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.

CONTEXTUALISATION: THE SEPTEMBER 22ND ANNOUNCEMENT

 “The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol)”, and we ought to begin with some contextualisation, looking at the announcement on the 22nd of September. Well, speaking from the Roosevelt Room, President Donald Trump and US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr announced bold new actions to confront the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) epidemic in America, which has surged nearly 400% since 2000 and now affects 1 in 31 American children.

First, the US Food and Drug Administration (or the FDA) will act on a potential treatment for speech-related deficits associated with ASD. The FDA is publishing a Federal Register notice outlining a label update for leucovorin for cerebral folate deficiency, which has been associated with autism. This action establishes the first FDA-recognised therapeutic for children with cerebral folate deficiency and autistic symptoms.  The change will essentially authorise treatment for children with ASD, with continued use if children show language, social, or adaptive gains. Following the label update for ASD, state Medicaid programs will be able to cover leucovorin for the indication of ASD, in partnership with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Finally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will launch confirmatory trials and new research into the impact of leucovorin including safety studies.

Now, it is very key to note that leucovorin is not a cure for ASD and may only lead to improvements in speech-related deficits for a subset of children with ASD. In addition, leucovorin would have to be administered under close medical supervision and in conjunction with other non-pharmacological approaches for children with ASD (e.g., behavioral therapy).

Then the second point of contextualisation to highlight from the announcement on the 22nd of September is that HHS stated that it will also act on acetaminophen. In essence, the FDA responsibility was to issue a physician notice and begin the process to initiate a safety label change for acetaminophen (or Tylenol and similar products). HHS would also have the responsibility of launching a nationwide public service campaign to inform families and protect public health.

TRUMP OPPOSES HEPATITIS B VACCINE FOR BABIES, & WARNS OF METALS IN VACCINES

Now one of the striking details mentioned by prescient Trump in the course of the tylenol-autism link announcement is that he questioned the rationale of giving an infant a Hepatitis B vaccine, as well the many dangerous metals, like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. Now, he proceeds to advocate for spacing out vaccines, as opposed to eradicating them in their entirety, which is not as fundamentalist and accurate a response to vaccines as I would argue is necessary. However, his remarks are considered in the context of a world and American society where people still have the freedom to exercise the choice to take a vaccine even when they are told about their harms. But, I am hoping to see and praying for this more fundamentalist and emphatically anti-vaccine approach to become more intrinsic to US health policy, because, we have spent a lot of time challenging the rationale behind vaccine science, and also disproving their claimed efficacy (including here on The War Room, and LN24 International at large) for us not to advocate for progressing towards a direct refutation of the necessity or plausibility of vaccines.

Nevertheless, here is why it still matters that Trump is perhaps the first president in US and world history to raise concerns about the Hepatitis B vaccines of the first day out of the womb, and also the presence of metals like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. First, central to the vaccine agenda and hoax, as far as it relates to children, is the idea that the many vaccines that parents are being compelled to allow for their children are somehow necessary. Following his rationale, within hours or when a child is born, a child is subjected to pharmaceutical intervention: more specifically, a new newborn’s eyes are smeared with erythro-mycin ointment, and a newborn is given the Hepatitis B shot.

However, erythromycin ointment is to prevent gonorrhoea or chlamydia infections of the eyes; and so, why would a newborn need this if the mother does not have these sexually transmitted illnesses? Furthermore, Hepatitis B is also a sexually transmitted disease, and from IV drug abusers, and so why would a newborn need this if parents are healthy and do not have Hepatitis B? Especially since parents are tested for these illnesses! In essence, the logic behind the alleged necessity of these interventions is really about treating newborns for illnesses they do NOT have – because there is literally nothing causal and therefore expressly necessary that would warrant these pharmaceutical interventions. Therefore, in questioning the rationale behind giving newborns the Hepatitis B jab, President Trump is exposing the deceptive reasoning behind it, and subsequently disrupting the vaccine enterprise’s profit stream that is built on the backs of babies.

Secondly, metals in vaccines are actually a massive health concern. Dr Toby Rogers PhD exposed the fact that the FDA and CDC approved aluminum as ‘safe & effective’ in vaccines, based on a study of only 4 rabbits that was riddled with issues – and yet, this is the study that the FDA and CDC rely on. In this study, they promptly lost the results from one of the rabbits. So the study is actually based on just 3 rabbits. But, the results in the rabbits were nevertheless of great concern.

In essence, the rabbits were killed after 28 days and the Aluminum Adjuvants are still there. At the endpoint, Aluminum retention in the body and organs was 94% for Aluminum Hydroxide and 78% for Aluminum Phosphate. The theory and narrative told by the FDA and CDC has always been that the body excretes the Aluminum through the urine and is therefore harmless. BUT, Dr Toby Rogers explained that nothing could be further from the truth. Injected heavy metals actually stay in the places in the body you would expect, which include the kidneys, the liver, the heart, the lymph nodes, the bone marrow and  the brain.”

And so, clearly the study by the CDC and the FDA was terrible to begin with but also produced results that were concerning. BUT, despite this, the FDA and CDC declared the presence of metals in vaccines to be safe and effective. It is beyond absurd because the science is so terribly bad that anybody who reads that study would not want to inject their children with Aluminum Adjuvanted vaccines. And that’s just one ingredient amongst hundreds in these vaccines, as far as metals are concerned. Here’s more from Dr Toby Rogers.

RFK JR: TYLENOL NOT JUST LINKED TO AUTISM, BUT ALSO ADHD AND LIVER TOXICITY

Then, in a recent announcement this month of October, and in doubling down on the tylenol issue, Secretary Kennedy announced that Tylenol is NOT just linked to autism but also ADHD and liver toxicity in children. Let’s kindly revisit that moment.

THE POINT OF CONTENTION: IS ACETAMINOPHEN A CAUSE OR DRIVER OF AUTISM?

