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

 So, in the early 1980s, vaccines were so harmful that vaccine manufacturers routinely lost in court. They lobbied the US Congress to pass the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to give themselves liability protection. And they promised to make vaccines safer but there was no legal mechanism in the bill to enforce that promise so they never did.

Pharmaceutical companies proceeded to add as many vaccines as possible to the schedule. Prior to 1986, there were 3 routine vaccines totaling 7 injections. Today the CDC’s Maternal and Child and Adolescent vaccine schedules include 19 vaccines requiring 76 injections with 94 total doses of antigen (I’m actually less worried about the antigens than the other ingredients in the shots).

Meanwhile, no one in a position of authority bothered to measure the impact of the growing vaccine schedule on the health of children. Most regulators were auditioning for a job with Pharma because that’s where the money was said to be. Politicians also depend on Pharma donations for their re-election campaigns. While the mainstream news media get most of their revenue from Pharma advertising so they were never going to bite the hand that feeds them. And so, ultimately, big pharma invested heavily in public relations to lay siege to any remaining pockets of resistance.

Now, during this time, mercury (also known as thimerosal) was grandfathered in as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (or GRAS by the FDA) because it was easier to do that than actual safety testing. Aluminum adjuvants were allowed with only minimal safety testing — which included 1 man, 3 rabbits, and ever-moving goal posts on what constitutes “safe”. And so, the gold rush was on so vaccine manufacturers were free to add whatever they wanted to vaccines and they would all be approved because the regulators and the medical industry were captured by big pharma.

It was against this backdrop and historical context that the autism rate skyrocketed in the 1990s and has continued to increase ever since. At the same time, rates of life-threatening allergies, autoimmune disorders, asthma, childhood cancers, diabetes, and epilepsy soared too and those are probably vaccine injuries as well. But autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is more costly than those other conditions because it’s a lifelong disability with no known effective natural treatment (while some parents have been able to recover their children through holistic and alternative therapies but the percentage who are successful in doing so is still in the single digits). And so, in the US alone, the country went from having autism rates of 1 in 10 000 in the 1970s, to 1 in 31 in 2025. All of this correlates with the amount of vaccines that have been progressively added into the immunisation schedule.

And yet, autism is characterised as merely a mental disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (or DSM-5), which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States – as OPPOSED to a vaccine injury. Here’s why, and what is progressively being done about it.

Now, what Nicole Shanahan just outlined is the problem with autism exclusively being defined as a mental disorder and what is being done to bypass that and establish a link between vaccines and autism. But, at the point when the correlation between vaccines and autism was becoming undeniable, the people who created the autism epidemic had no interest in conceding to wrongful conduct, and instead delayed progress in curbing autism rates by pretending to look for the cause, when they already knew it. But (of course) they also had to make sure never to “find” the actual cause because then the flow of research funding would stop and lots of these doctors and scientists would go to jail for their culpability in vaccine injuries. And so,  an entire industry was created to cover up the autism epidemic!

AN INDUSTRY WAS CREATED TO COVER UP THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC, STARTING WITH BOGUS STUDIES

To begin with, this industry focused on overwhelming academia and society with bogus studies. In fact, Since 2000, more than twenty scientific studies have concluded that there is no association between vaccines and autism. The most widely cited studies are: the Fombonne and Chakrabarti study (from 2001); Madsen et al. (2002; and 2003); Makela, Nuorti, and Peltola (also in 2002); Smeeth et al. (2004); Honda, Shimizu, and Rutter, (2005); Schechter and Grether (2008); and even Tozzi et al (2009) – and this is not even all of them. But the idea is to show that these were supposedly studies from varied authorities, covering a broad scope of research.

BUT… most of these are studies that claim no association between MMR or thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, which is odd because the CDC’s own internal research shows that both of these types of vaccines do indeed cause autism. You find this in the statement from William Thompson and 2014, and the SafeMinds analysis of FOIA documents that were obtained from former CDC researcher turned GSK executive Thomas Verstraeten.

Doubling down on the blowing the whistle in bogus studies, Pediatrician Dr Joel “Gator” Warsh says the Science is NOT settled on vaccines and autism – despite the so-called research. He adds that when you go look at it, the research is literally just on MMR and thimerosal… but, you cannot make a claim about vaccines and autism when you have NOT studied all the vaccines in the first year together, and you haven’t studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And before we view the video excerpt, I’d like to kindly ask that you pardon the alcohol analogy, and extrapolate the broader principle in the discussion, about the fallacious nature of how autism studies were conducted.

That said, there have also been studies that com[ared the state of health between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children, including cases like the McDowell triplets. And so, there is a growing body of empirical evidence that not only disproves bogus studies claiming there is no causal link between autism and vaccines, but studies that also detail the actual causal link.

MEANWHILE, STUDIES ALREADY DISPROVED “GENES” AS THE LIKELY CAUSE FOR AUTISM

Perhaps one of the most aggravating discussions on the cause for autism is that on genetics (as we’ve discussed on previous occasions here on ‘The War Room’). And it is aggravating because in pretending to study the cause, big pharma and its collaborators went as far as to point the blame for autism on genetics – thus implicating parents as the potential originator of a gene that has caused their children a neurological challenge. Conveniently though, what is left out by vaccine manufacturers in this narrative is how the autism causing gene would have gotten to the parent in the first place – seeing that autism was not always part of the infirmities observed in society, in the same way cancer was not always part of the infirmities observed in society.

ANd o, you can imagine my excitement when I found that In 2011, a comprehensive study of twins and autism showed that autism is not primarily a genetic disorder… AND YET, this appears to have made no difference in the trajectory of the industry and perceptions on autism. In more detail, in the early 2000s, as the autism rate soared, political leaders in California wanted to better understand what was happening. So California contracted with sixteen of the best geneticists in the US and gave them access to all birth records in the state. They produced a study titled “Genetic heritability and shared environmental factors among twin pairs with autism” (and this study was conducted by Hallmayer et al., in 2011) and it is the most comprehensive study of twins and autism to date. They found that genetic heritability explains at most 38% of ASD cases; in two places they explain that this is likely an overestimate. So at least 62% of autism cases (and likely significantly more) are caused by something other than genes. HOWEVER, when this study came out, the search for the gene(s) as a cause for autism had already become a large and very profitable industry, and this study showing that autism is NOT primarily genetic was simply brushed aside!

HOW VACCINE MANUFACTURERS TRIED TO DEBUNK THE LINK BETWEEN AUTISM AND VACCINES

Now, flooding academia and society with bogus studies was not the only arrow in the big pharma propaganda quiver; ambitiously, they also corrupted medical literature through going after those researchers and medical practitioners who were frank about the links between autism and vaccines. And in a very famous case, in their efforts to “debunk” the causal link between the vaccines and autism, the pharmaceutical and vaccine enterprise claimed that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor, named Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring, Let’s talk about this.

In essence, whenever the subject of vaccination and autism is raised (particularly within medical circles), you will immediately be told (often in a condescending manner) some variant of a narrative on how Andrew Wakefield was a dishonest doctor who was bribed by lawyers to torture children and publish a fraudulent and deeply flawed study that falsely linked vaccines to autism. You’d also be told that his allegedly abhorrent actions deeply violated the profound trust that people place in scientists, and he even tricked people into believing vaccines cause autism. And so, even though his study has been totally discredited and he lost his medical license for the gross misconduct he committed, his fraudulent study cemented the lie that vaccines cause autism, and despite all the data that is published in modern medical literature, nothing can undo the profound damage that Wakefield did to science, which means the medical and pharmaceutical industries have legitimacy to prevent such an occurrence from being repeated. This is basically the ideal that vaccine manufacturers pedal in an effort to “debunk” the causal link between vaccines and autism.

Now, this narrative on Andrew Wakefeild touches on a key point concerning propaganda. One of the most common ways the corporate propaganda apparatus (known as the PR industry) persuades the public is by sculpting the narrative best suited for swaying public opinion and then blasting it on every media platform while any opposing viewpoint is forbidden from being aired. These lies then become entrenched and everyone starts to independently repeat them as though the idea were their own (we saw this during the COVID plandemic).

In the cause of the vaccine and autism issue, and since Wakefield’s study was published in 1998 (a year after pharmaceutical television advertising became permissible), the study was able to initially gain immense traction in the press (as the media had not yet been bought out). BUT… a few years later, when that pharmaceutical television advertising monopoly had established itself, Andew Wakefeild’s study was suddenly being debunked on every platform. In fact, during that time, Sharyl Attkinson, who was a popular journalist and national news anchor for CBS shared that in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage, and after this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative. Recently she even shared how the CDC was co-opted in this, especially when they went as far as to re-define the word “vaccine” in order to legitimise the COVID jabs.

WHAT THE ANDREW WAKEFIELD SMEAR CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ABOUT PRO-VACCINE PROPAGANDA

Now, there are three critical points to infer from Andrew Wakefield’s experience of being labelled persona non grata after publishing a study that linked vaccines to autism. First, the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild was a means through which vaccine manufacturers cemented the lie that no one had ever thought to associate vaccination with brain injuries prior to Wakefield’s study (and hence that all subsequent associations were a product of Wakefield tricking them into seeing a connection that was not there). But, of course,  this is clearly not true because the reason Wakefield did the study was because he was approached by parents who already thought vaccines caused their child’s autism.

Furthermore, in early medical literature (prior to vaccine injuries becoming a taboo subject), many doctors over the decades had actually reported brain damage and characteristic neurological injuries (e.g., cranial nerve palsies) following vaccination that mirror what we see in vaccine-injured children in the present – and so, Andrew Wakefeild was not some petty non-conformist; he rather happened to discuss on autism as neurological injury, while his study made waves because it echoed the experiences of many parents. In fact, you’d recall this excerpt from the documentary titled ‘AUTISM (An orchestrated Crisis)’, which echoes those very concerns even in the present.

So, the second point to infer from the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild is that it was conducted to give a very clear warning to every academic journal and researcher to never consider publishing anything that was critical of vaccination (as otherwise they would be raked over the coals for decades by the entire media apparatus like Wakefield was). For a while, this worked as intended (e.g., many scientists have confided to public figures that they know that autism is linked to vaccination but cannot publicly study it) and since Wakefield’s study, virtually no studies have been conducted on vaccine injuries, and of those that were, none could ever be published in a (quote un quote) “reputable” journal.

Then, finally, and equally aggravatingly, the smear campaign against Anndrew Wakefield was also used to cement the lie that the allegedly few incorrect, or fallacious and “doctored” studies that get through are immediately removed, whereas in reality this is not at all true. For example, trial participants and clinical investigators for the HPV and COVID vaccines repeatedly provided proof that fraudulent data was published but the academic journals never even issued a correction of those studies. You’d recall we also discussed, here on ‘The War Room’ how there was fraud detected in Pfizer mRNA vaccine clinical trials studied, and we even looked at a whistleblower’s testimony of how she was fired for exposing this issue to the FDA, while the FDA did nothing to address it. But, here is Dr Andrew Wakefeild discussing how, even in the present and recent history, the CDC covered up evidence and destroyed documents proving that the MMR vaccine caused autism and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological injury.

VACCINE-INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL INJURIES WERE LONG KNOWN TO BE PREVALENT

Now, the claim that Andrew Wakefeild published a fraudulent study that somehow made people start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring ignored that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination! For example, a 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis ence-phalo-pathy” after taking the DPT vaccine. But, for some reason, most doctors refused to report this, even though medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine went back as far as to the early 1930s, while report after report had been published in medical journals since then. For instance, in 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Well, those studies have progressively been less discussed, in a world where pharmaceutical companies captured the media, and as a result, this orchestrated a selective amnesia when it comes to the history of vaccines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso