Wuhan Spike protein into the human body. The Spike protein is produced for an uncontrolled quantity and duration of time. The concept is terrible by design. There were no studies of human pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, genotoxicity, teratogenicity, or oncogenicity completed before the unsafe and dangerous vaccines were unleashed on the population.

THE RISE OF “TURBO CANCERS” IN CHILDREN IS AN INDICTMENT OF mRNA VACCINES

Here is further evidence on the genetic harms of COVID jabs, especially in relation to the spike protein induced by an mRNA vaccine. For the first time in modern medical history, children as young as eight are being diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer—a phenomenon so rare it was virtually unheard of before 2021. But now, oncologists are breaking ranks, exposing what they call a “global epidemic” of fast-moving cancers directly linked to COVID-19 vaccines, while the medical authorities who once demanded blind faith in these shots have gone eerily silent as the many children get sick.

Against this backdrop, Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is a pioneering cancer researcher, recently dropped a bombshell by bluntly connecting the dots between mRNA vaccines and the surge in deadly cancers. His warning follows a flood of reports from frontline doctors witnessing bizarre, rapid-onset tumors in young patients—cases that they state defy decades of medical understanding. Meanwhile, Dr Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist from the University of London, has called for an outright ban on mRNA vaccines, declaring they have no place in medicine outside of terminal cancer cases; and this came as his research found mRNA fragments inside tumors, suggesting the shots may be fueling cancer growth.

More specifically, Dr Dalgleish highlighted that researchers have identified traces of mRNA within cancerous tumors, noting that this genetic material plays a role in their rapid growth and the aggressive spread of these cancers. He asserted, “Cancer caused by mRNA vaccines is a known outcome.” He subsequently issued a cautionary note, emphasising that mRNA vaccines should NOT be utilised as a preventive measure against cancer, as they are implicated in its causation!

Now, the timing of these cancers is undeniable. Before 2021, childhood cancers like glioblastoma and advanced colon cancer were statistical anomalies. Now, pediatric oncology wards are filling with cases that progress at terrifying speeds—what doctors now call “turbo cancers.” Yet instead of investigating, public health agencies and pharmaceutical giants have doubled down on censorship, smearing dissenting experts as “conspiracy theorists” while quietly updating vaccine injury compensation programs to include cancer claims. The term “turbo cancer” isn’t even a recognised medical term, yet doctors continue to report aggressive cancer cases, in adults and young children without a history of medical issues!

Not only that but the parallels to past medical scandals are chilling. Just as Big Tobacco buried evidence linking smoking to lung cancer for decades, the COVID vaccine pushers—from the FDA to Pfizer—are gaslighting the public while children suffer. Evidently, history repeats itself when profit outweighs ethics. The same institutions that lied about opioids, asbestos, and Agent Orange are now dismissing vaccine injuries as “anecdotal.” 

But with doctors like Dr Soon-Shiong and Dr Dalgleish risking their careers to speak out, how long can the facade hold? As grieving parents demand answers, one question burns: If vaccines are safe, why are the architects of this experiment refusing to debate their critics in the open? And this is one of those questions that say a lot more than any possible answer. But, here is Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong revealing what is evidently concerning data: which reports aggressive prostate cancers in men as young as 40-50, and colon cancer in kids aged 10-12. And the culprit is a prostate enzyme (called TMPRSS2) that helps spike proteins invade cells faster, accelerating cancer growth.

Adding to what Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr Angus Dalgleish are warning about, studies are actually linking mRNA jabs to the acceleration of cancer growth. For instance, in a groundbreaking landmark study titled “Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination” – researchers discovered that COVID-19 mRNA injections can trigger profound, long-lasting genetic dysregulation in individuals who develop new-onset adverse events or cancer following vaccination.

The study was conducted by scientists from NeoBioscience (namely Dr John Catanzaro, Dr Natalia von Ranke, Dr Wei Zhang, and Dr Philipp Anokin), as well as researchers from the University of North Texas (namely Dr Danyang Shao, Dr Ahmad Bereimipour, and Minh Vu), as well as researchers from the McCullough Foundation (being Dr Peter McCullough – himself – and Dr Nicolas Hulscher) and also Kevin McKernan from Medicinal Genomics. So, using high-resolution RNA sequencing of blood samples and differential gene expression analysis, the researchers found that COVID-19 “vaccines” severely disrupted the expression of thousands of genes—inducing mitochondrial failure, immune system reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that persisted for months to years after injection!

These findings strongly suggest 3 alarming ramifications. First, these findings suggest that mRNA vaccines can induce gene expression profiles consistent with tumor formation and chronic disease. Secondly, this also suggests that mRNA-vaccinated individuals may be at heightened risk of cancer, immune dysfunction, and inflammatory disorders. Finally, the synthetic mRNA and long-lasting spike protein appear to create sustained cellular stress that disrupts normal genetic regulation. And so, evidently, it is time for the immediate withdrawal of these dangerous gene therapies to protect the population still considering booster doses.
PFIZER’S COVID-19 JAB GOES INTO LIVER CELLS AND IS CONVERTED TO DNA

By the way, this issue is seen also with liver cells. According to Swedish researchers at Lund University, the mRNA  from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA! SO, the researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA. The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA. Now, reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus. And of course you can conduct your own research about, especially the difference between the normal and reverse transcription process.

However, what remains important to note from this information is this: this whole process of reverse transcription occurred rapidly within six hours. And yet… the vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen! And so, they lied about the relationship between the mRNA jab and the human DNA – something that the President of Loveworld Inc. has always made plain: mRNA affects, and makes editable, the human DNA! 

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso