The intersection of law and food and agriculture, and we ought to begin with the contextual background behind the Bayer and Monsanto campaign to shield all pesticides from legal liability. So, in 2018, Bayer (one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies) acquired Monsanto. This backfired, as due to the billions in Roundup judgments (likely to far exceed 16 billion), Bayer rapidly lost two-thirds of its value.

It was against this background that certain measures were taken. In particular, to save the company Bayer (which, like Monsanto, has a long history of unscrupulous conduct) is now conducting a variety of measures to end those lawsuits within the Courts, States, Congress, and EPA. Many of these involve creating liability shields which make it impossible to ever sue a pesticide manufacturer for being seriously injured by their product, even if the manufacturer deliberately concealed this known toxicity. And quite notable is that these actions eerily parallel the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a “well-intended” act which rather than lead to safer vaccines, unleashed the modern era of chronic disease upon America.

Well, presently a bill is working its way through Congress containing a covert provision designed to shield Bayer (and many other manufacturers) from these lawsuits. And due to how utterly repugnant this position is (along with a related one to ensure toxic sludge can be dumped on farmland and render it permanently unusable), this bill can only pass if we are not unaware of it, and thus not primarily praying against it, but also engaging the relevant stakeholders and institutions. As such, I believe it is vital to have a discussion concerning what is going on and the diabolical intent behind it.

And for all of its challenges, the United States has one of the best governments that has ever been developed. This is because the system is rife with checks and balances, where one part of the country or government can constrain another part from acting out of line, and the public has a voice that can frequently be mobilised if things become too egregious and bring everything back to balance. However, this framework has led to instances where bad actors endeavour to take a multi-pronged approach where they attempt to co-opt every single thing that constrains their misdeeds. And while challenging, this can eventually be done with concerted effort. For example, during COVID-19, virtually every institution that should have prevented the unconstitutional lockdowns, the top-down suppression of unpatented COVID-19 treatments, and the COVID-19 vaccine mandates (let alone their approvals) failed as virtually every institution worked in concert to advance the COVID cartel—resulting in arguably the worst “public health” crime in history.

Yet, even with this example, due to the independent media, bold politicians and medical practitioners, and the egregiousness of the COVID policies, a check was eventually able to neutralise the COVID cartel. Furthermore, beyond the COVID vaccine program failing to accomplish its primary goal, the trust they have long used to market medical products has also been shattered, to the extent that COVID is now arguably costing the medical industrial complex far more than was made from the landemic—all of which illustrates that the American political system has a robust series of checks once things get too out of line – ALL OF THIS because the Church prayed: the architects of the COVID plandemic collided with a Higher Power, which is a the Church of Jesus Christ.

THE WAR ON THE JUDICIARY: HOW LAWS, FOOD, AND AGRICULTURE INTERSECT

This brings us to the intersection between laws, food and agriculture, and how this is tied to a war on the judiciary as well. So, since so many institutions in society have been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry, it has both become vital to find alternative options (e.g., creating a robust independent media, such as the Loveworld Networks and LN24 International) AND ALSO to protect the viable options that remain.

One of those has ALWAYS been the courts, as frequently, if a bad actor steps too far out of line, a legal framework exists to constrain their actions – in other words, and to paraphrase the words of the highly esteemed Rev Dr Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD has often said, “Courts are the last line of defence in the formal legal recourse system”. And so, for this reason, a plan of the industries which profit from poisoning people has long been to take away the ability of the courts to check them by passing laws (or securing court rulings) that shield them from liability and hence terminate the lawsuits that can stop their egregious conduct!

For example, the whole-cell DPT vaccine was long recognised to be a particularly dangerous vaccine which frequently caused brain damage and death, yet for decades the medical community and government covered it up. As a grassroots awareness of the dangers of the vaccine spread across the country (aided by a 1982 NBC program) more and more lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers, the majority of which were for DPT injuries.

Because of this, DPT manufacturers rapidly left the market (e.g., due to rising liability insurance costs) and by 1984, only one remained. Now, during that time, the discourse on vaccines was not as critical as it is today, and as such, the perception was that something needed to be done to protect the vaccine supply, therefore, a deal was brokered between advocates for vaccine injured children (along with their supporters within Congress) and the pharmaceutical industry. After some work, a framework was put together which was intended to help the vaccine-injured (as lawsuits for vaccine injuries were a grueling and not always successful process), create safer vaccines, also to transfer liability from the vaccine manufacturers to the US government so the manufacturers could remain in business. HOWEVER, since many provisions of the act designed to protect the vaccine injured were at the HSS Secretary’s discretion and the government ultimately paid for injury compensation. It created a massive incentive to deny that injuries could occur, and as a result, most of the acts’ intended provisions failed to manifest or were systematically undermined.

As such, there’s still very little reliable data on vaccine injury (e.g., VAERS was systematically undermined as the government did not want a publicly available injury database), the science linking vaccines to specific injuries that was supposed to be done never got done (especially during the Biden-Harris administration), and most importantly it’s nearly impossible for vaccine injuries allegedly “not supported by science” to be compensated in the vaccine court. In addition, a 2011 Supreme Court ruling further gutted the act, making it impossible for vaccine manufacturers to be directly sued, even in cases of grossly defective vaccines that the 1986 law had specifically intended to allow.

Well, here is Stanley Plotkin, who is nicknamed the “godfather of vaccines” explaining the rationale behind the National Vaccine Injury Act 1986.

Well, conversely, this act birthed a massive industry, as removing the primary check against the industry (being lawsuits for vaccine injuries) incentivised producing a glut of new vaccines to enter the market and removed any incentive to ensure their safety. As such, an apparatus gradually developed to ensure investors could expect a successful return on upcoming vaccines by ensuring they would always be approved and mandated upon our children, eventually culminating in the COVID catastrophe.

Fortunately, as the American system has a robust series of checks and balances, even though a primary one failed (again, being injury lawsuits), eventually the unrestrained proliferation of injurious vaccines went so far that a new check emerged—and that was public loss of trust in the vaccine apparatus, MAHA’s political ascendency and RFK becoming a HHS Secretary who amongst other things has begun to implement the key safety provisions of the 1986 Act every Secretary before him refused to do.

But, in light of the war on the judiciary, and the intersection between law, food and agriculture; what we’ve just discussed is to explain why many are quite concerned by the recent push to exempt pesticides from lawsuits – it is about removing the judiciary from the equation, EVEN when it comes to food and agriculture related cases! In other words, Bayer and Monsanto are trying to replicate the same diabolical conduct of the vaccine manufacturers! Here’s a recapitulation on this, looking at the articulation of the vaccine injury act of 1986 by RFK Jr, and the articulation of the pursuit for agrochemical protection from liability from the CHD.

A DEEP DIVE IN TO BAYER, MONSANTO AND GLYPHOSATE

Let’s proceed to a deep dive into the actors behind this pursuit of protection from liability – and so, let’s talk about Bayer, Monsanto and Glyphosate. So, Bayer rose to ascendency as one of the early pharmaceutical giants after developing one of the first blockbuster drugs, aspirin (which arguably contributed to the 1918 influenza catastrophe as doctors regularly gave toxic doses of it to influenza patients), along with selling heroin (as an allegedly “non-addictive substitute for morphine”) as a cold remedy, and then chemical weapons during World War I. Following this, in 1925, Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben, creating the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical company [where Bayer’s scientists developed the world’s first antibiotic]…Following World War II, the Allied Control Council seized IG Farben’s assets because of its role in the Nazi war effort and involvement in the Holocaust, including using slave labour from concentration camps and humans for dangerous medical testing, and production of Zyklon B, which was a chemical used in gas chambers. In 1951, IG Farben was split into its constituent companies, and Bayer was reincorporated as Farbenfabriken Bayer AG. After the war, Bayer re-hired several former Nazis to high-level positions, including convicted Nazi war criminals found guilty at the IG Farben Trial like Fritz ter Meer. So, as far as ethical corporate practices, Bayer has a fairly dark history, and showed a lack of ideological change with its re-hiring of convicted Nazi war criminals.

Well, unsurprisingly, they merged with Monsanto to present the world with a glyphosate based herbicide. During this time, of the agrochemicals, herbicides (to destroy weeds) are arguably the most toxic, so in many ways, when glyphosate was discovered, it was seemingly revolutionary as it was significantly less toxic than the competing options. And so, after being introduced in 1974, it initially occupied a small portion of the herbicide market, but once Monsanto introduced crops genetically modified to resist Roundup it rapidly took off.

This ended up being a profitable business model for Monsanto as beyond allowing Monsanto to corner the herbicide market, it also incentivised farmers to use far more Roundup (as their crops didn’t die) and allowed Monsanto to make even more money selling genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds (e.g., in 2009 about 10% of Monsanto’s revenue came from glyphosate whereas 50% came from Roundup Ready seeds)—particularly since overuse of glyphosate created resistant weeds requiring even more glyphosate to be eliminated. BUT, unfortunately, since Roundup became more toxic to humans at higher doses, concerns grew about the chemical.

In response to this and similar concerns, in 2018, RFK Jr (before MAHA and his appointment by Trump to be the Secretary of the US Department of HHS), he helped spearhead a successful lawsuit for chronic Roundup exposure that caused a groundskeeper to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and was able to obtain proof through discovery that Monsanto had doctored decades of science to conceal this known risk so they could continue selling “safe and effective” Roundup. This resulted in a massive 289 million jury payout (later reduced to 21 million) and many more successful non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuits between 2019 and 2025. But, before we proceed, here is Charles Benbrook detailing how glyphosate enters the bloodstream much the same way it is designed to penetrate the outer layer of weeds.

Furthermore, as of May 2025, Monsanto had reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying approximately $11 billion, but still had roughly 61,000 active lawsuits pending. Because of this, Bayer was forced to take on that liability and their decision to acquire Monsanto. Its value rapidly dropped from 100 billion pre-acquisition to 33 billion (making it worth half of what it paid to buy Monsanto), and this acquisition is now being viewed as one of the worst merger decisions in corporate history.

Well, parallel to these efforts at accountability, a hidden battle is raging in Washington, D.C.—one that could lock in outdated, dangerously obsolete pesticide safety rulings for decades.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

A few days ago, someone shared a short video, titled ‘It’s OK,’ and it is about 4 minutes long and worth watching. It is made by a group opposing abortion called Choice42. Of course, the abortion issue is heavily debated and often evokes emotions. But, what matters here is that the video is well researched, objective, and explains how the scientific cult has influenced perceptions on abortion. In particular, it details how scientists are paid to cut and disembowel live, little babies on laboratory benches under the guise of improving the futures of those who pay them, and the rest of the world.

This scientific cult has developed well-organised, methodical ways to do this, and prides itself in its cleverness. And so, the anti-abortion organisation made the video with the intent to expose this issue. And the video certainly is very moving – and is meant to be because pulling little people apart without anesthetic for the alleged benefit of others is something that, when removed from its veil of scientific progress, can be hard to think about.

THIS HAS NECESSITATED THE DEHUMANISATION OF A FOETUS

Of course, what we have seen is incredibly hard to watch – but it is fact. Aborted foetus tissue is used in the development of many vaccines. So, considering how utterly difficult it is to watch this, the question then becomes: how did the scientific cult nudge society to deem this acceptable? Well, on the one hand, society was not always this open to abortion (especially in the drastic applications it is advocated for today); and so, this was kept hidden from broader society for the longest part. It was in hearings that this information would come out.

For instance, you’d recall that we highlighted here on ‘The War Room’ 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. But, it was under oath that he admitted to the use of fetal tissue from aborted babies in vaccines.

Then on the other hand, in recent times, there has been a campaign aimed at normalising the dehumanisation of unborn children, and making even late term abortion less taboo – and this has been through the corruption of language; and also a lobby for legislated murder. More specifically, there has been a debate on the definition of a baby, and contrasting that to a foetus. The purpose is to justify abortion at a certain stage, particularly the stage where the unborn baby is called a foetus and not a baby. Well, in this debate, one of the most famous (and concurrently one of the most ridiculed) arguments against the claimed inherent moral correctness of abortion is the argument on foetal potential. This argument maintains that the foetus’ potential to become a person and enjoy the valuable life common to persons entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible.

Now, many who reject the argument do so because they believe that it results in what is often called the “sperm/ova problem”, which claims that if we regard the potential of a foetus to become a person as a morally relevant reason against killing a foetus, we must also hold the same of human gametes, who also possess the potential to become persons. For example, a Bonnie Steinbock claims that to say that abortion is morally wrong because a foetus has potential to become a person would mean that even abstinence would have to be considered morally wrong.

This is an obviously ridiculous argument and a strawman at best, because abstinence does not involve the killing of a fertilised egg where the likelihood of it developing into a person has commenced. There is simply no conception where abstinence is concerned. BUT, the argument of foetal potential is significant because it is one of the ways we explain the stewardship that adults have in regard to babies. Newborn infants lack the psychological maturity to possess goals, aims, beliefs, or purposes. And yet, this does NOT exclude them from moral consideration – which is to say, we still regard them as people capable of developing these conscious goals and beliefs, and adults thus take on the responsibility to care for them until the infants are grown and operate as adults with a stewardship capacity of their own.

But, when the strawmans are put aside: it is crucial to recognise that the capitalisation on the word foetus is about trying to reduce unborn babies to inanimate cells who do not possess the attributes of a human life and human potential  – in other words: dehumanisation! This is all an effort to normalise people lying to themselves, in effort to justify the killing of an unborn child. This attitude is seen in a number of abortion conglomerates. It is seen even in a number of practitioners. In fact, kindly recall what a Dr Cesare Santangelo said as he explained in detail how he lets babies die after they are born alive in botched abortions. This was 2012, and yet it is said that he still practises!

THEN AFTER DEHUMANISATION, IS THE OBJECTIFICATION OF FOETUSES

Then, after the dehumanisation of unborn babies or foetuses, follows the objectification of these babies. This is to say, that unborn babies are seen not as unborn babies but a collection of organs and cells that can be harvested for an intended use. So much so, that human fetal cell lines are used to culture a number of vaccines today. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6. In more detail, WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus. And MRC-5 (also called Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

In addition, Human Embryonic Kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture. And the PERC-6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion. Now, the newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.

Then you might ask, which vaccines utilised aborted fetal materials? There is a long list of them; and it includes: the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine/MMR. There is also the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccine (the DTaP/TdP). There is the varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine and the shingles (zoster) vaccine. The hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines; the rabies vaccine; and even some coronavirus vaccines! And so, this is clearly a long established practice in the vaccine industry.

Which also brings us to one of the enablers of this practice, being the ever notorious and ironically named “Planned Parenthood”. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ran the biggest abortion clinic in the western Hemisphere in Houston, Texas. This abortion clinic not only aborted babies up to 6 months, but they sold the aborted babies for experiments. Why is this important to note: first, it emphasises that they are not an entity advocating the safety or life of the mother, they function with a blatant disregard for the life of an unborn child. But to further appreciate the gravity of the truth that these people are controlled by demonic forces, kindly have a listen to how they speak about the bodies of the children that were aborted.

But, while the footage we just watched was recently released, it is not the first time that Planned Parenthood is implicated in an abortion scandal. More specifically, you’d recall that we recently discussed a judge ruling, on the 19th of June this year, from a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accusing Planned Parenthood of transporting minors out of state for abortions will move forward. The lawsuit is based on conversations between Planned Parenthood staff and a man from a conservative activist group who secretly filmed the staff while inquiring about an abortion for his fake 13-year-old niece. The video, which was captured in December, was posted on social media by the conservative activist group and self-proclaimed right wing news organisation that often conducts undercover stings.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which runs the Kansas City area clinic where the video was taken, asked that the judge dismiss the lawsuit shortly after it was filed. Furthermore, at a hearing in early June, John Andrew Hirth, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, said there was no proof the Kansas City area clinic broke the law. However, the Boone County Judge, Brouck Jacobs, found merit for moving forward with the case.

THIS DEHUMANISATION OF FOETUSES ALSO HARMS FATHERS DISPROPORTIONATELY

It must be stated explicitly that this is nothing short of child sacrifices, and ironically, much like we saw from what were deemed backwards and pagan societies like the Aztecs and Norse civilisations. I say this because people who are not possessed by a spirit that disregards human life do not speak of killing children so casually and cavalier; they also do not formulate mechanism to enable abortions to take place at the expense of the law. They also do not set up shop outside a political convention so people can simply abort a child, as though it is a simple and inconsequential to-do item on their list for the day. THEREFORE, institutions like Planned Parenthood, who sensationalise abortion (beyond considerations about a mother’s life or rape cases) might well be a manifestation of demonic spirits that demanded child sacrifice. Their works, which we’ve just heard about, do not show an organisation that is providing a health service, they are providing an avenue to kill unborn babies. Today, groups like feminists and other liberals make the argument that abortion is permissible simply because women should get to make a choice about whether they want to carry a baby – for them it is an argument of the woman’s agency, and in no way about life.

But, as far as abortion is concerned, men are actually horribly affected by the disproportionate focus on women and their bodily autonomy when it comes to the Democrat’s federalised abortion plan. Women veto the decision on abortion, despite the father’s wishes and plea – and this is not in instances where the mother’s life is threatened by a health emergency or an case of rape – it is a generic practice that women (at any point and time) can choose to abort the baby.

He is right: it is an evil law that killed his daughter, which is why we must recognise the underlying spiritual war when it comes to abortion. But, in the status quo, this evil  is driven by two things: first is the third wave feminist principle, I mentioned earlier, that women’s choices supersede all other choices; and the second driver is that unborn babies are treated as non-living things in order to justify their guilt-free murder. You’d recall that we discussed this when refuting the alleged distinction between a foetus and a baby (despite the fact that the word foetus means offspring).

THE DOMINO EFFECT: ORGAN HARVESTING LAWS HAVE FUELED A DEVALUATION OF LIFE

Well, this has undoubtedly created a concerning domino effect, where organ harvesting is progressively being prioritised over the inherent value of human life. And this should surprise no one because laws are a socialisation agent; which is to say that when the government creates precedent that something is acceptable, this has the potential to influence society’s attitudes about that subject of interest. And to drive this further, let’s talk about this medical phenomenon called “brain death:”.

The term “brain death” was essentially created for organ harvesting. This is because there is big money in it for the hospitals. To appreciate this, you have to understand that a human body represents revenue and there are people who put systems in place to take lives for that revenue. In fact, one body can even generate as much as $11 million! Well, how this happened is that a government law in the US created precedent. In particular, the “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” is legislation with a lot of slick language designed to get a person’s organs. The bill presumes that everyone is an organ donor. Here’s more on how the brain death phenomenon came about; and the assumptions embedded in the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

As you can imagine, hospitals have thus not been humane in their approach: it has become standard practice to rush to pull the plug on a patient said to be brain dead. As a result, loved ones of patients are having to battle hospitals to keep them from pulling the plug on a patient that they see as a means of getting money through organ harvesting.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso