SENATOR RAND PAUL, AND THE RENEWED CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI

 “The Renewed Criminal Referral of Anthony Fauci”, and to begin with, ever since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out worldwide in early 2020, Anthony Fauci has been at the center of it. Well, it has been about 5 years later now and no one has been held accountable. In light of this, Senator Rand Paul has said it has been Fauci who must be held accountable; in fact, Senator Rand Paul insisted that the evidence pointed to COVID-19 originating at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where gain-of-function research was happening – and that it all pointed to Fauci.

But, now there is a vested interest in pursuing criminal action against Fauci, and it this becomes more apparent as Senator Rand Paul renewed his criminal referral of Dr Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice on Tuesday, accusing the former NIH director of orchestrating a cover-up related to NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that allegedly contributed to 18 million global COVID-19 deaths. Paul cited Freedom of Information Act emails showing Fauci’s awareness of the research despite his congressional testimony denying NIH involvement, along with allegations of record destruction and perjury. This follows Paul’s prior referrals in 2023 and 2025, amid ongoing debates over the pandemic’s origins and potential preemptive pardon by President Biden.

In addition, Fauci has been accused by some of overreach and has faced calls for LEGAL accountability. Of course, this has been a subject of interest for many, especially those who experienced significant harm and loss as a result of the made-up covid responses and even the COVID jabs and boosters.

And so, we have to have a detailed discussion on what legal accountability would entail and explicitly establish that Fauci has in fact committed a crime. In light of this, a crime is generally understood as being a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law. Different nations may have aspects of the law that are unique to their relative context, but when it comes to criminal law – this is typically standard across different jurisdictions. And so, what is key to establish for the purpose of our discussion, and also in light of the criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, is Fauci’s culpability in committing unlawful conduct. In addition, there must be a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the resulting consequence or harm to the (literal) millions of people in the US and the world at large. But, before we proceed, here is what Senator Rand Paul had to say concerning the rationale behind the renewed criminal referral.

WHY THE CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI WAS INITIATED TO BEGIN WITH

But, while we speak of the renewed criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, it is worth noting why this criminal referral was initiated to begin with. In essence, Senator Rand Paul long pointed to an email from February 2020 in which Fauci detailed a call with British medical researcher Jeremy Farrar, who was director of the Wellcome Trust at the time. According to Fauci, those on the task force call, including Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other “highly credible” scientists with expertise in evolutionary biology, expressed concern about the “fact upon viewing the sequences of several isolates of the nCoV, there were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats and that there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.”

“The suspicion was heightened by the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine the molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan.

DID FAUCI COMMIT UNLAWFUL CONDUCT RELATING TO THE COVID VIRUS AND PLANDEMIC RESPONSE?

And so, let’s begin by asking whether Fauci committed unlawful conduct (1) first, while leading the NIAID, (2) second, in his role in the plandemic response that was coerced on states and nations, and (3) thirdly even possibly with respect to the creation and leak of the virus itself. Well, right of the bat, it certainly appears so because in July 2024, the US District Attorneys began working together to criminally charge ANTHONY FAUCI with racketeering, collusion in creating the Wuhan virus and premeditated murder of thousands via Remdesivir and the Covid jabs.

Frankly, we could stop here – because this fairly establishes Fauci’s culpability in both the creation of the COVID virus, and the plandemic response; including the interventions used, being Remdesivir and the Covid jabs – all pointing to unlawful conduct. But, this is not even the gist or end of Fauci’s unlawful conduct. Back in the month of May, Lawrence Tabak, the Principal Deputy Director of the NIH, confirmed that Anthony Fauci committed a federal crime by providing false testimony to Congress under oath. Under US Code Title 18 and section 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false statements to Congress. The penalties for such an offense can include up to five years in prison.

Then there is the abuse of children. In particular, Fauci used children as guinea pigs for so-called medical interventions. Fauci made sure that none of those children had guardians, which is illegal, and then he hid what he was doing to his board. In addition to all of this, Fauci was also disposing of the corpses of these children who died in illegal experiments.

ASSESSING FAUCI’S MALICIOUS INTENT TO HARM THROUGH COVID PROTOCOLS

Having established Fauci’s unlawful conduct, we then also have to assess whether Fauci acted maliciously to cause harm. For clarity, malicious intent is the intentional desire to cause harm, damage, or injury to someone or something. It is the kind of misconduct that is NOT due to, say, laziness or ignorance, but rather it is a conscious decision to act in a harmful way. Well, with respect to this, not only did Fauci act with malicious intent to cause harm, but he has even done this before in relation to a different case.

First, the proof of Fauci’s malicious intent to cause harm is found in his intentional distortion of information and scientific fact, especially seen in the plandemic responses – including the claimed safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs. In fact, even he conceded that it was mostly guess work or discussions he does not recall, and yet, they formed mandates on their guesses, and subjected society to them.

Secondly, Fauci’s malicious intent is also seen with his dismissive attitude towards the inalienable freedom of choice and the bodily autonomy of people. In particular, he intentionally contributed to a plandemic response that would make vaccine mandates inescapable, thus robbing individuals of the ability to make an informed choice on whether to take the vaccine, while some (among those who did not take it) lost their jobs and livelihoods. This binary outcome where you either take the jab or lose access to basic necessities, or institutions in society was intentionally curated with malice, as you’re about to hear Fauci express. And this resurfaced during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing, in which Representative Dr Rich McCormick, being a medical doctor himself, questioned Fauci on him making it difficult for people to live their lives in dignity, and robbing them of the ability to make informed healthcare decisions.

BUT, as alluded to, Fauci has also done this prior; that is to say, he has previously acted with malicious intent to cause harm before! In particular, this relates to the drug AZT. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. It was said to be powerful, but unspecific, meaning that the drug was not selective in its cell destruction. Well, Fauci pushed AZT, and it killed an estimated 330,000 people. AND, When doctors found effective treatments as a much safer and plausible alternative, Fauci proceeded to silence them – REFUSING to test those alternatives. All of this is to say that Fauci is not new to the unlawful conduct of maliciously harming people, while instituting measures to silence others.

DID FAUCI BENEFIT FROM THE COVID RESPONSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

But, then following this, additional evidence of culpability and malicious intent is found in how Fauci benefited financially from the curated and made-up Covid response at the expense of others. According to RFK Jr, not only does the NIH get the royalty [from the Moderna injection], but the individuals who work for Anthony Fauci, they each get what they call patent margin rights. So they’re gonna collect royalties – around $150,000 a year forever, potentially, from those vaccines. [PAUSE] This reveals that the COVID response was a coordinated effort, for which he knew the likely outcome, hence he was able to profit from it.

Furthermore, in his 492-page book, Robert F. Kennedy reveals how Fauci committed a crime against humanity. In particular, as NIAID Director, Fauci controlled $6.1 billion in annual research funding. NIAID’s funds are expected to improve American health, as well as to eliminate viral allergic illnesses and autoimmune diseases. However, under Fauci’s watch, the chronic disease crisis has become worse. The turning point came in 2000. In Gates’ $127 million mansion, him and Fauci forged an alliance. Their goal was a vaccine empire with unlimited expansion potential. Gates called it “philanthropic capitalism” (which you would have heard him speak about). But, what this meant is that public health became their vehicle for diabolical plans, while profit became their engine.

EVEN IF FAUCI CLAIMS DENIABILITY, HE STILL ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Assuming that Fauci would attempt to claim deniability, it would also be possible to show that he engaged in a crime of omission through negligence – based on his words. So, Fauci knows that COVID was not a naturally forming virus, and that it was leaked in the lab in Wuhan – because the US worked with China on that virus and leak. However, in private communication, Fauci would merely concede that the COVID virus does not seem natural, BUT, he proceeded to commission the publishing of the ‘Proximal Origins’ letter (which you’d recall from our previous discussions), and this letter, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine on 17 March 2020, was written by a group of virologists including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes and Robert Garry. The authors examined possibilities of an accidental leak of a natural or manipulated virus from a laboratory, and (very deceptively) concluded that genomic analyses indicated that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”. So, Fauci’s crime of omission here was not investigating his suspicions as a person curating a pandemic response! He is therefore responsible for silencing critical discourse in 2020 on the origins of COVID.

ACCOUNTABILITY AS THE RESULT OF THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH

All of this is to say that there was a lot of planning that went into the COVID hoax, with premeditated outcomes – thus making it easy to establish Fauci’s criminal liability. HOWEVER, if they had it their way, this would not even be a conversation – because they wanted absolute control over people and a monopoly on truth. BUT, they did not plan for the Church of Jesus Christ!