So, all that we’ve discussed and heard thus far contextualises the contribution from the White house as far as tylenol (and vaccines) are concerned. Which then brings us to the point of contention. Now, for clarity, what is NOT the point of contention (at least for the purpose of our discussion is that the FDA recognises that acetaminophen is often treated as the only tool (or most recommended tool) for fevers and pain in pregnancy, as other alternatives (e.g., NSAIDs) have well documented adverse effects; which is why the FDA is also partnering with manufacturers to update labeling and drive new research to safeguard mothers, children, and families – this is not the point of contention we will focus on, because acetaminophen certainly has health risks (which we will highlight as we proceed), and these are health risks that do not warrant a defence, and rather necessitate a shift away from a reliance on pharmaceutical drugs as a means of pain or fever relief – especially in young children.

Then, what IS a point of contention that we ought to address for the purpose of our discussion, looking at the The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol) is one that began with a crucial concession from the White House concerning acetaminophen, and it is that the FDA recognises that there are contrary studies showing no association between acetaminophen and autism.  Thus, given the conflicting literature and lack of clear causal evidence, the HHS stated on the 22nd of September that it wants to encourage clinicians to exercise their best judgment in use of acetaminophen. As such, the point of contention lies with the conflicting literature, and this is precisely what we’ll talk about, by asking the question of whether acetaminophen is a root cause of driver in the autism or neurodevelopmental health issue discussion.

To begin our focus on this point of contention, I’d like to prove not only that tylenol had already been a focus in the autism debate years before the announcement from the White house in September, but I’d also like to prove that the studies even years back were showing that tylenol played the role of increasing chances of autism after vaccination, as opposed to being a primary cause itself. Kindly watch this excerpt from a 2023 interview conducted by the Children’s Health Defence.

Once again, President Trump raised the alarm about the dramatically rising prevalence of autism, and he emphasised that it must be caused by something in the environment. He mentioned acetaminophen and hyper-vaccination as prime suspects. Now, while president Trump and HHS Secretary also spoke about the suspect of large vaccine bundles administered to infants, their medical advisors (which include Drs Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, Mehmet Oz, and Dorothy Fink) focused their remarks exclusively on Tylenol, and almost did not mention vaccines.

But, here is what I’d like for us to collectively reconsider. First, there have been studies that examined Tylenol among the potential causes of autism, including studies by the McCullough Foundation, led by Dr Peter McCullough, who is among the people at the forefront of performing an exhaustive investigation of autism. These studies have found little evidence to warrant regarding Tylenol as a prime suspect in autism causation. In fact, it would seem that interest in the purported Tylenol-Autism link has recently been piqued within the same institutions that have long vehemently denied that autism is linked to childhood vaccination.

Thus, the totality of circumstances suggests that Tylenol is more of a red-herring than a true suspect. Now, this is not to say that tylenol is an exceptional pharmaceutical product, rather, it is to say that studies do not support it emerging as a primary cause of autism. In fact, I find it interesting that the recent study pointing to Tylenol is from Havard – the same institution that brought us the brain death definition to cover up for the disastrous second heart transplant that took place in Brooklyn, New York; and has resulted in the murder of many patients who are claimed to have been so-called brain dead.

Secondly, since it became a widely used, over-the-counter drug in 1960, Tylenol has been the only recommended medicine for relieving pain and reducing fever in pregnant women and infants. Generation X (which are those born between 1965-1980) was exposed to Tylenol in utero, and their  mothers often gave it to them to lower their fevers from frequent earaches. And yet, in a 1970 birth cohort, autism was virtually unknown. BY CONTRAST, the trend of dramatically increasing autism began in the late eighties, following the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This Act granted liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, which was followed by a rapid proliferation of the number of shots on the childhood schedule.

So, what does this mean? I think it means that tylenol – at best – is a driver (or worsening agent) of neurodevelopmental issues, but not the root cause. Let’s begin with Prenatal Exposure. The most comprehensive review to date, by Prada et al, evaluated tylenol use during pregnancy: 27 studies found a positive association with neurodevelopmental disorders (in particular ASD/ADHD). Then, 9 studies showed no link, while 4 studies suggested protective effects. But, we also ought to consider that autism was never or rarely ever diagnosed at birth. In every study, it emerged years later—typically ages 2–8, the very same window when children are loaded with many vaccines. Meanwhile, none of these papers we referenced accounted for vaccination as a confounder. This shows prenatal Tylenol exposure may predispose children, but the neurological injuries are detected during the vaccine years.

Similarly, when we look at Postnatal Exposure to tylenol, a study by Schultz et al (in 2008) found that children given Tylenol after MMR vaccination were about six times more likely to later be diagnosed with autism. In those who regressed (meaning who lost previously acquired skills), the risk was nearly fourfold, and in those with clear post-vaccine complications, the risk spiked to over eightfold. By contrast, ibuprofen showed no association. In addition, Yengst et al (in a 2025 study) found that in a Medicaid cohort of over 674,000 children, repeated episodes of fever, ear infections, or other “Tylenol-triggering” illnesses were linked to a two and a half-fold higher risk of autism. Among girls with multiple fevers, the risk climbed to nearly fourfold.

Taken together, these studies reveal a consistent pattern: which is that autism risk intensifies in the post-vaccine period, when febrile reactions are most common, and tylenol use in this context may amplify the likelihood of developmental regression. This is considering that tylenol depletes what is called gluta-thione, and this is the body’s master antioxidant/detox system, exactly when the brain faces inflammatory/oxidative stress (such as fever, seizures, or immune activation). Now, some pediatric practices have actually recommended Tylenol before vaccine visits “just in case,” meaning that children who take tylenol before shots arrive with defenses already depleted as the shots provoke fever/immune activation—thus priming the children for worse outcomes. Ergo, tylon is a driver (or worsening agent) but not the cause of neurodevelopmental issues.

CONTRASTING THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE WITH TYLENON IN THE CAUSATION DISCOURSE

So, that is what studies reflect concerning tylenol’s capacity as a root cause in neurodevelopmental issues – and especially autism. Let’s proceed to contrast this with the childhood vaccine schedule. You’d recall that on the 9th of September, attorney Aaron Siri testified before the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the hearing titled: “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.” In his sworn testimony, Siri revealed the results of a long-hidden study from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI. This is the largest vaccinated vs unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (looking at 18,468 participants). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.

The study’s official title is (quote): “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.” The measures and outcomes of this study come directly from the testimony of Aaron Siri, who presented these findings under oath in the US Senate, as unfortunately, the study is not yet publicly available (again, considering that it was largely hidden for the longest time).

The key findings from the Henry Ford Health System study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders. In light of these findings, Aaron Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant. And even more striking is that, in conditions where unvaccinated children had zero cases (and this is looking at conditions like brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics), there were hundreds of cases among the vaccinated group!

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.

And now onto our main discussion regarding Dr Robert Malone; and the War Against the Medical Industrial Complex; and we ought to start with the latest development; which is that the HHS Secretary, being Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has appointed Dr Robert Malone to the Advisory Committee for Immunisation Practices. You’d recall that in the previous weeks, the secretary had fired all 17 members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee for immunization practices (ACIP) – which is a group of alleged scientific experts who recommend how vaccines should be administered and distributed.

In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy stated that (quote): “The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. It has never recommended against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make matters worse, the groups that inform ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust.”.

Well, the 17-member ACIP panel was scheduled to meet later in the month of June to review recommendations, including those involving COVID-19 vaccinations for children. That meeting will still go ahead, but without the current panelists, some of whom Kennedy said were ‘last-minute Biden appointees’ whose terms would have otherwise extended until 2028.

So, on the one hand, those supporting this move say this is exactly the kind of bold move needed to break the credibility crisis surrounding vaccine science and government health agencies. This is especially considering that Secretary Kennedy remarked that the new appointees won’t directly work for the vaccine industry” and will “refuse to serve as a rubber stamp,” instead fostering “a culture of critical inquiry”. But, on the other hand, those against this decision argue the opposite, insisting that the move reeks of ideology and raises concerns that Kennedy will stack the committee with vaccine skeptics or unqualified appointees, thus further eroding trust – and you typically heard this argument from Democrat officials, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bill Cassidy; and the liberal media.

PUBLIC TRUST IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WAS ALREADY ON A STEADY DECLINE

Now, during the period that Secretary Kennedy fired those committee members, a number of media houses and publications reported that the immediate concern for public health officials, scientists and vaccine researchers was both the erosion in trust AND who will fill the newly opened seats. Let;s address the public trust issue first. In essence, here is what was ignored by the critics and skeptics: the erosion of trust in the public health system FAR pre-dates the firing of all 17 members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee for immunization practices! The erosion of trust occurred because patients have long been bearing the brunt of a corrupt medical system that puts them in debt (at times even rendering them homeless), through charging them for insanely expensive and unnecessary procedures, tests, and medication. Public trust was eroded by doctors and nurses who were murdering patients and getting away with it because of the lack of adequate oversight in the medical industry.

Trust further eroded when mothers were dying at alarming rates after giving birth in first world countries. And eroded even more when the COVID debacle was exposed, and pro-vaccine individuals were being gaslit when reporting vaccine injuries. But, worse of all, this erosion erupted because people discovered that the regulatory bodies that were supposed to hold pharmaceutical and medical corporations accountable had a revolving door relationship with the entities they were supposed to keep from doing any harm. In fact, even the CDC was reporting a fall in vaccine rates by 2024. More specifically, a Centers for Disease Control report titled, “Influenza, COVID-19, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination Coverage Among Adults — United States, Fall 2024”, found that, by November 9, 2024, only an estimated 17.9% of adults aged 18 years or above had received the updated COVID-19 booster injection. But, ultimately, these failures of the public health system are where the public trust problem emanates from.

And in light of this (and also responding to the claim that this change reeks of ideology) I’d like to point out that the issues resulting in the erosion of public trust in the medical system that we’ve just outlined – they took place in Democrat administrations as well (in fact more, when considering that America has largely been under Democrat leadership more times than Republican). Therefore, if this measure strengthens accountability by removing people with conflicts of interest, and does this in a field of medicine that has become incredibly controversial – it sounds like the problem is being addressed and not exacerbated.

Secondly, what would be a careless exacerbation of the problem with a lack of public trust is keeping a status quo where public trust is already eroded. Therefore, responding by removing people who have been complicit in the creation and keeping of the problem seems like a fairly sensible thing to do. But, here’s more on how public trust in the health care system was long on a steady decline; including a concession from officials of the CDC and NIH during the Biden Harris administration on their role in decreasing public trust.

Now, I find it interesting that each of the officials we just watched highlighted the need for better transparency in their respective agencies – which sounds like exactly what Secretary Keneddy was advocating for in firing people who had a conflict of interest, while simply rubber stamping vaccines without much enquiry or transparency. But, of course, those officials never actually lived up to their words about transparency, following their concessions in 2024 on how their respective agencies fuelled public distrust. Additional proof of this is the fact that the concession excerpt we just watched followed another meeting in 2023, where Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) questioned witnesses about school reopening procedures during the pandemic at a House Energy Committee hearing on “Assessing the CDC’s failures in fulfilling its mission”.

Well, it sounds like the CDC has long had issues with public trust. And removing members of an advisory committee in the CDC that is riddled with a conflict of interest, is a necessary response. Now, there is also the media aspect in this – in particular the publications and media houses that were (quote unquote) raising the alarm about this shift in the advisory committee. It’s really simple: the medical industrial complex funds a significant portion of the media, and has made them into their media intermediary, responsible for spreading and the proselytising of a polluted science. The COVID-19 period has shown a very high level of scientific censorship, causing many people difficulties to access relevant health information. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industries are known for their propaganda in favour of the disease. Pharmaceutical industries are known to provide inaccurate and misleading promotional information about their medicines, but also inaccurate information on diseases and disease risks, which can lead to unnecessary medication and induce side effects caused by these medicines. They pay government officials and even medical practitioners to keep themselves from being exposed. But, evidently, they also capture the mainstream media through advertising revenue, which allows them to regulate what is said about pharmaceutical products.

DR ROBERT MALONE APPOINTED TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IMMUNISATION PRACTICES

Well, we mentioned earlier that in addition to the claimed issue of a decrease in public trust, critics also expressed concern about who would replace the dismissed advisory committee members. This was a question that was quickly answered as Secretary Kennedy has also announced the new members making up the ACIP panel. These members include Drs: Robert W Malone; Martin Kulldorff (who was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, along with Dr Jay Bhattacharya, who is president Trump’s pick for the director of the National Institutes of Health); there is also Cody Meissner (and he is a professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at Dartmouth. He previously held advisory roles at the FDA and CDC, including ACIP from 2008-2012. In 2021, Meissner co-wrote an editorial with Dr Marty Makary, who is now the head of the FDA, which criticised mask mandates for children).

Also named in the advisory committee is Vicky Pebsworth (Pebsworth is a nurse and the former consumer representative on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee. She is also the Pacific regional director for the National Association of Catholic Nurses). Fifth on the committee is Retsef Levi (Levi is a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management who Kennedy described as an “expert in healthcare analytics, risk management and vaccine safety). Then there is Michael A. Ross (Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, with a career spanning clinical medicine, research, and public health policy). Seventh in Joseph R. Hibbeln (who is a California-based psychiatrist who previously served as acting chief for the section of nutritional neurosciences at the NIH); and finally is Dr James Pagano (who is an emergency medicine physician from Los Angeles “with over 40 years of clinical experience”, and a “strong advocate for evidence-based medicine).

Now, one of the most notable names is Dr Robert Malone, who is a biochemist who made early innovations in the field of messenger RNA but in more recent years has been a vocal critic of mRNA technology in Covid-19 vaccines. His announcement has made those in support of the medical industrial complex run amok. As such, they have responded with instant, coordinated character assassination efforts and desperate attempts to erase his record. Their terror is quite palpable!

WHY THE MEDICAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OPPOSES DR ROBERT MALONE

Once again, the backers of the medical industrial complex have responded to Dr Maone’s appointment with instant, coordinated character assassination efforts and desperate attempts to erase his record – because they are concerned about what this appointment means for their nefarious plans. Well, they should be concerned. Dr Robert Malone is particularly equipped to dismantle this collection of corrupt systems and subsystems from the inside, thus the wisely alarmed position of the opposition on large horse statue gifts from the Trojans. Afterall, they don’t attack nobodies. They don’t coordinate against empty suits. They target people who threaten the machinery.

What is interesting about Dr Malone is that he was never inherently interested in public office – much like Donald Trump in his early career as a businessman. In the case of Dr Robert Malone, he is regarded as someone driven by a moral imperative that compels him to serve and to do it outside of politics, especially seeing he had already suffered through that crucible during Covid crackdown on dissenting doctors; and thus knew the political terrain. And so he has preferred working with states or private partners, where bureaucratic constraints would not muzzle urgent action. And so, he did not seek a federal appointment, but when Kennedy asked him – with the moral urgency of a country in collapse – Malone chose service over safety.

In any case, Dr Malone’s appointment triggered a predictable media offensive, laced with insinuation and omission. Major outlets, operating in lockstep, flooded the digital landscape with headlines crafted to imply fraud without making refutable claims. Phrases like “played an early role in mRNA development…” and “claims to have invented…” flooded mainstream media discussions. And they did this in an effort to plant seeds of doubt without offering substance – which is a classic psyop strategy.

But, let’s make this plain: the establishment isn’t reacting this way because Dr. Malone lacks credibility. They’re reacting this way because he threatens everything upon which they rely to maintain control. This is to say that: Dr Malone isn’t just a critic of captured science – he helped build the scaffolding of modern molecular medicine. He holds dozens of issued patents, including foundational work in mRNA and DNA vaccine platforms. He understands the system from the inside out – its science, its politics, its regulatory gamesmanship. And now he’s turned that knowledge toward exposing and repairing the institutional rot that has poisoned public health policy.

For instance, Dr Robert Malone in 2022, warned parents about the contents of mRNA technology – at a time when only a few voices such as the president of loveworld Incorporated were at the forefront of exposing the dangers of mRNA technology. In addition, Dr Robert Malone also exposed the “military-grade psychological operation” otherwise known as the “Covid-19 pandemic”. He has publicised how Western governments, non-governmental organisations, transnational organisations, pharmaceutical industry corporations, media and financial corporations have co-operated via public-private partnerships—which he calls a euphemism for fascism—to deploy the most massive, globally harmonised psychological and propaganda operation in the history of the world.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

And now onto our main discussion regarding the… and many of us would be familiar with Senator Ron Johnson, especially following his work in unravelling the covid debacle in the US. Interestingly, in light of the work he had done, Senator Ron Johnson had planned to retire in 2022 but ran for re-election specifically to help those affected by the vaccine. But, one of the things that’s been the most striking about Ron Johnson’s attempts to stop the COVID vaccines has been the revelation of just how little legislated power a Senator has to compel the CDC or FDA to do the right thing (for example, many of the key COVID government documents that Senator Ron Johnson’s office uncovered were never provided by the H.H.S. in the Biden-Harris administration).

Nonetheless, Senator Ron Johnson has been extremely methodical and patient in seeking a way to change the current paradigm. He has now ascended to a very unique position: being chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This committee has long been one of the most powerful and broadest investigative bodies in Congress. In parallel, since the second Trump administration has a far more fundamentalist approach to healthcare through the MAHA agenda, rather than stonewall Johnson, this administration has ensured that the documents he is requesting are now being released. And because of this, he was recently able to hold a pivotal Senate enquiry that conclusively showed the Biden Administration, FDA, and CDC were aware the COVID vaccines were causing heart attacks but continually hid that from the public to keep pushing the COVID vaccines on the public.

In this Senate enquiry led by Senator Ron Johnson, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough delivered a stark warning about the risks of vaccine-related myocarditis, a crisis downplayed by federal health officials. Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Dr. McCullough, with over 1,000 publications, revealed data on heart damage linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in young men, and criticized oversight by agencies like the FDA and CDC.

Dr. McCullough condemned mandates imposed on athletes by sports teams, with no safety provisions, stating that “Ninety percent of vaccine myocarditis cases involve young men, and ninety percent require hospitalization.” In addition, subclinical myocarditis, where patients experience heart palpitations, blood pressure swings, and atypical chest pain, is also concerning, with symptoms persisting post-vaccination. A recent Journal of the American College of Cardiology report confirmed cardiac arrests years after vaccination, with vaccine micro-scars found in the heart. ANd so, Dr McCullough’s testimony exposed a wave of vaccine-related deaths, with subclinical myocarditis setting the stage for fatal arrhythmias months or years later. Kindly watch this excerpt.

Now, a significant reason that legislators in the Biden-Harris administration and the FDA were able to get away with concealing or downplaying critical information is that those who raised concerns were silenced. And here, this is not even about the political weaponisation of institutions or even the creation of the censorship industrial complex (which are issues that emerged in the COVID period) – RATHER, this is about the fact that those who were vaccine injured who went to Senate Hearings to report of their experiences and provide empirical evidence were gas lit and shut down.

And herein lies one of the most critical issues that contributed to erosion of the integrity of the medical system in the US (and others parts of the world). It is that: not only were government officials working with incorrect information and WHO dictates about the COVID virus and vaccines, and not only were covid responses highly politicised and divorced of scientific integrity, BUT even when people sought to highlight urgent concerns that would have improved the government’s response, governments often failed to fulfil their duty of care by listening.

Well, another concealed and previous denied development that was highlighted in the hearing pertains to the notorious white fibrous blood clots from the COVID vaccines. These clots are stretching over 20 inches long in a significant number of bodies where they were examined, and a number of doctors reported seeing them after the rollout of COVID jabs – in both patients they were seeing and post-mortem bodies. For instance, During his 40-year career as a pathologist, Dr. Arne Burkhardt had never observed this type of unusual blood clot until after the rollout of the C19 injections. This type of clot was found in several living vaccinated patients, including a 40 year-old former marathon runner.

THE LACK OF ADEQUATE REGULATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY

This then necessitates that we focus our attention on the regulatory body that was supposed to ensure that this problem does not occur to begin with, being the FDA. Not only because they are a regulatory body but because products approved by the FDA have a broad scope of impact, given how they are imported around the world. And so, first let’s have a recapitulation of the FDA;s history. And this history, even in its abridged version, demonstrates that in the absence of a regulatory body, corporations have a tendency to place harmful products on the market that they present as having a plausible impact on people’s health.

So the FDA is conceptually necessary to prevent the continuation of the harmful business food and drug manufacturing process observes in the US and also around the world, like Coca-Cola using cocaine in its drink and presenting it as a fatigue relieving medication, or companies including spices and preservatives in food to mask the taste of expired food. So, why has a body that has a valid and plausible reason for existence been complicit or culpable in some of the issues in the medical industry?

THE INHERENT PROBLEMS IN THE FDA’S DRUG APPROVAL PROCESSES

Let’s start with the drug approval process. And here it is important to note that the FDA’s approval process may favour drug companies over consumers — and FDA-approval does not guarantee safety. In fact, Big Pharma actually pays for the majority of drug safety reviews, provides the FDA with safety data for the review and has the option to have drugs approved faster with fewer clinical trials. In addition, FDA approval is based on evidence — provided by the company that makes the medical product — that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks for most patients for a specific use. It doesn’t necessarily mean the product is safe.

Furthermore, a new drug takes several steps before it makes its way into a consumer’s medicine cabinet. Unlike medical devices that are cleared for sale without extensive testing if a similar device is already on the market, drugs must go through clinical trials before they are available to consumers.

Now, while the process of approving a new drug may seem thorough on paper, critics say it assumes the world is a perfectly controlled environment. Also, clinical trials have short timeframes and can’t thoroughly determine safety. Michael A. Carome, who is the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group director further stated on this very subject that “When a new drug is first approved by the FDA, it typically has only been tested in several hundred to a few thousands patients in carefully controlled clinical trials that last several weeks to several months and that exclude many types of patients who will end up being prescribed the drug, As a result, only the most common types of serious adverse events will be detected prior to FDA approval.” In fact, the FDA calls drug approval a “balancing act” between acceptable risks and benefits on its website.

THE FDA HAS A CONCERNING HISTORY EVEN IN TRACKING OR RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT DRUGS AND PRODUCTS

Now, multiple experts expressed concerns about the risk of the vaccine causing premature births, a risk found in a similar product made by GlaxoSmithKline that prompted thecompany to halt testing in 2022. In Pfizer’s trial, there were more premature deliveries in the vaccinated arm than the placebo arm—5.7 percent in the former versus 4.7 percent in the latter. Dr Paul Offit, who is one of the FDA’s advisers, said that this is an issue hanging over the program. But take a guess at how the FDA responded; simply, the FDA declined to comment on the issue during, though staffers wrote in a brief that there was “potential uncertainty” regarding premature births. But, this is not the first instance where FDA leadership was caught unprepared to deal with complaints about products, because medical device dangers were hidden in FDA reports for DECADES.

A major consideration in this discussion is not just Pfizer’s approach to vaccine safety – as indicated at the beginning of our discussion, it is the very essence of the medical industry and the fact that – despite the constructive role it is supposed to play in society, it is one of the least effectively regulated industries in the world, and corporations and global organisations take advantage of this. For instance, the COVID VACCINE FORMULA was SWAPPED IN a SINISTER FDA FRAUD! Justin Leslie, who was armed with damning videos and documents, revealed Pfizer pulled a fast one on the FDA. In essence, what occurred is that after clinical trials, Pfizer swapped the vaccine’s phosphate buffer saline (or PBS) for a tris buffer system. Why? Well, because the PBS needed -80°C storage, but the tris allowed easier distribution. The problem is, ALL trial data was based on the PBS formula—NOT the tris one injected into kids!

Unfortunately, it does not end here. What has always been of concern to me and no doubt to many of you as our viewers is the utter lack of effective regulation measures for medical devices by the FDA as well – so much so, that the regulation measures that are supposed to ensure that the devices are safe to implant or that any issues are reported and responded to swiftly are much worse in comparison to the measures the FDA uses for prescription drugs.

This lack of accountability has also manifested with medical practitioners themselves. More specifically, there were a number of cases reported in the world where doctors would falsely prescribe chemotherapy to patients who did not have cancer. In one case, 5 years ago, a Michigan office manager risked his career to expose a doctor who gave chemotherapy to patients who did not have cancer.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

In a groundbreaking ruling, the European Court of Justice has ordered the European Commission to release the private text messages between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, after four years of secrecy and controversy surrounding a massive €35 billion vaccine deal. The EU Commission is now required to make these texts public, which allegedly contain details of the clandestine negotiations for the lucrative vaccine contract, paid for by European taxpayers. Investigations by Investigate Europe have uncovered that the cost per dose was a staggering 15 times the production cost, potentially resulting in billions of euros being overpaid. Furthermore, it has been revealed that Bourla failed to appear for his scheduled testimony before the EU Parliament in 2022, while von der Leyen’s husband holds a prominent position as Medical Director of Orgenesis, a biotech firm that receives EU funding and has a significant partnership with Pfizer. This complex web of relationships and dealings raises serious concerns about potential corruption at the highest levels of the European Union, with possible conflicts of interest that directly benefit von der Leyen’s family and may have resulted in the misappropriation of billions of euros in public funds through clandestine agreements. The situation appears to be a clear case of alleged fraud on a massive scale, and the European public is eagerly awaiting the release of the incriminating texts, which could shed light on the truth behind this scandal. As the European Union watches with bated breath, the release of these texts is expected to have significant implications for von der Leyen’s tenure and the future of the EU.

MEP Christina Anderson speaks on Pfizer Gate verdict

Ursula Von Der Leyen, we will hold you accountable: Christina Anderson

German MEP Christina Anderson reacted to the stinging rebuke to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who secretly negotiated a massive contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for 1.8 billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine, worth a staggering 35 billion euros. What’s more, these backroom deals were made not through official channels or formal documentation, but rather through casual SMS text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla. Following a recent ruling by the General Court of the European Union, it has been confirmed that von der Leyen has indeed broken the law, and now the EU Commission is being forced to make her incriminating text messages public, shedding light on the shady dealings that have sparked widespread outrage and calls for greater transparency.

EU Parliament’s shocking display of censorship

Questions have been asked in the EU Parliament but there is always a shocking display of censorship. European Union Parliament member Christine Anderson was once abruptly silenced on the floor after she boldly exposed the corrupt vaccine contracts between EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This outrageous move is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech and transparency, and it’s utterly disgusting. As Anderson’s microphone remained on until she dropped the bombshell that a parliament that covers up such corruption is equally corrupt and is robbing its people, her voice was suddenly and deliberately cut off. The moment she uttered those words, her microphone was swiftly turned off, sparking a wave of outrage. One courageous individual yelled out, demanding to hear the rest of Anderson’s statement, but his request was callously rejected, leaving many to wonder what the EU Parliament is trying to hide. Now we know what the EU Parliament was afraid of, and why they were so desperate to silence Anderson’s truth-telling voice?

€35 billion was secretly funnelled to the pharmaceutical cartel

Investigations have uncovered a complex web of deceit, revealing that a staggering €35 billion of taxpayer money was secretly funnelled into the coffers of a powerful pharmaceutical cartel, with no transparency, oversight, or accountability in place. This is not merely a scandal, but a blatant case of organized crime that has infiltrated the highest echelons of European power. Delving deeper into the heart of the matter, it becomes clear that this was not just a corrupt contract, but a meticulously coordinated operation orchestrated by the Medical Deep State – a shadowy alliance of unelected bureaucrats, pharmaceutical moguls, and globalist technocrats who have hijacked the scientific community, exploited fear, and amassed enormous profits from the masses. Ursula von der Leyen, a key player in this syndicate, has been found to be complicit in this scheme, using her position to push through policies, bypass democratic checks and balances, and channel billions of dollars into the hands of corporate giants like Pfizer, all under the guise of “public health.” A disturbing pattern of events has emerged, in which Pfizer dictated the terms, Bourla evaded testimony, Ursula sent clandestine texts, her husband’s company reaped the benefits, and millions of people were forced into compliance, silenced, coerced, vaccinated, and tracked. Remember when Ursula von der Leyen wanted to impose mandatory vaccination within the EU?

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen joined forces with Bill Gates

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has joined forces with Bill Gates to “vaccinate 500 million children by 2030”. The organisation aims to vaccinate 500 million children in the next five years, including 50 million children with a malaria vaccine.

This is the very fabric of the Medical Deep State: a parasitic network that infiltrates governments, manipulates institutions, and exploits crises for financial gain. It silences medical professionals, censors dissenting voices, and only funds research that serves its agenda. The COVID operation was the crowning achievement of this syndicate, with Ursula von der Leyen serving as its European queenpin. However, the walls of secrecy are now crumbling, and the incriminating texts are being released, exposing the digital fingerprints of betrayal for all to see. This marks not only the end of a political career but also the beginning of a global reckoning, one that will hold the perpetrators of this massive scandal accountable for their actions. The people demand justice, and it is time for the truth to be revealed.

White House bans U.S. agencies from all work on G-20 in South Africa

The White House National Security Council has ordered U.S. agencies and departments to suspend work with the Group of 20 conference set to be hosted by South Africa this year, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a government decision not yet made public. The move follows President Donald Trump’s public threats to boycott the summit over claims that White South Africans are having their land taken away by the government under a new expropriation law. The G-20 is an international forum of the world’s biggest economies and is designed to address the biggest financial issues around the globe. The Johannesburg summit is set to be held in November under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.”

Can the G7 take charge, or is global collaboration falling apart?

The G20’s power seems to be slipping. Can the G7 still steer the world, or is teamwork between countries falling apart? The G20, which includes both rich and developing nations, was designed to tackle big global issues together. But with different countries having different goals, reaching agreements has become harder. For instance, getting everyone to agree on climate change policies is tough. If the G20 can’t lead, the spotlight shifts to the G7. This group of wealthy countries has a track record of setting the agenda. Yet, some wonder if the G7 is truly able to handle today’s complex global challenges alone. Can they get other nations to follow their lead? Or are we entering an era where countries focus more on themselves, making it difficult to solve problems that affect everyone?

The globalist agenda and the G20

The globalist agenda” tied to the G20 often comes up in debates about power, sovereignty, and who really calls the shots in the world. The G20 as a tool for pushing policies that erode borders, prioritize corporate interests, and centralize control under the guise of international cooperation. At its core, the G20 is about coordinating the world’s biggest economies—think US, China, EU, India, and others—to manage global systems like trade, finance, and climate. That mission naturally leans toward interconnectedness: open markets, harmonized regulations, and collective action. For supporters, this is just pragmatic economies don’t exist in a vacuum, and problems like pandemics or recessions don’t respect borders. But in actuality, it’s a stepping stone to something more sinister: a world where national identity and autonomy get swallowed by a borderless, elite-driven system. Let’s look at G20’s economic playbook. Since its post-2008 financial crisis glow-up, it’s championed free trade, deregulation, and global supply chains. Look at the 2016 Hangzhou Summit under China’s watch—it pushed hard for “inclusive globalization,” doubling down on cross-border investment and digital trade. Critics say this just hands more power to multinational corporations and technocrats, who rake in profits while local industries in smaller nations—or even G20 members like Argentina—get hollowed out. The G20’s own data backs this up indirectly: its members account for 80% of world trade, but the benefits skew toward the top dogs, leaving others scrambling for crumbs. Then there’s the climate angle, a favourite target of the globalist-label crowd. The G20’s been loud about “sustainable development”—think the 2021 Rome Summit’s net-zero pledges or the 2023 New Delhi push for green tech. This is a Trojan horse: centralized control over energy and resources, enforced by unelected bodies like the IMF or World Bank, which often tag along in G20 discussions. The counterargument is that climate change is a global mess needing global fixes but look at the fine print—carbon taxes or trade rules that hit poorer nations hardest while letting big emitters like China or the US off the hook with loopholes.

The G20 isn’t about sovereign nations

The inclusion of supranational players like the EU and, since 2023, the African Union, stirs the pot further. This proves the G20 isn’t about sovereign nations but about building a framework for regional blocs—eventually into one-world governance. Add in the guest list—heads of the UN, WTO, OECD and the WEF—and it’s easy to see the makings of a cabal. The G20’s own statements don’t hide this: the 2022 Bali Summit called for “multilateral reform” to “strengthen global governance.” That’s code for chipping away at national control.

The WEF Globalist Agenda drives the G20

The G20’s decisions aren’t binding, but its soft power is real—think peer pressure with trillion-dollar stakes. When it nudges policies like digital currencies (a hot topic in 2025 with India’s pilot and China’s e-yuan) or vaccine passports (post-COVID), you can see the globalist endgame: centralized surveillance and economic dependence. The 2019 Osaka Summit’s focus on “data free flow with trust” got tech giants salivating, but it also sparked fears of a world where citizens answer to algorithms over parliaments. With 19 countries plus a couple of unions calling shots for 8 billion people, the G20’s push for integration—trade, climate, tech—feel like a top-down power grab. That’s the rub: it doesn’t need a shadowy handshake to look like a globalist machine—it just has to keep doing what it’s designed to do.

Is the G20 simply another globalist climate cult group?

One could say the G20 is simply another globalist climate cult group. They push a radical climate agenda. They want to control every aspect of our lives. They demand we give up our freedom. This group has no real authority. It represents an attack on national sovereignty. We should refuse to fund this organization. Every dollar given empowers their destructive plans. They will use our money to push their harmful ideas. We must resist their influence. When you rope in their clandestine meetings under the guise of global welfare are mere facades for their true intentions. The WEF and the G20 weave a web of influence that stretches across continents, manipulating policies and economies to serve their own insidious purposes. Behind closed doors, a sinister plan unfolds, designed to shape the world according to their malevolent vision. But as the shadows of their agenda lengthen, whispers of resistance grow louder, challenging the darkness that threatens to engulf the nations.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

THE MUTILATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES, VACCINES, AND THE TRANS AGENDA

And now onto our main discussion on the agenda on the mutilation of the human species; and we ought to begin with the mutilation of the human species – particularly in light of the intersection between vaccines and the trans agenda. This discussion emanates from a diabolical agenda exposed by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., regarding how there is a mutilation of the human species, part of the gender agenda; and which is part of things that people are made to ingest, including contaminated food and drugs. He went on to address how this mutilation agenda even destroys male and female appearances AND has been occurring for many years. Let’s kindly revisit that moment.

THE MUTILATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES THROUGH CONTAMINATED FOOD

Let’s first address this human mutilation with respect to food. You’d recall the President of Loveworld Incorporated addressed the issue of corn, and how corn is one of the most genetically modified crops in the present, despite producers who market their corn as organic. At best, the organic mark refers to organic farming practices, as opposed to the natural nature of the product itself. In light of this, you’d recall that we discussed, here on ‘the War Room’ that this genetically modified corn, known as Bt corn, was engineered to produce an insecticide, killing corn borers and other pests, reducing the need for chemical pesticides.  And that, despite it being hailed as a success – especially in killing pests, this corn is a massive liability for human and animal health – especially because the DNA of corn has been altered in such a manner, that is supposed to make it survive being sprayed with toxic chemicals like glyphosate.

As a result, this corn that is contaminated with toxic chemicals has become one of the leading tools in the human mutilation agenda. In particular, the genetically modified corn presents people with numerous health threats, resulting from the toxins – especially when we begin to consider that genetically modified corn is directly tied to something called leaky gut syndrome. Leaky gut syndrome is a condition where increased intestinal permeability allows toxins and undigested food particles to leak into the bloodstream, potentially causing inflammation and various health problems. Here’s what’s notable about this. When the genetically modified Bt corn was made, studies noted that the insects who ate this corn would develop hoes in their stomachs, which would ultimately make their stomachs burst. It appears that the very same genetically modified But corn has a similar mutilating impact on a human stomach, and it is what is being called leaky gut syndrome – as was discussed in a US government hearing.

Now, you’d also recall that the ambitions of mutilating humans through food did not end with corn being tied to leaky gut syndrome. In September 2001, scientists created what they called contraceptive corn, with the pretext or (quote unquote) saving the world from overpopulation. These pregnancy prevention plants were the handiwork of the San Diego-based biotechnology company ‘Epicyte’, where researchers discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack the male reproductive seed, or sperm. By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company essentially created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives, towards a depopulation agenda!

Well, DuPont and Monsanto then purchased the contraceptive epicyte gene to include it in their products and subsequently the corn that they produce – all resulting in decreasing fertility rates in a number of people.

THE MUTILATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES THROUGH CONTAMINATED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS

We then ought to talk about the mutilation of the human species through contaminated pharmaceutical products – and frankly, this is where it gets even more twisted and diabolical. In particular, we ought to address this in light of vaccines. And to begin with, I’d like to establish a crucial piece of context, which is that a lot of vaccines that are presented as simple clear solutions ACTUALLY contain fetal tissue that was taken from aborted babies. In fact, kindly have a listen to Stanley Plotkin’s contribution on this. By the way, Stanley Plotkin is widely regarded as a leading author and contributor to vaccinology. He has also been a consultant to Moderna, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid vaccine. And in the following excerpt, he is under oath admitting to the use of fetal tissue from aborted babies in vaccines.

Here’s why this piece of context matters: American author and journalist Dr Naomi Wolf exposed that the COVID jabs are ACTUALLY about “destroying women and babies” AND also “emasculating men.” In Pfizer’s own documents, the pharmaceutical company focused more on researching the effects of the vaccine on sex and reproduction RATHER than on its impact on the lungs. Which is an immediate red flag because COVID was allegedly a virus that affected a person’s respiratory system – so, why would a pharmaceutical company that is allegedly making a vaccine that would protect from this lung harming virus place more emphasis on research the vaccines impact on sex and reproduction?

Well, it is because Pfizer knew of the far greater impact of their vaccine on the reproductive system. American author and journalist Naomi Wolf, along with independent researchers brought a body of work titled the Pfizer Papers, looking at Pfizer’s crimes against humanity. The body of work features reports which are based on Pfizer clinical trial documents released under court order and on related medical literature. They show that Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial was deeply flawed and that the pharmaceutical company knew by November 2020 that its vaccine was neither safe nor effective. THEN, the reports detail vaccine-induced harms throughout the human body, INCLUDING TO THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM; they also show that women suffered vaccine-related adverse events at a 3:1 ratio; expose that vaccine-induced myocarditis is not rare, mild, or transient; and, shockingly, demonstrate that the mRNA vaccines have created a new category of multi-system, multi-organ disease, which is being called “CoVax Disease.”

But, now, in light of the harms to the reproductive system specifically, Dr Naomi Wolf proceeded to detail the diabolical extent that Pfizer targeted the reproductive function of the human body. She states that they knew they were blocking women’s ovaries with lipid nanoparticles, they knew the lipid nanoparticles traverse the placenta. Furthermore, Pfizer KNEW there’s something with the biological seed of vaccinated men that is possibly dangerous to women or foetuses because Pfizer warned vaccinated men not to have intercourse with childbearing age women and that if they do, they ought to use 2 reliable forms of contraception. Here’s more fro mDr Noami Wolf.

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN HUMAN MUTILATION, VACCINES AND THE TRANS AGENDA

Now, I mentioned that it gets even more twisted and diabolical when it comes to the mutilation of the human species through contaminated pharmaceutical products, and we proceeded to look at the contamination of vaccines with the fetal tissue of aborted babies. [PAUSE] Well, this actually explains a concerning intersection between the mutilation agenda, vaccines, and the trans agenda.

More specifically, it appears that the transgender “movement” (so to speak) is the political cover for a larger, long-term directed evolution project being carried out by DARPA, which is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, within the United States Department of Defense. You’d remember DARPA as a notable actor in our discussions on the weaponisation of weather. This project has 3 goals. (2) First, is to sterilise/depopulate 90% of the population covertly over three generations; (2) Second is to trigger/force hyper-accelerated mutations in the general human population in the search for life extension technologies; And (3) to destroy the classical definition of what it means to be human, giving rise to new divergent species.

But, you see the greatest evidence of this project is all that we know about the COVID plandemic and the vaccines themselves. First, it should be no surprise that DARPA – a US Department of Defence Agency – is involved in the creation of a biologically destructive project. It should be no surprise because during the Covid era, one could easily infer interesting facts of military involvement, and even parallels to military operations. For instance, the so-called public health experts were actually not responsible for pandemic response policy in many countries. In the US, for example, the military-intelligence-biodefense leadership was in charge. In fact, government documents have shown how standard tenets of public health pandemic management were abruptly and secretly thrown out during the covid plandemic. The most startling switch was the replacement of the public health agencies by the National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security at the helm of pandemic policy and planning. And as part of the secret switch, all communications – defined in every previous pandemic planning document as the responsibility of the CDC – were taken over by the National Security Council under the auspices of the White House Task Force; the CDC was not even allowed to hold its own press conferences!

And so, when the so-called public health and medical experts blanketed the airwaves and Internet with “recommendations” urging universal masking, mass testing and quarantining of asymptomatic people, vaccine mandates, and other anti-public health policies – or when they promoted obviously flawed studies that supported the quarantine-until-vaccine biodefense agenda – they were not doing so of their own accord, INSTEAD, they were performing the role that the leaders of the national security or biodefense response gave them: which is to be the trusted public face that made people believe quarantine-until-vaccine was a legitimate public health response – all while this was a military operation.

Similarly, it is not a surprise that the mRNA vaccines are a central piece in the mutilation and trans agenda. In particular, you’ll recall that they lied about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, but especially about what the mRNA vaccines do in the human body!

ANTHONY FAUCI AUTHORISED MORE THAN $200 MILLION FOR TRANSGENDER ANIMAL STUDIES

But, just in case the evidence on this intersection between human mutilation, vaccines and transgenderism still sounds circumstantial or less damning for the covid industrial complex, well… Republican Representative Eli Crane exposed critical information concerning Anthony Fauci’s dealings in the COVID era. Anthony Fauci – who was the face of the diabolical covid response, well he also authorised more than $200 million for transgender animal studies.

WHAT THE HUMAN MUTILATION AGENDA MEANS FOR THE VACCINATED

So, what does this mean for the vaccines? Well, for one, we now know that COVID-19 injections are NOT biological, and are rather synthetic nano circuits that communicate with 5G! Now, a Dr Astrid Stuckelberger exposed that Pfizer Covid vial contents “contains graphene oxide, parasites, RFID, metals, and nano-circuitry. And DARPA and Bill Gates developed these non-biological synthetic injections to control the minds and bodies of the population.” She further exposes that “Dr. Charles Morgan formerly with the CIA in a 2018 DARPA meeting talking to the U.S. Military about CRISPR gene editing technology said they can engineer a “unique thing” to kill only one person in the world. In this case, they used this ‘mRNA’ technology to kill millions of innocent people in the world.” This happens because the self-replicating nanobots can be coded to control the mind and body.

written By Lindokuhle Mabaso