STANFORD UNIVERSITY, BARACK OBAMA AND A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

In spring 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, outlining a broad plan for government oversight of social media via the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Just six days later, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board,” intended to monitor and shape online information in (frankly) a manner that can be likened to an authoritarian truth ministry.

Central to Obama’s framework was a provision empowering the National Science Foundation to finance ostensibly independent nonprofits tasked with moderating online content. This proxy-censorship model—pioneered by DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory—had actually already been deployed in 2020 to flag election-related posts and in 2021 to target vaccine-skeptic narratives, sidestepping First Amendment constraints.

Now, president Donald Trump’s 2024 victory markedly curtailed these initiatives; and this is considering that his administration stripped funding from key elements of the Censorship Industrial Complex. In addition, the Platform Accountability Act (which sought to hold the owners of social media platforms accountable for content posted on their platforms) stalled in Congress. And at Twitter (now X), Elon Musk dismissed the bulk of its content-moderation team, broadening permissible speech. Meanwhile, even prior to the election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt withdrew support from the Internet Observatory after investigative reporting by research and free speech advocacy platform Public and Racket News, alongside probes led by House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, revealed its pivotal role in the DHS proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. We saw this, for instance, when Facebook complied with the Biden-Harris administration’s demands to censor speech because Facebook needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. Similarly, the Brazilian government tried to force Elon Musk to censor the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And so, this is the fundamental issue with this proxy-censorship model—pioneered by the DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

Now, an investigation has revealed that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center—directed by Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration—is central to a secretive and potentially unlawful censorship program that surpasses in scope the one Obama floated in 2022. In particular, on September 24th, the Center convened a closed-door dinner involving its leadership and senior censorship regulators from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia. Dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape,” the event was funded by Frank McCourt—the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory—via his Project Liberty Institute (or PLI), to which he has committed $500 million to apparently “bolster democracy” and promote “ethical technology.”

Well, the research and free speech advocacy platform Public contacted all 21 attendees and organisers of the closed door dinner dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape” by email but received responses from only four: being the PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union. The EU declined to comment, citing insufficient time (despite a 24-hour window), with a spokesperson stating, (quote) “We would need several days.”

The UK government also responded to state that (quote): “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

I’d like for us to then discuss why Regulators like Ofcom do NOT meet regularly to share what can be thought to be plausible insights, experience, and best practice. In fact, when you look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, you get to understand that these gatherings among regulators are about devising their respective roles in a proxy-censorship model.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT IS A TOOL OF A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

As you’d be aware, the Online Safety Act is legislation in the UK that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

Now, in light of this act and its part in the proxy-censorship complex, I’d like to rehash a crucial point about the UK in particular. The point is this: Beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself. 

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

But, information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renee Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Kindly have a listen as Paul Coleman explains how the global war on X, free speech, and Elon Musk was actually years in the making and includes a UN effort to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Weaponising the law in pursuit of trying to use these 7 areas for their agenda; and what it means that at the centre of the projects being pursued by the globalist is Bill Gates, through his philantro-capitalism. Let’s begin with the weaponisation of laws.

Once again, God’s Prophet to the Nations and the President of Loveworld Inc, being the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., re-echoed the warning against the satanic plans of globalists, in which they intend to use various other methods to try to control nations, looking at 7 areas that these respective globalist figures intend to manipulate. A key medium for their manipulative efforts is the weaponisation of the law, and there are important reasons why this is the case.

The first is that laws are a socialisation agent; and one that is often ignored. When we talk about socialisation agents, the tendency is to think about the most social aspects of society and thus restrict the definition of socialisation agents to entities like one’s family, school, social group, and similar considerations. But laws are actually a massive socialisation agent – when you consider the relationship that society and government has with the law.

For our collective clarity, when we speak of socialisation agents, we speak of those individuals, groups, or institutions that influence how a person learns and even internalises what are presented as the values, norms, and acceptable behaviours of their society. As a result, these socialisation agents play a crucial role in shaping an individual’s social development and (more broadly) their understanding of the world.

Here’s how laws are socialisation agents: the values, norms and behaviours of a society do not exist in a vacuum, and are thus often susceptible to some influence and change – positive or otherwise. Driving this change are the interests of certain groups, or at times even the government. And how the government influences or changes these societal values, norms and behaviours is by systematically nudging people to begin to think and act a certain way through legislating a new set of values, norms and behaviours.

So, this is quite significant because when a law is implemented, there are usually subtle or overt propaganda efforts that purport the legitimacy of that law. For example, the UK government keeps claiming that the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and so when they say that enough about the Online Safety Act, that begins to be what people associate with it. This measure is also significant because it preys on the more liberal inclinations of certain sects of society and the impressionable minds of a younger generation without pre-existing ideals. Again, in the UK, the end of life Bill failed to pass years ago with an older more conservative society, but it passed in newer more liberally inclined one, where even younger members of society claimed they wanted so-called merciful deaths for their aging relatives.

Now, as stated earlier, we see this socialisation capacity of the law play out positively and negatively: on the one hand, we saw people in liberal democracies where the freedom of movement was supposed to be guaranteed, be systematically nudged to suddenly accept being imprisoned in their homes in the name of “flattening the curve”, because the law dictated that it was illegal to move at will. On the other hand, we see governments enact laws against the gender mutilation of children to systematically nudge society away from assuming the inherent correctness of sex changes. And so, the point is not that all laws are bad and manipulative, but it is to highlight that law is very much a socialisation agent, and that governments use it as such. And knowing this, globalists also want to use laws to try to enforce a new set of values, norms and behaviours in society – which paints a picture of how systemic their vain ambitions are. And here’s the President of Loveworld Incorporated warning about the weaponisation of laws, and emphasising our role as the Church in this time.

The second reason globalists have this diabolical ambition to weaponise laws is because – in addition to laws being socialisation agents – they often come with the expectation of general application. This is because laws typically demand compliance, and in order to enforce that compliance, it should be expected of all if not the majority of people. Therefore, weaponising laws for globalists is about trying to use the law to guarantee a massive impact of their pursuits – ensuring that their diabolical efforts are of general applications, with few exceptions.

Here’s an example, if you regularly watch ‘The War Room’, you would know I do not regard international law and actual law because it has no enforcement capacity. For the most part, all it tends to be is a bunch of agreements that nations may choose to organise resources and enforcement capacity to achieve, usually through incorporating some aspects of the international agreement into an act from the legislative body – otherwise, international law is inconsequential. At best they could either sanction nations to try to disincentive certain conduct, or offer trade benefits to encourage it – but, again, otherwise, international law is inconsequential.

Now, I think the globalists caught on to this reality, because they then weaponised domestic law, capacity and enforcement towards a diabolical, international law-related agenda, which is the pandemic accord and the international health regulations. More specifically, the amendments to the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by-passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land; but also that they capture domestic enforcement mechanisms to enact their agenda. And so, this desire to make laws of general application, while also capturing domestic enforcement capacity is another reason why globalists want to weaponise the law for their 7 fold agendas.

Then the final consideration on why globalists want to weaponise the law, is that they wish to evade accountability, and so they want to make governments legislate things in their favour. There are two key examples that attest to this. First is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. This Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

Second is Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

BILL GATES: AT THE CENTRE OF GLOBALIST PROJECTS THROUGH PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM

This then brings us to the second part of our discussion, in which we address the fact of bill Gates being at the centre of the  globalist plans exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., and this being done through his modus operandi of philantro-capitalism. In essence, through his philantro-capitalism, Bill Gates transformed himself from a tech villain into one of the most seemingly admired people on the planet. Even as allegations of misconduct have recently tarnished his public image, the beneficence of the Gates Foundation, celebrated for spending billions to save lives around the globe, is taken as a given. But as investigations have revealed, Gates is still exactly who he was at Microsoft: a bully and monopolist, convinced of his own righteousness and intent on imposing his ideas, his solutions, and his leadership on everyone else. At the core, he is not a selfless philanthropist but a power broker, a clever engineer who has innovated a way to turn extreme wealth into immense political influence—and who has made some people believe that they should applaud his acquisition of power, and not challenge it – something that the president of Loveworld Inc. and God’s Prophet to the Nations has exposed.

But, like the media, Gates also uses gaslighting inorder to sanitise and justify his diabolical philatro–capitalism dealings. For instance, Gates once exclaimed in an interview that he has been taken aback by the volume of (what he calls) “crazy” and “evil” conspiracy theories about him and Dr. Anthony Fauci spread on social media during the COVID-19 plandemic – which is an interesting attitude towards people demanding accountability from people like him, who had imposed a tyrannical order, during the pandemic.

THE COST OF BILL GATES’ PHILANTRO-CAPITALISM ON RECEPIENT NATIONS

Now, there is a notable reason why Bill Gates has pursued philantro-capitalism, which answers the question of what is the cost of being a recipient nation of his schemes, falsely presented as philanthropic works. In particular, Gates’s billions have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but also ineffective. In many places, Bill Gates is hurting the very people he claims to help.

Now, you’d also recall that Bill Gates has openly articulated his belief the world needs billions less people. Everything he does, supports, and funds, actively promotes achieving his psychotic death wish for those he considers useless eaters. Gates funded Event 201 in October 2019, laying out the master plan for the Covid plandemic, while at the same time funding the vaccines for a disease that supposedly didn’t exist yet. Of course, he was also front and centre in pushing billions across the globe to be injected with this untested toxic DNA altering concoction. It is now unequivocally provable these vaccines killed millions immediately, millions more slowly and methodically, and stopped millions more from ever being born by drastically altering the fertility of young people who had ZERO risk from covid, but were forced to be injected by the authorities and their bought off lackeys.

Let’s zoom into Gates’ claims that his involvement in the health affairs of nations is about a rational and humane decrease in human population. He claims that they are merely making information and products for better health available, which in turn encourages families to decide to have fewer children. This is a weird argument and it’s sad that not a lot of people have said this to Bill Gates and his team at the Gates Foundation. First, this claim by Bill Gates presupposes that parents who choose to have more children typically lack knowledge and products that promote their health and wellbeing, which also sounds like the people Gates is supposedly talking about have a perpetual inclination to making bad decisions that leave them in worse conditions – no! Being fruitful and multiplying is not a consequence of poor health education and products.

Secondly, one would expect that when health becomes better, parents would want to have more children because the health facilities required for adequate care are more available. And so, this tells us something about the Gates’ Foundation proposed solutions for health – they likely contribute to population decline, especially when we look at vaccines and how they have destroyed the reproductive capacity of many around the world, if not killed the vaccine recipients completely.

Well, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war against the cancer epidemic in children, and to begin with: 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 during an interview with Tucker Carlson, 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.

STUDIES ARE LINKING mRNA JABS TO THE ACCELERATION OF 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 Neo7Bioscience (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.

DNA IN THE VACCINE VIALS MAY BE CAPABLE OF CHANGING HUMAN DNA

Now, since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify the human gene by combining their sequences with the human genome. However, “Fact-checkers” refuted this, stating that mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA. And it’s not only Kevin McKernan: human biologist, professor Ulrike Kämmerer, PhD, at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany conducted earlier stages of this research. Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that around half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating they had absorbed the vaccines.

Well, Kevin McKernan (who was among the researchers of the study we just referenced) – he then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells, as well as their descendant cells, contained vaccine DNA. After this, he tested to see if any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells since it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk. However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA integration are less clear. Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory. Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure the integration is not a result of misreading or random error. Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was only detected on two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results.

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!

VACCINE MANUFACTURERS KNEW THE VACCINES COULD CAUSE CANCER

By the way, this is not new information for vaccine manufacturers – they knew vaccines have this effect on DNA, and were especially aware of the cancer causing capacity or mRNA. In fact, Pfizer put cancer causing agents in their vaccine!

So, all of this, explains why mRNA vaccines are linked to cancer, but why doctors are seeing a surge in cancers in children – it is a ramification of the mass COVID vaccination campaign!

FOOD COMPANIES ARE ALSO CULPABLE FOR THE CANCER EPIDEMIC IN CHILDREN 

Let’s bring in food companies as additional culprits in the childhood cancer epidemic – and we especially have to focus on herbicide producers. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the world’s most widely used weed control agents. Public health concerns have increased since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. To further investigate the health effects of glyphosate and Glyphosate-based herbicides, the Ramazzini Institute launched the Global Glyphosate Study (GGS), which is designed to test a wide range of toxicological outcomes.

For the duration of the study, glyphosate and two GBHs, Roundup Bioflow used in the European Union (EU) and RangerPro used in the U.S., were administered to male and female Sprague–Dawley rats, beginning at gestational day 6 (via maternal exposure) through to 104 weeks of age; and glyphosate was administered through drinking water at three doses.

Well, the findings from the study showed that in all 3 treatment groups, statistically significant dose-related increased trends or increased incidences of benign and malignant tumors at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to historical and concurrent controls. These tumors arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in Sprague–Dawley rats (with a background incidence of less than 1%) and yet after exposure ot the GBHs, 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurred before 52 weeks of age and increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumors. This tells us that these GBHs, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are highly carcinogenic!

But, the study referenced, while it does predominantly focus on rats, is intended to show the dangers that emanate from GBHs. And so, I think not only does it offer insight for the rise of cancers in children, but jarring also in pets. Which I think is a massive indicator because pets are most exposed to environmental factors, that might be a cause for concerns – from food, to vaccines and household chemicals. For instance, the average life of a golden retriever used to be 17 years, but now it is in the single digits, and they often die from cancer or diabetes. Evidently, this tells us that there must be a change in environmental factors that needs to be investigated, especially given that these changes are parallel to the epidemic of cancer in children.

On top of this, it is crucial to remember that the current American agriculture system origin story involves large chemical companies – if you got a chance to follow the expose of food companies on one of our programmes called ‘Starting Point’ here on LN24 International, you would have noted that Monsanto, for instance, was one of nine wartime government contractors who manufactured Agent Orange from 1965 to 1969. As a result, in the status quo, 85% of the food people consume started from a patented seed sold by a chemical corporation that was responsible for creating a chemical weapon that was used in the Vietnam War, and has biological ramifications that are still felt even today!

AGROCHEMICAL COMPANIES ARE TAKING A PAGE FROM BIG PHARMA’S PLAYBOOK

And yet, in the midst of these concerns, Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso