The Netflix Boycott: A Market-Driven Reckoning for Corporate Wokeness

There has been recent backlash against Netflix which has sparked a market-driven reckoning for corporate wokeness, with the streaming wars becoming a battleground for ideological conflicts. A growing number of consumers, led by high-profile conservatives, are cancelling their Netflix subscriptions in response to the platform’s increasing promotion of progressive agendas, particularly in children’s content. This boycott has already had a significant impact on Netflix’s valuation, demonstrating the power of consumer sovereignty in a free-market system.

The boycott gained momentum after Elon Musk used his vast social media following to urge his followers to cancel their Netflix accounts, citing the platform’s promotion of transgender themes in children’s programming, including the animated series Dead End: Paranormal Park. Other shows, such as Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City, which features transgender drag queen characters, and episodes of The Baby-Sitters Club that challenge traditional gender norms, have also sparked outrage. The controversy was further fueled by revelations about the creator of Dead End, Hamish Steele, who has made inflammatory comments on social media, including celebrating the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Conservative influencers have amplified these concerns, framing the content as an attempt to impose “woke” ideology on impressionable young audiences.

This is not an isolated incident, as Netflix has faced similar backlash in the past, including the 2020 controversy over the film Cuties, which was criticized for its sexualized depiction of minors. The company’s reported $7 million donation to Kamala Harris’s campaign in 2024 also alienated some of its subscribers. With executives like former Obama advisor Susan Rice on the board and multi-year deals with Barack and Michelle Obama for content production, it’s no surprise that Netflix’s output has a strong progressive bias. The company’s staff overwhelmingly donates to Democratic candidates, creating an echo chamber that views children as a key demographic in the cultural revolution. As a result, middle-American families, who form a significant portion of Netflix’s subscriber base, are feeling alienated by the platform’s content and values.

From Entertainment to Ideological Propaganda

Netflix has undergone a radical transformation, shifting from a platform that offered family-friendly entertainment and blockbuster hits to one that actively promotes leftist ideology through its content. The driving force behind this change is the pressure exerted by activist executives and Hollywood’s progressive elite, who are pushing the platform to embed their ideology into its programming. This transformation is not subtle; instead, it’s a blatant attempt to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion metrics over storytelling, with a disproportionate focus on representation. Netflix’s annual inclusion reports proudly showcase the platform’s “progress” in boosting LGBTQ+ visibility, but this comes at the cost of neutrality, effectively turning entertainment into activism. The most alarming aspect of this shift is the content targeted at children, a form of grooming. This content systematically introduces sexualized themes and gender confusion to impressionable young minds, raising serious concerns about the platform’s intentions. Shows like Dead End: Paranormal Park feature transgender characters in animated adventures, while Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City incorporates drag queen elements and pronoun lessons, targeting preschoolers. Even seemingly innocuous series like CoComelon have been flagged for subtly integrating “they/them” narratives, effectively normalizing fluid identities before children can fully comprehend biology or consent. A review of Netflix’s kids’ catalog reveals that at least five programs are pushing transgenderism or LGBTQ+ themes, often without warning parents, and thus exploiting the trust that families have placed in the platform’s “kid-safe” content.

This content is not harmless diversity; it’s a predatory ideology that is being forced upon young minds. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and commentator Benny Johnson have strongly condemned this trend, labelling it “demonic” and a “direct assault on childhood innocence.” It sexualizes minors and erodes traditional family structures, highlighting the urgent need for parents to be aware of the content their children are consuming on Netflix and just cancel it completely.

Financial Impact: Early Signs of Erosion

Boycotts are more than just statements of principle – they’re powerful economic tools that can inflict serious damage on a company’s bottom line. Netflix, in particular, relies heavily on consistent subscriber growth to drive its business model, with historically low churn rates of around 3-4% per quarter. However, the recent campaign has thrown a wrench into this delicate balance. Reports are flooding in of a massive surge in subscription cancellations, with estimates suggesting that tens of thousands of users have jumped ship in just the first week alone. The market is reacting swiftly and sharply, with Netflix’s shares plummeting 2.4% in a single session after Musk’s initial posts, wiping out a staggering $15-20 billion in market value overnight. This stark reminder that cultural missteps can vaporize billions of dollars in value is a wake-up call for companies to tread carefully.

While some outlets are reporting a partial rebound in Netflix’s shares, with a 2.19% increase from the boycott’s onset, the volatility is a clear indication of investor unease. Netflix has yet to release its subscriber metrics since late 2024, but the company’s deafening silence on the matter speaks volumes – if there were no significant losses, you can bet they’d be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact that they’re not denying any significant losses suggests that trouble may be brewing, especially if holiday churn accelerates. To put this into perspective, consider the Bud Light debacle, where Anheuser-Busch lost a whopping $27 billion in value after alienating its base with a similar progressive overreach. Netflix, valued at over $500 billion, is not immune to this kind of backlash, especially considering its 280 million global subscribers include a sizable conservative contingent in the US, where family viewing drives retention. If just 5% of these subscribers defect – that’s 14 million users – it could translate to a $1-2 billion annual revenue hit, according to analyst models.

The financial impact of this boycott has been immediate and quantifiable, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing cultural signaling over broad-market appeal. Netflix’s shares, which were trading at around $1,153 in early October, have logged their steepest weekly decline since April, plummeting approximately 5% in a single week amid the boycott’s momentum. This has resulted in a staggering evaporation of market capitalization, with estimates ranging from $15 billion to $25 billion in lost value within days of Musk’s initial posts. Subscriber churn, a perennial concern for streaming giants, has reportedly spiked, with tens of thousands of cancellations logged in the US alone since the campaign gained traction. For context, Netflix ended Q4 2024 with 301.63 million global subscribers, a figure that has driven its revenue to over $33 billion annually. However, even marginal losses – say, 1-2% of its domestic base – could erode $500-700 million in recurring annual revenue, assuming average pricing holds.

Ideological capture erodes trust, invites boycotts, and imperils long-term viability

Corporate America is witnessing this disturbing trend: the more companies push for diversity, equity, and inclusion, the more their shareholders lose. Netflix is a prime example, as its leaders are aggressively pursuing progressive content, including LGBTQ+ representation in kids’ shows and rejecting documentaries that are deemed “too political”. While these decisions are praised by liberals on the coasts, they’re alienating the heartland consumers who drive mass adoption. History is repeating itself – just look at the $1.4 billion in sales that Anheuser-Busch lost in 2023 due to the Bud Light controversy, or Disney’s stagnant valuation after it embraced similar themes. The recent backlash against Netflix on social media, with #CancelNetflix trending and posts getting millions of impressions, shows how the platform is a real-time indicator of public sentiment. This digital uproar is having a tangible impact on trading volumes and short interest, signaling that investors are getting nervous.

The takeaway for investors is clear: cultural risk is financial risk. With Netflix’s forward price-to-earnings ratio hovering around 40x, the company’s growth assumptions are already priced in, leaving little room for error if subscribers start to drop off. While Netflix might be able to weather this storm by cracking down on password sharing or expanding internationally, repeated mistakes could lead to a wave of cord-cutting among budget-conscious families. Savvy investors might want to diversify their portfolios by investing in media companies that aren’t as bogged down by content controversies, or in tech companies that don’t have to worry about offending anyone. The bottom line is that markets reward companies that cater to the average consumer, not those that try to appease niche activists. If Netflix doesn’t get back in tune with its audience, the next viral controversy could turn a temporary slump into a long-term decline. In the world of free enterprise, the customer’s wallet is the loudest voice of all.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting, and we ought to begin with the official details released this far. The two people killed in the attack were children aged eight and 10. Their parents have been notified, although their identities have not yet been released. Of the 17 people injured, 14 are children and three are adults. Two of the children are in critical condition, but all of the remaining victims are expected to survive. Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara also added that there is, however, a wide range of injuries.

The shooting took place just before 08h30 AM local time, during a worship service marking the first week of school. The assailant approached the outside of the building and began firing a rifle into the windows toward the children sitting in the pews. Law enforcement said that a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol all had been lawfully purchased by the shooter, adding that they believe the shooter acted alone; and also fatally shot themself behind the church. The shooter has been named as Robin Westman, aged 23, by local news outlets. Westman reportedly grew up in Richfield, Minnesota, and his mother worked at Annunciation School.

Then, FBI director Kash Patel has announced that the FBI is now investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics. Local police refused to be drawn on a motive for the attack. Officials further stated that the shooter had scheduled a manifesto to be released on YouTube. The police said it “appeared to show him at the scene and included some disturbing writings”. The content was then taken down with the assistance of the FBI. Then, finally, in light of the occurrence, US president Donald Trump has ordered American flags to be flown at half-mast following the mass shooting until the 31st of August. Here’s the statement that was given by the school principal, Principal Matthew DuBois.

WHY IT IS VALUABLE THAT THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING THE SHOOTING AS A HATE CRIME

I’ll be honest, while I am grateful that there is intent not to overlook the fact that the shooting occurred at a Catholic school, and thus recognising that there was intent to harm Christians, I am, however, upset at some of the ways that this case is being handled. However, let’s begin with why it is valuable that the FBI is investigating the shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime against Catholics. In essence, this reflects and implements a necessary shift away from bias against Christians in the FBI.

For some context, in February 2023 (which was during the Biden-Harris administration) an FBI intelligence document, referencing a January intelligence product from the Richmond Field office, was leaked that revealed FBI targeting of Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on abortion and other cultural issues. This led to an April 2023 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch along with CatholicVote Civic Action against the FBI and the Department of Justice after their failure to respond to a March 2023 requests for records about the FBI’s intelligence memo targeting what they called “radical traditionalist” Catholics.

Now, on July 22nd this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) released a new interim staff report on former President Joe Biden’s Catholic spy ring. Thanks to FBI Director Kash Patel, some of the information is new. And when pieced together with what we already knew, the picture that emerges is one of an FBI that went off the rails, while Christopher Wray, who led the FBI under Biden, bears much of the blame.

What the report indicates is that this targeting of Catholics by the Biden-Harris administration was not a mistake; rather, it was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics. [PAUSE] Once again, the FBI was apparently focused on “radical-traditionalist Catholics”, and concerning details emerged when the question was posed on: Who (exactly) are these radical-traditionalist Catholics, by FBI standards? First, according to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could NOT even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field Office memorandum that authorized the probe.

In other words, the FBI decided that Catholics were a problem, even though agents were unable to explain who they are. FBI agents were convinced that the so-called radical-traditionalist Catholics were “linked” to “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” What made them think this way is still a mystery, even though reports indicate that they found nothing. That’s because there is no record of very conservative Catholics linking up with violent persons. And so, indeed, on this basis alone there was no reason to investigate them. But, of course, this did NOT stop some FBI operatives from categorising “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles employees read. In fact, one titled (quote) “How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the articles they named as evidence of the nefarious agenda of “radical-traditionalist” Catholics.

Then secondly, this latest report shows that the FBI proposed a probe of “mainline parishes.” It says that “FBI employees believed without evidence that mainstream Catholic churches could serve as a pipeline to violent extremist behavior.” And this was all without evidence! Also, “The FBI seems to have considered Catholic churches as a potential hot spot for radicalization and viewed investigating Catholic churches as an ‘opportunity.’” As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI even investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion — meaning they are called pro-life Catholics — they were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

And so, this tells us all we need to know about the politicisation of the FBI under the Biden-Harris administration. In particular, it tells us of institutional rot that had very anti-Christain inclination, especially because it was not even dissident Catholics who expressed a desire to weaponise violence that the FBI was concerned about. It was simply Catholics who expressed views consistent with what they were taught about abortion and family values. But, before we proceed, kindly have a listen as Representative Jim Jordan challenged the controversial investigation into what the FBI called “Radical Catholics” – signalling a war on Christian values in the Biden-Harris FBI.

So, all of this is to say, that in investigating the Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime against Catholics, the FBI in this second Trump administration is necessitating and making practical a shift away from bias against Catholics in the FBI. In other words, this time around, the FBI has to help and see as a target for violence the same people that it was propped up to antagonise and vilify. And this shift should absolutely be celebrated in a society that was being moulded to wage a war on Christians and our values.

THERE IS A FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PATTERN OF TRANSGENDER SHOOTERS

This then brings us to the less satisfactory elements of the response to the Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting, and it is that the transgender (and possibly even the SSRI) discussion is less prevalent in official reports. For some context, the shooter has been identified as a transgender woman (meaning he is a biological male) who went by the name Robin Westman, but was initially known as Robert Westman before his so-called transgender transition. According to court documents, Westman had applied to change his birth name from Robert to Robin in Dakota County, Minn., when he was 17 years old, That name change was granted in January 2020; and the petition for the name change added that Westman (quote) “identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.” But, five years later, he seemed to have backed away from that identity.

So, why does this seemingly personal detail matter? Well, it matters because it proves a pattern that law enforcement has been casually skipping over for years now. In particular, in recent years in the US, both the Denver shooters, being Devon Erickson and Maya ‘Alec’ Mckinney identified as transgender. The Aberdeen shooter, Snochia Moseley, identified as transgender. The Nashville shooter, Audrey Hale, identified as transgender. The Georgia shooter, Colt Gray, identified as transgender. The Philadelphia Shooter, Kimbrady Carriker also identified as transgender. And perhaps to mix things up, the lowa shooter, Dylan Butler, identified as gender fluid.  But then the Uvalde shooter, named Salvador Ramos, identified as transgender, while the Colorado Shooter also identified as transgender. So, it would seem like there is a pattern, but also a parallel failure to recognise, or openly acknowledge this pattern.

And so, this is the latest in a string of mass killings carried out by members of the trans community, and the second against a Christian school. Rather than focusing on the victims, Minnesota authorities have chosen instead to prioritise exonerating the transgender people as a whole, with no mention of the hugely disproportionate number of mass killings that have been carried out by trans people over the last few years.

WHY IS THERE A PATTERN OF TRANSGENDER SHOOTERS IN SCHOOLS & BROADER SOCIETY?

So, let’s contribute to the discourse and actually ask the question on: Why is there a pattern of transgender shooters in schools and broader society? I think it comes down to two things, the first is that cross sex hormones and puberty blockers combined with mental illness is a seriously deadly combination.

For instance, a 2011 study originally claimed there were no mental health issues after puberty blockers. But, now, a re-examination of the data found that puberty blockers actually “reliably deteriorated” the mental health of more children than it helped.

But, that is one study among many that are rife with misrepresentations. In fact, a particularly egregious misrepresentation, which is repeated multiple times, is the contention that puberty blockers are completely reversible and generally helpful to the youth. Many so-called medical practitioners have stated and continue to state the same fraudulent claim in their private practices as well as their public appearances and in the media. BUT, this is an entirely false and extremely dangerous misrepresentation to make and advocate to the public, particularly since the affected audience are children and adolescents (and their families).

In truth, puberty blockers are KNOWN to impact children’s bone density and can lead to early onset osteoporosis and decreased bone density. AND… they can also impact a child’s mental illness. In fact, on the package insert for Lupron, which is one of the most commonly prescribed puberty blockers, it lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns to “[m]onitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment” – which is a massive red flag, that should serve as a pre-warning against prescribing puberty blockers! In addition, Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment, and sterility if the patient proceeds to take cross-sex hormones.