In fact, you’d recall that Anthony Fauci came to Washington even on January 8th last year to answer questions on how he flipped his position on public policy for masks, how the agency he headed funded risky research in China, and how post-infection immunity was downplayed – especially as a chief architect of the US’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was behind closed doors for two days of questioning from the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. And this was the first time he answered questions under oath since November 2022. Members of the panel asked Fauci about how he flipped positions on mask policy, seeing that he started from the position that masks wouldn’t work to curb transmission of COVID-19, according to emails he sent in early 2020, to then being an ardent supporter of not only wearing masks but mandating masks. Last year, he was also confronted by Senator Rand Paul in a committee hearing about statements he made concerning natural immunity; and this next clip is from the committee hearing in 2022.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that the relevant stakeholders do not hide behind legal loopholes. Which brings us to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, the vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

In addition, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

Similarly, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

In simple terms, Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she works/worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

By the way, ARPA-H is also modeled after DARPA, meaning that an alleged health research body is modelled to function as a military body – which is why I’ve often argued that the COVID plandemic policies were a militarised response, and not a health response. Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

This information came to the fore after Susan Monarez was nominated by Trump for CDC Director, many of his voters argued that she is not consistent with the vision for which Americans who voted for Trump expect to see implemented. Furthermore, people who were implicated in the consolidation of the COVID plandemic and the tyrannical pandemic preparedness efforts, are likely incompatible with the ambitions of an administration that is against such an abuse of power. Therefore, Susan Monarez, who also worked in the Biden-Harris administration, was likely going to be against a lot of what the Trump administration stands for anyways. Which is even exemplified by the fact that Susan Monarez was (in part) fired as CDC Director for trying to keep mRNA shots on the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and claiming that “vaccines save lives”.

And so, I think both these points (especially from the point of view of what voters want) (once again), as far as the Trump administration is concerned, Susan Monarez was removed because her works and inclinations are incongruous with what the VOTERS behind the second Trump administration want – and this is the catalyst that led to other CDC leadership like Demetre Daskalakis resigning: it is because they shared in Susan Monarez’s works and inclinations, which were against what voters wanted from the second Trump administration.

So, having covered this recapitulation or contextual background for today’s discussion, we ought then to proceed to analyse the letter that has become a notable feature in the present discourse pertaining to the CDC.

THE ISSUES WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER FROM DEMETRE DASKALAKIS

So, when Demetre Daskalakis resigned as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, his letter to leadership carried a tone of finality and moral conviction . In the letter, he declared “Enough is enough,” explaining that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s leadership had made it impossible for him to continue. As alluded to earlier, those on the left (and certainly the far left) have praised the letter as being principled, but when read closely it is less a defense of science than a portrait of the very rhetorical habits that drove the public to distrust the CDC in the first place: particularly rhetorical habits that include appeals to authority, catastrophic predictions, ad hominem attacks, and factual distortions.

Consider his charge that he can no longer serve in an environment that (quote) “treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.” First, this is a false dichotomy; in that it frames the choice as binary: either one accepts the CDC’s so-called “scientific reality,” or one is accused of designing policies to harm. Yet the last five years have shown what most Americans already know: which is that what CDC has called “science” has often been neither transparent nor replicable, but political judgment dressed in a white coat. And this includes associates of the CDC and the plandemic response, when we consider that when asked in a hearing, Fauci conceded that six foot distance during covid was not based on scientific evidence, and was rather a product of this thinking that this was a reasonable idea.

In any case, Demetre Daskalakis further accuses the new HHS of narrative enforcement, when, in reality, the CDC has become infamous for the same on his watch. Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates were not the inevitable products of neutral science — they were policy choices, frequently contradicted by the very data the CDC refused to release. Kennedy did not cause that collapse of trust. Power overreach and failed policy did.

And in light of our reference to Fauci, I found it funny that when his credibility was being ruined by his lies and back-tracking statements (like we just saw), in 2024, Fauci did not hesitate to make it clear that the CDC was the responsible party for the implausible guidelines articulated during the COVID plandemic – thus perhaps, inadvertently proving that the CDC is response for the collapse of trust towards it – not the second Trump administration of Robert F Kennedy.

But still, Daskalakis (in his letter) appeals to institutional sanctity. He states that (quote) “unvetted and conflicted outside organizations seem to be the sources that the Department of HHS uses over the gold standard science of the CDC.” [PAUSE] But, now, the claim that the CDC represents “gold standard science” rings hollow. The agency’s failures are well documented: think of the contaminated Covid tests, the shifting guidance on masks that left the public whiplashed, how the CDC withheld vaccine safety data buried in VAERS and VSD, and the FOIA evasions that stonewalled independent scrutiny. AND SO, to describe this record as “gold standard science” is an appeal to authority wholly unsupported by the evidence!

Then, furthermore, the catastrophism in Daskalakis’s letter is both striking while also ringing hollow. So, he warns that Kennedy’s policies will (quote) “bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer.” (end quote) Now, this is a combined fallacy: being both a false dichotomy and slippery slope. And this is because questioning the safety of excipients, the timing, number, or necessity of vaccines does not condemn the country to Darwinian misery.

In fact, mortality from infectious diseases like measles, pertussis, and diphtheria had already declined long before mass vaccination, thanks to sanitation, nutrition, and reduced exposure to livestock reservoirs. The fact of loss of protection due to waning immunity is not found in his resignation. But, in addition, balanced debate about risks and benefits does not mean “returning to the dark ages.” It means practicing science as it should be — open, skeptical, and transparent and with full accountability on scientific claims.

Then, finally on the catastrophism where Daskalakis claims that Kennedy’s policies will bring people “to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive”, this rhetoric becomes openly and unnecessarily hostile. And this is considering that in this letter, the new Kennedy-appointed and vaccine-critical ACIP members are dismissed as “people of dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor,” and Kennedy himself is cast as an “authoritarian leader.” These are ad hominem attacks, not arguments. They dismiss individuals rather than engage with data or reasoning. But, in contrast, here is what I think should be highlighted: the actions taken against people like the recently fired CDC Director Susan Monarez are not based on ad hominems from the Trump administration, but careful considerations of their failures and how incompatible they are with the mandate received. This is a crucial contrast, because these actions from the Trump administration reveal efforts towards institutional reform, and not the authoritarianism that people like Kennedy are accused of.

But then, the gravest claim in the letter by Daskalakis states that (quote) “eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated.” Meanwhile, Daskalakis gives us no quotations, policies, or documents to support this claim. AND YET, Ironically, the accusation is not only unsubstantiated but inverted. Kennedy has consistently warned against coercive health policies and corporate capture, both of which he argues worsen inequality. To portray the Trump administration’s emphasis on transparency and medical freedom as eugenics is a straw man — really, a distortion intended to silence rather than to debate.

But goes further, blaming Kennedy for violence. In particular, he states that (quote) “I am resigning because of the cowardice of a leader that cannot admit that his and his minions’ words over decades created an environment where violence like this can occur.”  So, this refers to a shooting at CDC. Again, no hint of evidence has been offered by Daskalakis or anyone else to connect Kennedy’s words to the crime. It is a post hoc fallacy, in which he is exploiting tragedy to smear a political opponent: it is shameless and ripens the fruit of his letter to rot.

DID THE BIDEN-ERA CDC EMPLOY A SATANIST TO MAKE HEALTH DECISIONS?

Then, finally, regarding the contents of the letter by Daskalakis, well, perhaps most jarring is his claim that Kennedy’s HHS has sought to (quote erase) “erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research to support equity.” This rhetoric here is catastrophic, baseless, and false. In reality, under Dr Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH has made HIV a top research priority. Far from “ceasing HIV programming,” Kennedy’s administration has pledged to tackle the epidemic with fresh eyes, free from the pharmaceutical capture that distorted earlier approaches. To suggest otherwise is not just hyperbole; it is disinformation.

But, now, if you’re wondering why discussion about the CDC necessitates references to transgender people, well, Dr Demetre Daskalakis was appointed to a senior CDC role as part of Biden’s push to diversify federal health leadership (in pursuit of DEI policies and standards)! He served as the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. And, notably, he claimed to have expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community – which is an aggravating thing to publish, because what does he mean “expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community”?! Outside of HIV/AIDS, I do not think that diseases like e-coli, influenza, or chickenpox manifest differently on people based on sexual orientation.

But, of course, DEI appointments were not really meant to be backed by credibility. People just had to be or say things that make them employable under DEI standards. But here’s more about the concerning person that Dr Demetre Daskalakis is, and why it has even led to questions concerning whether the Biden-Harris-era CDC employed a satanist to make health decisions that were affecting Americans?

THE URGENT NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AT THE CDC

But, let’s proceed to discuss the need for institutional reform. First, we’ve spoken about the fact that one of the fatal flaws of the CDC is that it always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID). It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies that president Trump and RFK Jr have been working to enact.

But, the twist is that the CDC interestingly has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer, which states that (quote): “CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

But, in actual fact, the CDC is prone to financial corruption through a legal loophole. One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to (quote) “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

HOWEVER, this problem is not just evident in the CDC Foundation, but also in the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or the ACIP). In particular, a Congressional report confirmed that the CDC’s ACIP has been compromised since the 1990s! In particular, in the year 2000, a House report revealed that 7 of 10 ACIP rotavirus advisers had direct conflicts; not only this but members voted on vaccines while holding pharma stock or patents; every member received a conflict-of-interest waiver—”freely”; the ACIP also approved Rotashield before FDA licensing—and the pharmaceutical was later pulled for harming infants; and finally, since the year 2020, the ACIP had rubber-stamped mRNA shots despite mass injury and death. But, this issue of jarring rubber stamps for vaccines occurred even in 2018, as you’re about to see in this excerpt from an ACIP meeting.

Evidently, this shows that the CDC (and its ACIP) are implicated in the staggering financial conflict of interest at the heart of America’s vaccine schedule! In fact, Dr Paul Offit, who is a frequent CNN medical analyst and leading voice for vaccines, sat on the very committee (being the ACIP) that voted to add a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule.

While on the committee, Dr Offit had his own rotavirus vaccine in development. By voting to mandate the entire category, he virtually guaranteed a market for his own product—a competitive lock-in. The vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies—a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then what happened next is that his vaccine, developed with partners Stanley Plotkin and et al., it replaced the failed one; all while he remained on the committee. Then he and his partners sold that vaccine to the pharmaceutical company Merck for $186 million – to which he told Newsweek that he had “won the lottery.” But, in actual fact, Dr Offit did NOT win the lottery; he voted himself rich. Which means that this is NOT just a conflict of interest; it is a catastrophic breach of public trust. And this is because the very experts that were tasked with safeguarding children’s health were making decisions that directly led to a massive personal windfall, after a voted-on product HARMED children. And so, evidently, this is the rot at the core of the system that has necessitated institutional reform in the CDC. It is not just that there is corruption, it is that those who are corrupt are so emboldened that they are even making hundred million dollar deals to profit from this corruption!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about 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. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury 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.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the cancellation of $500 million in federal funding for mRNA vaccine research and development. The funding had been allocated to projects aimed at countering respiratory viruses such as Covid-19 and seasonal influenza.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who took office earlier this year, stated that the decision was made due to growing concerns over the safety and efficacy of mRNA-based vaccines when used against these types of viruses.

“After a thorough review, we have determined that mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses,” Kennedy said during a press briefing. “We must prioritize public trust and safety in all of our health initiatives.”

The funding cut affects several public-private partnerships and research programs, many of which were initiated in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and expanded under the government’s pandemic preparedness strategy.

Controversial Legacy of mRNA Tech
mRNA vaccine technology rose to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic, praised for its rapid development timeline and adaptability. However, it also faced intense scrutiny over its long-term safety, side effects, and the role of vaccine mandates, which Kennedy referred to as “coercive” and “divisive.”

“The pandemic response fractured public trust,” Kennedy said. “Moving forward, our health strategy must be rooted in transparency, choice, and proven science.”

Public Reaction Mixed
The move has sparked mixed reactions across the political and scientific spectrum. Critics argue that mRNA research still holds promise, especially for developing vaccines against cancer and other diseases, while supporters of the decision praise the administration for reevaluating government spending priorities and responding to public sentiment.

Italy has officially rejected the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2024 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), joining the United States in expressing deep concerns over what critics are calling an overreach into national sovereignty.