But, it does not stop there, because a leading expert on the subject noted in relation to a recent experimental trial of puberty blockers, stated that (quote) “There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support – thus proving that puberty blockers have NO positive impact on mental health related issues. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body; THEREFORE, puberty blockers actually exacerbated so-called gender dysphoria, which is evidently a mental illness.”

But, there is actually a simple reason for this, which is that when you give puberty blockers to a developing child, you do not merely prevent the development of their reproductive organs, you fundamentally infringe on how that child’s brain also functions by trying to manipulate the child’s body from undergoing a natural physiological development, and thus also create a lot of detrimental hormonal dysregulation as well. And many people actually take for granted how interrelated the human body’s systems are. For instance, in research years ago, I discovered that a number of female body builders (in the course of training) become significantly thin, especially due to a restrictive diet and excessive exercise, and it can lead to a hormonal imbalance that causes menstruation to stop, which is a condition known as amenorrhea. And this happens because a restrictive diet and excessive exercise cause a mental stress trigger, where the body interprets a lack of energy and low body fat as a stressor, and thus enters what is called “survival mode”, where the body then lowers the production of essential reproductive hormones like estrogen. This can result in health risks such as bone loss and infertility. And so, similarly, if you suppress certain bodily functions, there are going to be ripple effects on the body, including how a child’s brian develops.

So, the impact of puberty blockers on the brain, are one of the reasons I think we see this pattern of transgender shooters. And when you watch the videos of Robert, the Minneapolis Catholic School shooter, he does not present as sane AT ALL. His manifesto videos included drawings where he was looking into the mirror but saw himself as the devil – he obviously was not sane.

Then, the second reason I think we see this pattern of transgender shooters is social contagion – and this matters in the event that Robert and other transgender shooters were not on puberty blockers. In light of social contagion, trangender persons are often of the far left or ultra-liberal end of the political spectrum. For instance, the Minneapolis Catholic School shooter had writings (including on his gun) that included “kill Donald Trump” and “Israel must fall”; and “Jew gas”.

Evidently, Robert sounds like the product of ultra-left thinking and violence mongering – much like that which celebrated Luigi Mangione, who shot the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. He is the product of Democrat leaders and notable figures openly talking about killing Donald Trump or locking up his supporters in concentration camps. And so, really, social contagion coupled with mental illness is also as deadly as puberty blockers coupled with mental illness.

The fact of the matter is that there are organisations and groups of people who wish to parent children, in the absence of objections from their parents, and socio-political indoctrination is one of the avenues they wish to accomplish this. For instance, while parents are being gaslit and told that their children will allegedly commit suicide if they are not allowed to socially or medically transition, not only awoke schools teaching children that they can identify as trees more that they are concerned about their grasp of alegra. Similarly, Democrats and other liberal actors are trying to convince children of their superior understand (even to the extent of challenging their parents), even trying to codify this into law by allowing schools to socially transition children without informing their parents – ALL WHILE the transgender and puberty blocker industry has become a multi-billion dollar industry!

“CONFIRMING A KID’S CONFUSION IS NOT COMPASSION, THAT’S CRUELTY”

But now, I genuinely believe that no sane parent ever does anything with the hope of potentially raising a child who will become a school scooter. And so, here is what I believe is crucial to note: whether with puberty blockers or as a product of social contagion, confirming a child’s confusion is not compassion – rather it is cruelty. And this is something that Vivek Ramaswamy has become famous for stating – and it is true. Parents have a categorical imperative to protect their children from socio-political nuances that have nothing to do with a godly, happy and optimistic upbringing. Children should not have to try to grapple with ideas of gender, or whether Donald Trump is a dictator who must be killed, or even whatever drag story hour is. And the absence of this protection of the socio-political innocence of children is to allow their grooming, especially to function as children of the state – something that the President of Loveworld incorporated has warned about. And so, ultimately, it is cruel to confirm a child’s confusion.

Finally, one of the details that were reported in light of the shooting features a boy aged 10 and his friend Victor. The boy aged 10 survived the attack and he told reporters that his friend saved him from bullets by lying on top of him. He said (and this is a direct quote) “I was like two seats away from the stained glass window,… My friend, Victor, saved me though, because he laid on top of me, but he got hit… My friend got hit in the back, he went to the hospital… I was super scared for him but I think now he’s okay.” It is always these stories that get me. First, because this reminds us of the Words of the Master Jesus in John 15:13, when he said “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”; and it is inspiring to see this mindset appropriated by children, afterall the Master Jesus also said that “…the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”.

The second reason why these stories get to me is that they highlight a painful reality where children have a better understanding of a protective duty than adults who are supposed to be responsible. As admirable as Victor’s actions were in laying on his friend to protect him, and taking the hit himself, the truth of the matter is that it should not have been Victor’s responsibility to take bullets at all! He is a child who is entitled to protection as well. And in failing to adequately recognise patterns that could improve how society and government as a whole respond to issues that lead to school shootings, Victor has had to grow up rather quickly in a space of minutes – robbing him of the innocence, sense of wonder and incurable optimism that all children should enjoy – which I certainly pray he never loses.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The AAP Declared War on Vaccine Choice

AAP recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines

The American Academy of Pediatrics last month officially recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines—pushing for government-mandated shots regardless of faith. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for an end to all religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in ALL 50 States in the U.S. This is a very dangerous and telling admission that vaccines are not about protecting the population… it’s about controlling the population and stripping parents’ rights to make decisions for their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has abandoned science, betrayed parents & pushed dangerous child mutilation. They urged removing religious vaccine exemptions, promoted puberty blockers for kids & endorsed gender transitions.

RFK Jr’s CDC Kicks Out Tyrannical AAP After Push to Remove Exemptions

In a stunning reversal of power, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—the same group that recently demanded the elimination of all personal and religious vaccine exemptions nationwide—has been expelled from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine policymaking process. Dr. Susan Monarez, confirmed by the Senate in 2025 as CDC Director, now leads the health agency’s day-to-day operations under the oversight of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to an email from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the AAP, along with more than a half-dozen other prominent medical organizations, has been kicked out of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) workgroups, which play a central role in shaping the nation’s vaccine recommendations. The AAP’s authoritarian demand to erase centuries-old religious protections and force medical compliance as a condition for education was a dystopian overreach—one that now has cost them their seat at the table. The latest development comes on the heels of a June 2025 decision by HHS Secretary Kennedy to fire the entire ACIP—accusing them of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers—and replace them with a new group that includes vaccine-skeptical voices.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Profiting from Childhood Sickness

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children’s faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP’s members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing paediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner.

The erosion of trust in the medical field, which has been ongoing since 2020, is thankfully dispelling the myth that organizations like the AAP are driven by a selfless desire to serve the greater good, rather than prioritizing the interests of their own members. The recent release of the AAP’s priorities, which were crafted by its own members, is likely to further fuel this mistrust, and although the approach may seem unusually harsh, it will ultimately contribute to the strengthening of public health by laying bare the motivations of those who stand to gain from the escalating rates of illness, and shedding light on the ways in which they profit from it.

AAP sets Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

The American Academy of Paediatrics is actively working to strip parents of their authority in deciding whether to vaccinate their children with commercially produced substances, largely sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that fund the AAP’s initiatives. This move is absurd except to the ultimate beneficiaries – including paediatricians and pharmaceutical manufacturers – exert substantial influence over the US Congress through hefty campaign donations. Notably, the AAP’s efforts to promote or facilitate chronic disease in children essentially guarantee a lifelong struggle with these conditions, thereby creating a steady stream of loyal pharmaceutical consumers. As profit-driven entities, pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to maximizing their revenues, with CEOs and executives tasked by shareholders to prioritize financial gains. By pushing for such policies, the AAP is effectively serving as a willing accomplice, enabling pharmaceutical companies to reap substantial benefits from the creation of a lifelong customer base.

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and 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 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). However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

AAP is prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures

The American Academy of Pediatrics is actively pushing to eliminate parental rights and religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations, but notably, their top ten priorities fail to address the alarming rise in obesity and autism epidemics that are wreaking havoc on children’s health. Despite the CDC sounding the alarm on the extraordinary proportions of autism cases, the AAP is solely focused on identifying and managing these conditions, rather than investigating their causes. Nowhere on their list of priorities is there a mention of tackling the root causes of the soaring rates of chronic illnesses in children. The closest they come is a vague reference to reducing the cost of insulin injections for kids. By prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures, the AAP is turning a blind eye to the devastating decline in health status among the very population they claim to serve, with diet and physical activity levels being glaringly overlooked.

Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary.

Parents are seen as an Obstacle to Return on Investment

Many parents are uncomfortable with the role of cells harvested from induced aborted fetuses, often still alive at the time of harvesting. Again, many AAP members may believe the rhetoric that this is untrue, but nonetheless it is factual. It is how we derive cell cultures to develop many vaccines, so the DNA of these dead unborn humans can still contaminate the injection. The AAP, as an institution, officially holds that cultural and religious concerns arising from this should be overridden. So, in the end, the AAP’s argument seems to come down to one of two possible drivers. Either (1) they have an ideological belief that they should simply be the authority or decision-makers on children’s healthcare rather than parents (a medical-fascist approach), or (2) they see their role as promoting an extremely lucrative market for their sponsors, from which they also directly benefit, and setting children up for an entire lifetime of chronic illness and pharmaceutical consumption. It is challenging to decide which is less noble. A third possibility is also possible. Most AAP members are simply going with the flow and have not actually stopped to think through the implications of their union’s policies. However, the motivation for willfully ignoring rational thought probably does come down to a mixture of money and ego, which goes back to the two potential drivers mentioned above. There are tens of thousands of doctors who disagree with these medical associations but are too afraid to speak out.”

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Is Big Pharma silencing cancer breakthroughs?

Researchers are uncovering groundbreaking evidence that Big Pharma is deliberately ignoring. Dr. William Makis, a renowned radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, in a recent online interview revealed that ivermectin is apparently demonstrating profound anti-cancer properties. Studies are showing that the drug is capable of triggering a staggering 83% death rate in cancer cells, effectively shutting down the blood supply to tumours, and annihilating a significant 85% of cancer stem cells. In a remarkable documented case, an 11-year-old patient suffering from leukaemia experienced a dramatic 90% elimination of cancer cells in just one week while undergoing ivermectin treatment. Furthermore, ivermectin is amplifying the potency of chemotherapy drugs by up to 300%, and even reversing chemotherapy resistance, all while exhibiting minimal side effects. Meanwhile, Big Pharma continues to peddle expensive treatments costing upwards of $100,000 annually, while this safe and affordable alternative remains shrouded in secrecy – what’s driving this glaring disparity?

Researchers like Dr. Bryan Ardis are now uncovering that many tumours initially thought to be cancerous are actually parasitic in origin. This discovery explains why ivermectin, a anti-parasitic medication, has been remarkably effective in curing these tumours. As Dr. Ardis points out, “there are affordable and natural alternatives available to eliminate parasites from the human body, providing a much safer option compared to chemotherapy and radiation, which can be detrimental to the entire body and even put the patient’s life at risk.” By exploring these alternative treatments, medical professionals can potentially save countless lives and reduce the need for harsh and often ineffective cancer therapies.

Pharmaceutical giants are openly prioritizing profits over people, with a business model that relies on the notion that “a patient cured is a customer lost”. The harsh reality is that the pharmaceutical industry is deliberately designed to capitalize on disease, rather than eradicate it. By focusing on treatments that merely manage symptoms, rather than addressing the root cause of illnesses, the industry ensures a steady stream of revenue. Meanwhile, natural remedies and holistic approaches that could potentially cure diseases are being deliberately dismissed, discredited, or even outlawed, simply because they cannot be patented and exploited for financial gain. The ultimate objective of Big Pharma is not to restore your health, but to create a lifelong dependency on their products, a strategy that generates billions of dollars in profits each year.

Dr. Paul Marik: chemotherapy is essentially a massive scam

Dr. Paul Marik boldly state that chemotherapy is essentially a massive scam, asserting that it barely extends a patient’s life by a mere two to three months. He further emphasizes that for certain types of cancer, chemotherapy actually has a devastating effect, ultimately reducing the patient’s life expectancy. Marik vehemently argues that this so-called “treatment” is nothing more than a lucrative scheme concocted by Big Pharma, deliberately designed to exploit and profit from the suffering of countless individuals, all while masquerading as a legitimate medical solution.

As the 20th century gave way to the 21st, the field of oncology was rocked by a slew of corrupt clinical trials, marked by shoddy control groups, subpar post-trial care, and blatant crossover practices that lined corporate pockets while leaving patients high and dry. Cancer specialists were allegedly on the take, pocketing payments from these companies and peddling a narrative that put profits ahead of people. The sheer scale of corruption and decay that had taken hold of this system had become so entrenched that it was almost impossible to see its inherent toxicity. Historians will likely view this era as a bleak period in the history of medicine, one in which dubious medications were pushed on terminally ill patients, while governments taxed struggling citizens to subsidize these ineffective treatments. Meanwhile, doctors, in the pocket of corporate interests, were complicit in promoting these products, even as the United States careened towards bankruptcy due to the staggering costs of misguided, harmful, and useless care. We must confront the severity of this crisis head-on and acknowledge that awareness is the first step towards driving real change. The medical community has a profound obligation to put genuine healing and patient welfare above financial gain, and it’s crucial that we reexamine our approach to cancer treatment, demanding greater transparency and accountability from the individuals and corporations that wield significant influence over this industry. Ultimately, it’s only through a collective effort to reform this broken system that we can create a more just and equitable healthcare landscape, one that puts patient well-being above all else.

Family Court Enforces Child’s Chemotherapy Against Parents’ Wishes

Australian parents are being stripped of their fundamental rights, with the government wielding absolute control over their children’s lives. A recent Family Court ruling has left a family reeling, forcing them to subject their child to chemotherapy against their explicit wishes. The debate surrounding the merits of chemotherapy takes a backseat to the far more pressing issues of consent and medical autonomy. The fact that the system can override a parent’s decision regarding their child’s health, education, or even end-of-life care raises a disturbing question: do parents truly have ownership over their own children? This alarming trend is not an isolated incident, as state control continues to tighten its grip, while parental authority is gradually being eroded. It’s high time for parents to take a stand and reclaim their rights, as the very fabric of family autonomy hangs in the balance. The Australian government’s overreach into family matters is a stark reminder that the notion of parental rights is rapidly becoming an illusion, and it’s crucial that we acknowledge the severity of this issue and demand change.

Force Medical Intervention: the Parker Jensen Case

But this is not the first time such things would happen. Have you heard of the case of Parker Jensen? It’s a horrific story of where the government tried to force a 12-year-old boy to get chemo and radiation against the will of the parents, and even worse, he never even had cancer in the first place. But Parker had strong and determined parents who refused to accept the diagnosis and barbaric “treatment”, wanting to find a second opinion and talk to other doctors first. After they refused and before any bloodwork was done, the diagnosing doctors reported to the state that Parker had 2 weeks to live and needed chemo/radiation immediately, which led to a court order and then the parents refusing to honour it. They then charged his father with Kidnapping his own son because they fled the state to prevent them from taking their kid, and then eventually caught and arrested him in Idaho, but not the mother and son. Parker and his mom remained on the run for weeks, before eventually proving he had no cancer in the first place and a judge eventually dismissing the charges. This started Aug 20th, 2003, and the judge finally dismissed the charges on Oct 25th, 2003. The Jensen family sued the state and lost. No justice was delivered, and they could have killed Parker with the chemo on a false diagnosis. This is still happening to this day.

Forced chemotherapy on a 10-year-old Amish girl

Here is another example of forced chemotherapy on a 10-year-old Amish girl. Her name was Sarah, and she got diagnosed with lymphoma in April 2013, and the Amish family was convinced by the doctor to do chemo and radiation. Couple months later, Sarah started getting severely ill (like most do on toxic chemo) and was begging her parents to stop the treatment, so they did and went for alternatives and second opinions. As soon as the parents stopped treatment, Akron children’s hospital staff notified CPS and took them to court and got guardianship over Sarah. After the court ruling, the guardian sent out a taxi to the family to get Sarah and go to the hospital for more toxic chemo, but the family was gone. They fled to Mexico. While safely in another country, their lawyers fought the case and won in court on claims of religious freedom. 2 years later, she got bloodwork to confirm that she had no cancer without any chemo and was in perfect health. The medical and legal system is straight up corrupted and harms/kills far more people than it helps. It’s absurd that they are still trying to treat cancer with radiation and chemo, when all the data clearly shows how dangerous it is and how it rarely works.

Written By tatenda Belle Panashe

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

THE U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REFUTES THE CLAIM OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE

And now onto our main discussion on the recent war against gender affirming care. To begin with, children diagnosed with gender dysphoria a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

Recently, an umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing. In addition, while advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving,” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—but not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias. But, ultimately, the review amounts to a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” IS BASED ON A DIGRESSION FROM MEDICAL ETHICS

First, at the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms. To appreciate this, we would have to consider that in many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations. However, in the case of gender affirming care, the opposite occurred!

This is to say that despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences. This includes irreversible consequences such as infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

For example, puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis. When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function. And yet, many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

However, another issue with the child led model used in gender affirming care (in addition to its existence as a model), is the fact it is not based on any credible science – because children do not have a valid and objectively factual reason to claim gender dysphoria, without influence from environmental factors (i.e. social contagion, or the impact that contaminated food and pharmaceutical interventions have on hormones and biological development). This cannot be stressed enough, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria – there literally is no scientific basis for it AT ALL! RATHER, where its normalisation comes from is the intercession of medical science and social politics, meaning that it is the product of medical science being heavily influenced by pressure from those lobbying to make sectors of society bend towards political correctness and the LGBT agenda – thus leading to social contagion!

ARE CHILDREN CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO LIFE-ALTERING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS?

This brings us to one of the most critical issues to consider in the discussion on so-called gender affirming care – being child consent. More specifically, we ought to ask: Are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions? Generally, we understand informed consent as meaning more than simple agreement informed consent requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact (meaning consequences of a choice or action).

This means that, by definition, children often lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making – because they do not possess sufficient maturity and mental reasoning or processing capacities to understand the gravity of irreversible decisions, beyond a temporary fixation of an assumed benefit. Therefore, when medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by an under-age patient!

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED “MATURE MINOR DOCTRINE

But, the medical industrial complex that benefits from these procedures created a loophole to this issue on minor consent, through collaborating with lawmakers to form the mature minor or minor consent doctrine in a number of states – starting with vaccination and thus creating precedent for gender transitions. In essence, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child.

Well, in an interesting shift in events, even members of the alphabet community are recognizing that there is no basis for informed consent in so-called gender affirming care. For instance, Jamie Reed testified on the 9th of May in Maine in support of bill LD380, which would require parental consent to medicalise a minor. She correctly differentiates between consent and assent, detailing that in medical procedures driven by minors, at best all those children can provide is assent, meaning agreement to allowing the procedure to take place. However, this does not amount to informed consent, because often the children do not know the extent of the changes and harm they are agreeing to. The pendulum is swinging towards common sense.

Based on this concession from even the alphabet people, it further emphasises that supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Especially considering that any children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety all of which can impair decision-making. Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

But, once again, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria (meaning gender dysphoria that is not influenced by environmental factors). And not only is there no organic gender dysphoria, but the actual mental illnesses that children are struggling with are being ignored, in order to justify the claim of gender dysphoria. There was even a trend (especially among medical professionals) of not questioning the unstable nature of gender dysphoria claims, and rather affirming the so-called transgender children, in the name of compassion. But, Vivek Ramaswamy correctly stated that that trend was based on a false dichotomy, that resulted in the assumption that compassion can only come with affirming gender dysphoria claims.

Ultimately, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding), and they are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right: as I’ve said before, this is part of the reason why five year olds do not drive, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why it is considered negligent for an adult to leave a child alone near a large body of water. And so, what is claimed to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Furthermore, it is to fail the parental or medical duty to care when children are allowed to transition, while making permanent decisions based on temporary feelings.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” REPRESENTS A MORAL PROBLEM IN MODERN MEDICINE AND LAW

Considering that the medical industrial complex has manufactured a doctrine of minor consent to perform mutilation procedures on children despite the irreversible harms, it becomes evident that the problem is not only medical it’s moral. In light of this, in the aforementioned HSS report, the HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: which is to protect vulnerable patients. The HHS argues that ideology and activism have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

This is to say that the evidence of the benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. And among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support. Research suggests that most cases of claimed paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments. Meanwhile, medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience the claimed gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies. This means that they perform treatments that aren’t based on a genuinely conceived mandate to care for the patient, but based on a careless disregard for their duty to care! A detransitioner adds to this account..

Well, you’d recall that in light of this, the Supreme Court in the US heard arguments of gender affirming care in December 2024, and indicated that the majority was leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts so-called gender transition treatments for minors. Now, this case (in essence) decides whether, under the US constitution, states are allowed to outlaw child mutilation in the name of gender ideology. But, now, a few years or even months back, this case would have been inconceivable because it was considered inherently wrong to allow children to consent to irreversible harm, which would be inclusive of the almost irreversible procedures that are conducted of so-called transgender children. Of course, what then happened is that trans activists intimidated people who opposed gender ideology (especially through the incorporation of cancel culture). What also happened is that there were a number of woke activist judges who were co-opted into the court system.

For instance, while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on whether banning the medical transitioning of minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Justice Sotomayor argued that children denied “gender affirming care” may kill themselves or become drug addicts.

Let’s (once again) address this alleged threat of suicide, where children are denied so-called gender affirming care, as also articulated by Justice Sotomayor. I believe that this threat only has an impact because it is not actually analysed. And I do not necessarily blame parents for this: when a parent is told that their child is at risk of ending their life, that easily seems like the worst case scenario and thus has the potential to dilute their concerns about child mutilation, if they do not understand the full extent of the harms that child mutilation also brings. And so, compassion will likely move parents to want to save their children (at least as they are coerced to) – especially if they do not fully understand what the transition would mean for their children.

And so, to address this claim of suicide, let’s look at children (or former children) who are now speaking out against allowing minors to make choices that have an irreversable impact on them. SPOILER ALERT: these children and young adults are advocating hard against allowing minors to make such decisions because they are now dealing with the consequences of having been allowed to make decisions with permanent ramifications on the basis of temporary feelings. This is an excerpt from a documentary titled ‘THE GENDER AGENDA’, produced by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, and available on the Ceflix platform. He documentary zoomed in on cases of minors who were reflecting on having been allowed to make the decision to mutilate themselves.

What is interesting to note, is that children who opted for child mutilation, were actually coerced into it because even they were told they would end their lives if they did not transition! So, it appears that the threat of suicide originated from the medical practitioners who perform these surgeries of distribute the puberty blockers! SECONDLY, if children are not being told that THEY will end their lives if they do not opt for mutilation, they are often already struggling with mental health issues, like depression. Therefore, even in this instance, parents are not risking the lives of their children by refusing to opt for child mutilation – because the depression and mental health issue would exist independent of the option for mutilation or “transitioning”.

Finally, in refuting the suicide claim tha tis used to coerce parents, it is worth noting, especially from the young lady towards the end of the excerpt we just watched from the documentary, that a massive contributor to mental illness or depression is the regret that comes from having undergone the child mutilation processes and then realise that even when you detransition, you may never gain back your biological experiences and privileges, like starying a family. We all watched her weep and lament the sense that she does not think anyone can love her anymore, which I genuinely hope she knows is not true, because even if she was the only person on earth, Christ would have still died for her in his unwavering love for her.

THE GENDER ARE GENDER AS A WEAPON OF POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

But, seeing how gender affirming care has been systematically pushed, we also have to not miss that it has been organised as a political weapon – that is even being wielded by activist judges. And the idea that the gender agenda is a tool of political manoeuvring is not a mere statement or semantics – it really has become utilised in this manner. For instance, those who are proponents of the agenda use it to gain certain privileges or to institute changes in society that are to their favour – no matter how ridiculous. For instance, LA City in June 2024 took down a couple “no U-turn” traffic signs in Silver Lake, California because the signs are anti-LGBTQ. Really, it is almost disturbing how much this is a group that so desperately wants to be “oppressed” or “marginalised”, because that somehow validates their existence.

But, the use of the gender agenda as a political manoeuvering tool is not exclusive to privileges of the change to social standards and law; the gender agenda is now also mechanism for targeting those who dissent to it. In fact, we recently discussed the story of the DOJ’s charge against Dr Ethain Haim in Texas. More specifically, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Dr Eithan Haim, who last year leaked evidence of cross-sex hormone procedures being performed at a Texas hospital despite the facility claiming to have halted them, with the surgeon facing four felony counts for alleged violations of a medical-records law that could land him in prison for up to 10 years. The DOJ announced on June 17 that it had charged Dr Haim for obtaining protected individual health information for patients who were not under his care, allegedly acting without authorisation and with intent to cause malicious harm to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).

We also discussed the fact that, in this case, the controversy actually centers on the fact that the TCH, which the largest children’s hospital in the country, publicly declared in March 2022 that it was halting “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services” for minors, citing potential legal and criminal liability after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that prescription of puberty blockers was “child abuse” under Texas law. And that, however, the documents leaked by Dr. Haim purportedly showed that the hospital continued to perform some “gender-affirming” therapies after the announcement, including one procedure on an 11-year-old three days after it made the declaration. And so, he was actually functioning as a whistleblower against an institution that was breaking the law in this case.

Written y Lindokuhle Mabaso