In a formal letter addressed to WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Italian Health Minister Orazio Schillaci confirmed Italy’s refusal to adopt the amendments. The letter outlines apprehensions over what the Italian government views as a threat to democratic accountability and the independence of national health systems.

Deputy Foreign Minister Edmondo Cirielli described the proposed WHO changes as “bureaucratic centralism,” warning that such measures could allow unelected international officials to impose health-related restrictions on member states without sufficient national consultation or parliamentary debate.

“Italy stands firmly on the principle that each sovereign nation must retain the authority to determine its own response to public health emergencies,” Cirielli said in a statement. “No external body should override our democratic process or health policy decisions.”

Health Minister Schillaci echoed these sentiments, arguing that the WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant shortcomings. “Rather than expanding its authority, the WHO should reflect on its limitations and build a more accountable and responsive framework,” he said.

The 2024 amendments to the IHR were introduced to strengthen global pandemic preparedness by giving the WHO increased powers to declare emergencies and coordinate international responses. Proponents argue that these reforms are necessary to prevent future global health crises from spiraling out of control. However, critics fear that the changes may lead to the erosion of national autonomy and constitutional rights.

Italy’s decision signals growing resistance among some member states to global health centralization efforts. It also highlights a broader debate over the role of international organizations in national decision-making, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of current global health governance.

It remains to be seen how this growing opposition will affect the future of the WHO’s reforms, which require broad consensus among member nations to take effect. Meanwhile, Rome has reaffirmed its commitment to international cooperation but on its own terms.

The war against the pandemic industrial complex, and we ought to begin with some recapitulation. To begin with, it is essential to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.

More specifically, the draft pandemic accord has been under development for three years by delegates of 194 Member States of the World Health Organization. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a pandemic treaty or accord allegedly to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).

But, here’s where we find the concerning context behind the pandemic accord and the amendments to the international health regulations. In essence, the IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, less than 48 hours after negotiations on them finished. This haste was in blatant violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements! Meanwhile, in December 2021, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate the pandemic agreement, but this body failed to reach agreement for the 2024 world health assembly.

Following this failure, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was then mandated “to finish its work as soon as possible” and no later than a year. The reason for this is that the WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director-General (DG) recently claiming that (quote) “the next pandemic could occur tomorrow.” However, the problem with this manufactured sense of urgency is that it is not based on a sincere interest to prepare against genuine health concerns, since for one viruses and lab leaks do not occur naturally. But, secondly, the pandemic accord is drafted to orchestrate a power grab. This is to say that drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralise management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health, all while undermining the sovereignty of nations. But, ultimately, what this hastened nature of the pandemic accord and the IHR amendments shows is that its acceleration emerges out of political interest, and not organic necessity – especially seeing that the WHO even undermined its own regulations in the process.

However when we consider that the WHO is not a genuine health-focused body, and instead is one that has been working against the advancement in good health practices while pushing a bacteriological warfare agenda, this context is not difficult to appreciate. However, what should be jarring is that the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”

DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS

Let’s talk about a development in light of the IHRs. For clarity, the IHR are an existing legal agreement outlining the rights and responsibilities of WHO and its member states in handling international public health events, while the Pandemic Accord is a potential new international agreement being negotiated to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response. Therefore, the IHRs and the Pandemic Agreement serve complementary but somewhat distinct purposes in global health governance – differing primarily in scope, objectives, and focus (but are ultimately serving the same purpose – which is the functionality of the WHO, and its potential increase in power), hence, they IHR and the pandemic accord are often discussed in conjunction. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on amendments to the IHR since 2005.

Well, much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and this is what countries would be making themselves subject to after July 19th, if they do not withdraw. However, many nations are actually raising concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed, and conflict of interest – and we ought to emphasise why these are valid concerns, and not mere considerations that do not end up having a weight in the value judgments made by nations concerning the IHR, and the pandemic accord.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS CURATE AN EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY

But, first, with IHR, on Saturday 19 July, amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) become binding international law (which I think is a dangerous paradoxical statement). In any case, these IHR give the WHO legal authority to influence lockdowns, travel, medical mandates and digital health IDs across major Western nations. How this happens is that through these amendments, the WHO can declare a global emergency — even if there’s no outbreak in your country. That means unelected officials in Geneva could trigger lockdowns, jab campaigns, or border closures in your city based on events somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in the current amendments to the IHR, they deleted the requirement that health measures respect your dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those exact words are scrubbed, and are replaced with vague “equity” language that paves the way for coercion & censorship. Then, because they know that international law is not actually binding (like we;ve discussed previously here on The War Room, the amendments 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.

Then, if after Saturday 19th, your government is pressed to exit, they have made that option incredibly difficult. This is because July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. And so, the fact that we are having this conversation now is quite jarring seeing that many leaders and citizens have been speaking out against this attempt at a power grab for years.

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS ALSO DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Now, I mentioned earlier that the IHR and the pandemic accord ultimately serve the same purpose even though they are presented as different bodies of law. And to drive this further, I’d like to indicate how parallel (and frankly identical) their provisions are when it comes to the erosion of sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’d like for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.

Let’s directly respond to this. In essence, while Article 3 of the pandemic accord affirms national sovereignty (on paper), the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (especially when you look at Articles 31–33). And this happens because these provisions empower the WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through: (1) a global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (according to Article 12); a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (according to Article 13); a Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (according to Article 18); and a National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (according to Articles 4, 6, 16). And then to top it off, once ratified, countries would be expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, thus subjecting national decision-making to international influence. And so, while article 3 of the pandemic accord is paraded as a preliminary response to concerns of the erosion of sovereignty, the entire accord completely disregards it in various avenues!

Furthermore, this means that the global concept of (quote-unquote) “One Health” remains in the pandemic agreement. And One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” This therefore introduces a problematic expansion of the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies!

KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

It does not stop there, because there are a number of detrimental provisions that are outlined in the pandemic agreement, detailed in various articles of the document. First, the WHO pandemic agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorisations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (through Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (which you see in Article 12.6). And what this is aimed towards is a global deployment of more experimental injections.

Secondly, there is no built-in liability or compensation for injuries. This is to say that although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. To add to this, Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests the WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.

Then thirdly, the pandemic agreement further lays groundwork for vaccine passports and digital surveillance! In Article 6.3, the agreement mandates development of inter-operable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance, which culminates in vaccine passports.

MEANWHILE, THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS ARE A MONEY MAKING PLOT

What is most aggravating about this discourse on the IHR and the pandemic accord is the fact that it is all ultimately a plot by greedy psychopathic people who want to make more money. More specifically, in the 20 years prior to Covid-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (and you can find this in the section on “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) deaths are attributed to Swine flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. IN CONTRAST, about 1.3 million people are reported to die yearly from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. But, undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak like swine flu and ebola constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.

Then, the World Bank teamed up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in their official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases; such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But, to justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high-burden diseases, they needed to show that pandemics cost economies far more. And what they did is that they presented a graph, in which they drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e. probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then they drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.

Based on this graph, covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria, and HIV combined. This means that the WHO considers a virus with a less than 1 percent mortality rate (being the COVID virus) to require orders of magnitude more finances than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years. This math does not make sense, except you’re trying to justify funnelling money towards the pandemic industrial complex!

And this is not even the gist of it all: there is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media, and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. It is a deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations, and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member States go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.

And so, even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, if nations are not careful and quick to use this opportunity to resist this agenda, they may come into force in their respective nations. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid; taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting this agenda – it is nothing short of diabolical and abhorrent and a threat to the principles of sovereignty and the more plausible aspects of democracy that we are supposed to protect.

THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the WHO is not even competent to be given such a potentially expanded role. And here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.

For starters, the WHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for Covid, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus as reports increased of spread in the population in Wuhan, China, and subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates.

Then secondly, despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from Covid-19 to children, the WHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children – which in various contexts, set the scene for drastic ramifications such as crippling education quality, and youth suicidality. The WHO’s COVAX mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly $10 billion vaccinating people it knew were mostly already immune, and never at high risk.

In addition, and in an effort to promote its pandemic preparedness prevention response agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, the WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign of demonstrable misrepresentation and confusion. Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment. And so, ironically, while the pandemic accord calls for so-called “better adherence to honesty and evidence”, it evidently directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself. But, president Donald Trump long exposed these issues of corruption and manipulation in the WHO, as early as 2023, and even prior – in his first administration.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso