HOW HEPATITIS B VACCINE WAS ADDED TO THE VACCINE SCHEDULE

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The War Against Pharmaceutical Evil: and Zeroing In on the Hepatitis B Vaccine”. Now, when you investigate the historical origins or perspective regarding a particular subject matter, you discover so much that clarifies or demystifies the present, and this certainly applies when we consider the history of how the hepatitis b vaccine was added to the vaccine schedule.

In essence, the post-1989 vaccines (which are vaccines that came after the childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave a protection from liability to vaccine manufacturers), and even include the Hepatitis B vaccine – these were primarily driven more by pharmaceutical profits than public health imperatives. As such, the entrance of the Hepatitis B vaccine into the vaccine schedule is a story of regulatory capture, where Merck pharmaceutical’s commercial struggles prompted the CDC to mandate universal infant dosing, while sidelining medical rationale. 

In more detail, the saga begins in the mid-20th century, rooted in the quest to combat a stealthy liver virus. Hepatitis B, identified in the 1960s by Dr Baruch Blumberg spreads primarily through blood, or other bodily fluids—via sexual contact, shared needles, or perinatal transmission from mother to child. And unlike acute hepatitis A, Hepatitis B can become chronic, silently scarring the liver and raising risks for cirrhosis and cancer. Dr Blumberg and colleague Irving Millman created the first vaccine prototype in the 1970s, using heat-treated surface antigens from infected human plasma. It was this risky approach, harvested from high-risk donors like intravenous drug users and men who have sexual relations with other men, that then yielded Merck’s Heptavax-B vaccine, which was licensed by the FDA in 1981. 

Now, what this tells us is that this Hepatitis B vaccine was primarily developed for those high risk populations. This is further evidenced by the fact that in June 1982, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—which we established earlier is the CDC’s vaccine advisory arm – it then issued its first recommendations, targeting (again) high-risk adults: and this then included healthcare workers, injection drug users, sexually active gay and bisexual men, multiple sexual partners, and household contacts of carriers. 

Yet, uptake of the vaccine collapsed. By 1989, only about 2.5 million doses had been administered, mostly to healthcare workers—who accounted for just 5% of cases. And the reason is that high-risk groups evaded vaccination largely due to stigma – which was a fairly foreseeable issue, in that high risk persons were made into a specific category in society (although factually accurate) but that is a very concerning this in a world with a historical backdrop provided by the discourse surrounding eugenics and the discourse that led to the Nuremberg Laws, both of which constantly warn us that so-called medical interventions for a specific category of people are to raise suspicion. In any case, as the high risk groups were not taking the vaccine, Merck told regulators in the US that (quote): “Nobody is buying it”. Even official records (by the way) confirm this impasse: where despite aggressive promotion, adult immunization rates hovered below 10% in targeted cohorts. 

Then, enter the recombinant era, which was claimed to be a safer pivot. Concerns over plasma-derived vaccines’ potential for blood-borne contaminants like HIV influenced this recombinant era. As such, in 1986, Merck’s Recombivax HB and SmithKline’s Engerix-B debuted as genetically engineered versions, which were said to use yeast cells to produce surface proteins. HOWEVER, these new hepatitis B vaccines did NOT salvage the sales issue for pharmaceutical companies – in other words, people were still not interested. Well, here’s where this history matters for our discussion: Robert Kennedy Jr, highlighted Merck Pharmaceutical’s efforts to change their sale’s misfortunes. He states that Merck lobbied the FDA and CDC, prompting a seismic shift. The outcome was that the CDC then began to recommend the Hepatitis B vaccine for children, through a 1991 ACIP decision.

And so, Merck pharmaceuticals had essentially corrupted the regulatory process to secure a profit streak. From the beginning, they had a defined target market (of people who genuinely were at risk of hepatitis B infection, and included homosexual men, injection drug users and healthcare providers, as the hepatitis B spreads primarily through blood, or other bodily fluids. But, since this group was categorised, it formed a stigma which dismayed them from taking the vaccine. Their answer was not a focus on preventive or alternative, non-vaccine remedial efforts; no, their answer to the lack of uptake on their Hepatitis B vaccine – by the targeted high risk group – was to make infants (who do not have the same exposure to Hepatitis B as that high risk group) to take the vaccine as default customers at birth – and this is despite the fact that a mother is tested for Hepatitis B before giving birth. [PAUSE] And so, no one can convince me that pharmaceutical corporations exist to help people – not with historical files like this.

Now, there was also a 1986 clinical trial that was used to justify the insertion of the Hepatitis B vaccine into the vaccine schedule. The clinical trial involved 147 infants with safety monitoring 5 days after each dose, BUT no saline placebo.

WHAT IS STATED AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GIVING THE HEPATITIS VACCINE TO NEWBORNS

Now that we’ve established the historical context on how the hepatitis B vaccine got into the vaccine schedule, let’s contrast that with what is stated to be the justification for giving infants (who are not even born to mothers with Hepatitis B) the vaccine, and we’re hearing this from Dr Sallie Permar, who is the Chairman of the Department of Paediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine.

So, the primary justification from Dr Sallie Permar is that infants can get Hepatitis B from the mom, or through the screening process. At the very core of her justification is the claim that the hepatitis B vaccine provides infants with the necessary protection from this potential infection from the mother and screening process. Let’s directly address her remarks, and to do this, I’d like to bring in a question that was asked by Attorney Aaron Siri in his testimony to the ACIP on the 5th of December, as the Hepatitis B vaccine was being discussed. He asked, in essence: Why do we need the 1986 act if vaccines are so safe and effective? Why does a product need immunity if it doesn’t cause harm? Why do products that have been on the market for decades, like the hepatitis B vaccine, still need immunity?

Now this enquiry is crucial. The vaccine schedule correlates with a surge in chronic childhood illnesses from under 10% in the 1980s to over 40% today. There clearly is an inadequacy of pre-licensure safety testing. No routine childhood vaccine has been licensed based on randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using inert substances like saline. Instead, controls often consisted of other vaccines or adjuvants, confounding results. For instance, the Hepatitis B vaccines Recombivax HB and Engerix-B—administered to newborns despite low perinatal risk in the US—lack placebo arms in trials involving just 122 and 128 children, respectively, with follow-up limited to 4-5 days.

Similarly, DTaP formulations like Infanrix used prior DTP vaccines as controls, ignoring a 2014 review linking whole-cell DTP to increased mortality in girls. PCV13 (or Prevnar) trials, enrolling fewer than 5,000 infants, monitored adverse events for only 30-60 days, far short of the six-year pediatric follow-up deemed essential to capture developmental impacts. These studies, he noted, are chronically underpowered—lacking statistical strength to detect rare events like anaphylaxis or Guillain-Barré syndrome—and fail ethical standards, as withholding placebos from children is justified only by proven safety, creating a circular logic.

Meanwhile, vaccines OFTEN fail to confer durable, transmission-blocking protection. Acellular pertussis components in the DTaP vaccine, for example, target serum antibodies but neglect mucosal immunity, allowing asymptomatic colonisation and sustained outbreaks despite 90 percent plus coverage. Similarly, pertussis inter-epidemic intervals remain unchanged since the 1990s switch to acellular formulations, undermining herd immunity claims. Also, the inactivated polio vaccine is said to prevent paralysis but not gut infection, which enables fecal-oral spread. Even the live-attenuated varicella vaccine wanes over time, with breakthrough cases fueling community transmission.

So, it appears that while a case for potential infection of infants exists, there is not a strong case for giving the Hepatitis vaccine to infants because the Hepatitis B vaccines lack placebo arms in trials that prove their efficacy and safety. Additionally, vaccines OFTEN fail to confer durable, transmission-blocking protection anyways, and without placebo trials, there is no evidence that the Hepatitis B vaccine provides durable protection.

THE INCONSISTENCIES FROM CRITICS OF THE ACIP VOTE

Now, as alluded to earlier, there have been some critics to the ACIP recommendation against the Hepatitis B vaccine being given at birth, and president Trump calling for a revaluation of the childhood vaccination schedule. One of them is Senator Bill Cassidy. So, he noted in a tweet, that (quote): “As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake. The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective. The birth dose is a recommendation, NOT a mandate.”

Well, this would sound like the words of a genuinely concerned physician, except they are quite contradictory to his earlier remarks, in which Senator Cassidy said if a mother’s Hepatitis B status is definitively known then the vaccine “can be safely delayed”, which is exactly what ACIP voted for. SO, why is he now outraged?

QUESTION EVERYTHING: IT IS CRUCIAL TO HAVE A FUNDAMENTALIST APPROACH TO VACCINES

Understanding that many people think of health not as a partisan matter, but a question that speaks primarily to their wellbeing and that of their family, I would ask that if you aren’t a Trump supporter, kindly put aside for a moment the fact that these changes are happening through the Trump administration, and through the Trump-appointed Secretary RFK Jr, and the RFK Jr appointed ACIP. Kindly consider the substance of what they are saying, and the track-record of their accuracy on these matters. And here’s why I allude to this.

What should matter is the consequence of these decisions on your wellbeing; and that of your family. Of course it matters who is making them, but if the tendency is to assume that anything from the Trump administration is erroneous, then pivot and consider the message. This is crucial because when it comes to health it is important to question EVERYTHING, and have a fundamentalist approach, where you do not rely on existent medical literature, and even enquire about modern changes.

THE HEPATITIS B VACCINE VOTE SHOWS WHY IT WAS KEY TO CHANGE PERSONNEL IN ACIP

Then, finally, for our discussion, part of the reason we are having this discussion is because on the 5th of December, the CDC’s ACIP confirmed, through a vote, that the Hepatitis B vaccine is not required at birth for newborns. In terms of the vote, what emerged is that “For infants born to Hepatitis B Surface Antigen-negative women: ACIP recommends individual-based decision- making, in consultation with a health care provider, for parents deciding when or if to give the HBV vaccine, including the birth dose. (A] Parents and health care providers should consider vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and infection risks. For those not receiving the HBV birth dose, it is suggested that the initial dose is administered no earlier than 2 months of age.” 

This reveals why the change in the personnel in ACIP was necessary. The ACIP used to have financial conflicts of interest and rubber stamp almost all vaccines for consideration. In contrast with the RFK Jr appointed new ACIP, we see a far more vaccine critical approach. For instance, you’d recall that there was a bombshell admission from within the ACIP committee that exposed a foundational flaw in vaccine safety science. During a discussion on MMRV and Hepatitis B vaccines, committee member Dr Retsef Levi pointedly questioned the confident “safe and effective” declarations made in the absence of gold-standard evidence.

Now, Dr Retsef Levi’s statement cuts to the core of a decade-long demand from transparency advocates: which is a demand for an answer to the question on why none of the vaccines on the CDC’s routine schedule have been licensed based on placebo-controlled trials using an inert saline placebo. This revelation is now forcing a public defense of this practice. A recent PBS article quotes experts arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists, as the so-called “standard of care” is the older vaccine. Let’s directly respond to this. Simply, the problem with this is that this logic creates an unsolvable circular problem, where new vaccines are only tested against older vaccines, and NOT a true placebo, which then means that the original safety benchmark for the first vaccine in a class of vaccines is never established against a neutral control. As a result, the entire schedule rests on a pyramid of relative comparisons, with no absolute baseline for safety. And yet, this is what they are propping up as the gold standard of vaccine safety science – just relative comparisons to previous vaccines, which probably also had inherent flaws, as taught to us by the history of the smallpox vaccine. In any case, that is the response to the claim made in the PBS article, arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists.

Millions of newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine on their first day of life, a practice long justified by public health authorities despite the vaccine not undergoing pre-licensure testing against a true saline placebo in infants. For babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus, the individual risk of infection is extremely low, as perinatal transmission is the primary concern only when the mother is infected. Now, if doctors bound by the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm” and public officials tasked with safeguarding citizens have prioritised pharmaceutical interests over rigorous, ethical scrutiny, then administering this vaccine to healthy newborns raises profound questions about true medical necessity versus institutional routine.

I say this because the Nuremberg Code emerged from the ashes of horrific medical experiments to ensure that no one—especially the vulnerable—could be subjected to unconsented or inadequately tested interventions under the guise of “public health.” Injecting a newborn with a product whose long-term safety in this population relies on post-marketing data rather than gold-standard placebo trials, particularly when personal risk is minimal, challenges the ethical boundaries the world vowed never to cross again.

Therefore, it is incredibly important that parents retain the right to decline. Anything less is tyranny dressed up as care. Additionally, we need to see more accountability in the medical and pharmaceutical industries: we should see manufacturers AND regulators conduct proper, transparent safety studies with inert placebos. Additionally, regulators in particular should also hold accountable those who have compromised ethical standards.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Peel back the glossy press releases, and a darker narrative emerges—one echoed in financial circles wary of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset” rhetoric. Independent researchers and African policymakers have revealed that GMO mosquitoes aren’t just about disease suppression; they’re a Trojan horse for depopulation and coerced medical interventions. The Gates Foundation, with its $50 billion endowment and deep ties to pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Moderna, has long been exposed of prioritizing population management over genuine aid. In a 2010 TED Talk, Bill Gates himself mused on reducing global population growth through vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services. Fast-forward to today: Oxitec’s malaria-focused strains, developed with Gates funding, will deliberately target human fertility in high-birth-rate regions.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes

Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested a staggering $41 million in Oxitec, a British biotech firm, to develop these genetically modified mosquitoes that purportedly aim to eradicate malaria. However, numerous health experts have dubbed these creatures “flying syringes,” because their true purpose is to covertly vaccinate the general population with potentially hazardous vaccines that induce sterility in both men and women, without their knowledge or consent. This could lead to a significant increase in infertility, with women becoming barren and men becoming impotent on a massive scale, highlighting just one of the many risks associated with this technology.

Consider the “flying syringe” concept, a Gates-backed idea to engineer mosquitoes that deliver vaccines via bites. A 2008 Grand Challenges grant explored transgenic mosquitoes secreting malaria antigens into human saliva during feeding, turning insects into inoculators. This blurs the line between consent and compulsion. This tech could enforce compliance under the guise of public health emergencies. Financially, the payoff is staggering: The global vaccine market, projected to hit $100 billion by 2030, thrives on perpetual crises. Gates’ investments in mRNA platforms during COVID-19 yielded billions; GMO mosquitoes could similarly prime markets for next-gen shots, funnelling profits to elite stakeholders.

Back in 2008, Gates’ foundation doled out $100,000 to a Japanese scientist, Hiroyuki Matsuoka, to engineer mosquitoes that secrete malaria vaccine proteins in their saliva. Bite you? Boom – you’re “vaccinated.” No needle, no doctor, no choice. They called it a “flying syringe,” and it wasn’t some fringe fantasy; it was funded under Gates’ Grand Challenges Explorations, where he threw millions at 104 “bold ideas” for global health domination. Fast-forward, and outfits like Oxitec – backed by Gates cash – are releasing billions of GM bugs in places like Florida and Brazil, supposedly to fight diseases. But whispers from the lab? These could be tweaked to deliver anything: vaccines, gene therapies, or worse. These genetically engineered mosquitoes are not only being touted as a means to control population growth, but also as a way to inoculate people with vaccines without their explicit consent. As a seasoned finance analyst who has tracked the ways in which globalist billionaires transform “philanthropy” into lucrative business ventures, this initiative reeks of a depopulation agenda masquerading as a benevolent endeavor. Rather than saving lives, Gates is essentially attempting to playing god with people’s bodies, and the backlash from Africa is only the beginning. In essence, the hazardous and potentially deadly vaccines that people have been wary of and rejected can now be administered without their knowledge or consent, courtesy of these genetically modified mosquitoes. All it takes is a mosquito bite, and the vaccine is injected into the bloodstream, complete with untested and questionable substances, all without the individual’s permission. Why should any nation, proud of its heritage, allow Bill Gates and his associates to continue perpetrating their mass depopulation agenda on their soil? The very idea of allowing these “flying syringes” to infiltrate their ecosystems is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and resistance against such insidious plans.

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

Bill Gates’ ambitious plan to eradicate malaria is a complex combination of artificial intelligence, experimental vaccines, and genetic modification, known as gene drives, which are essentially “kill switches” for mosquitoes.

 At first glance, his plan appears to be a selfless act, aiming to save the lives of over 600,000 children under the age of five who die from malaria every year. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly altruistic endeavor lies a more sinister reality: Gates’ desire to control nature reflects the arrogance of the global elite, who view humanity and ecosystems as mere test subjects for their experiments. Gates portrays mosquitoes as malicious, but is he and his allies truly any different? Unlike mosquitoes, they have monopolized farmland, disrupted food supplies, and profited from crises under the guise of “charity” – actions that have had far more devastating consequences for human societies. The use of gene drives, the cornerstone of Gates’ mosquito eradication plan, poses significant risks to the environment and ecosystems. These irreversible genetic modifications have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of nature in unpredictable ways. While mosquitoes can be a nuisance, they also play a crucial role in pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. However, Gates’ solution to the malaria crisis disregards these essential roles, prioritizing short-term human intervention over long-term ecological stability. This reckless approach to genetic engineering is reminiscent of the same hubris that has plagued globalist experiments in agriculture, healthcare, and energy, which have often had disastrous consequences for the environment and human societies. The narrative surrounding the “war on malaria” also conceals a more insidious agenda: control.

Gates acknowledges that malaria research has been underfunded because its victims are “too poor to attract attention”, but who is responsible for perpetuating this imbalance if not the billionaires who profit from inequality? Gates’ projects are not about saving lives, but about consolidating power and using diseases as leverage to reengineer society and nature in the image of the global elite. The exploitation of the Global South by Western philanthropists and corporations has become a familiar pattern, with the beneficiaries of these “humanitarian” efforts often being the same biotech firms, AI companies, and elites who profit from controlling life at the molecular level. The use of gene drives as a tool for population control is a chilling possibility that cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Given Gates’ history of using the Global South as a testing ground for his experiments, it is not far-fetched to imagine the use of gene drives for more sinister purposes. The same individual who has treated people as lab rats now seeks to play god with the natural world, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that his actions could have for the environment and human societies. The growing resistance to Western “philanthropy” in the Global South is a testament to the fact that people are no longer willing to be treated as test subjects for the experiments of the global elite. Ultimately, if Bill Gates truly wants to eliminate parasites, perhaps he should start by targeting the ones that are monopolizing resources and exploiting humanity. Mosquitoes may carry malaria, but Gates and his allies are carrying the far more malignant disease of hubris, which has already had devastating consequences for the environment and human societies. The cure for this disease is not found in a lab, but in the growing resistance of people who are rejecting the control of the global elite and demanding a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Financially, this is a goldmine for the elite. Gates invests in biotech firms like Oxitec and big pharma players, then “donates” to projects that create demand for their patents. It’s vertical integration on steroids – fund the “problem” (engineered bugs), sell the “solution” (vaccines via bite), and watch royalties flood in while populations dwindle. Remember his TED talk where he released mosquitoes on the audience to make a point about malaria? That wasn’t a stunt; it was foreshadowing. And don’t buy the fact-check spin that his current projects aren’t for vaccination – the tech’s the same gene-editing toolkit, and history shows he’s funded the syringe concept directly.

Bill Gates is actively utilizing insects as carriers for hazardous pathogens and recklessly dumping untested mRNA technology on impoverished communities, flagrantly disregarding fundamental conservative values such as informed consent, secure national borders, and unrestricted free markets. The Nuremberg Code, established to protect human rights, is being blatantly disregarded, while national sovereignty is being deliberately compromised. The potential consequences of these actions are alarming, ranging from ecological devastation and unforeseen genetic mutations to deliberately engineered pandemics designed to justify further authoritarian control. The state of Florida has already been transformed into a testing ground for these experiments, with billions of dollars being invested under the supervision of Governor DeSantis, despite the absence of comprehensive long-term studies to assess the safety and efficacy of these measures. We must reject this blatant attempt at technocratic domination and instead support courageous leaders like Traoré, who are taking a firm stance against these dangerous experiments. It is imperative that we invest in genuinely effective solutions, such as locally driven agricultural initiatives and traditional medicine, rather than relying on patented, potentially lethal products promoted by Gates. If we fail to take immediate action to halt these egregious practices, we risk being subjected to an unending barrage of experimental technologies concocted by globalist elites, as this sinister agenda is driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth, power, and the systematic erosion of national sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Target Malaria: Pioneering Genetic Technologies to ”Combat” Malaria

Target Malaria is a not-for-profit international research consortium dedicated to developing and sharing innovative genetic technologies aimed at controlling malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The initiative originated as a university-based research program in 2005, initially exploring genetic modifications in mosquitoes. By 2012, it had evolved into a broader consortium, incorporating multidisciplinary expertise from scientists, social scientists, and regulatory specialists. At the heart of Target Malaria’s strategy is gene drive technology, which uses CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to introduce modifications that spread through mosquito populations at higher-than-normal inheritance rates. They say these modifications typically aim to reduce female mosquito fertility or bias offspring toward males, leading to population decline over generations. Target Malaria operates in several African countries, including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Ghana, collaborating with local institutions such as the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) and the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (IRSS) in Burkina Faso. In Uganda, recent contained studies on non-gene drive mosquitoes have advanced understanding of male bias traits. Past activities in Burkina Faso included releases of non-gene drive genetically modified mosquitoes in 2019, marking early field testing. Primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Open Philanthropy Project, with additional support from entities like the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the European Commission, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and African governmental bodies such as the Uganda Ministry of Health.

Bill Gates’ Philanthro-Capitalism

In Africa, malaria claims thousands of lives annually, with over 10,000 fatalities reported in Burkina Faso alone in 2023. However, a closer examination reveals the significant financial interests at play. Bill Gates, often perceived as a philanthropist, is also an investor with substantial stakes in biotech firms and pharmaceutical giants that stand to gain from innovations like these. Essentially, the strategy involves creating a problem, or exaggerating its severity, then selling the solution, and reaping the financial benefits while the local population bears the risks. From a financial perspective, this approach is a classic example of the globalist playbook, where costs are externalized to impoverished nations, and the elite reap the benefits of patents and subsidies. The project, backed by Gates and allegedly linked to US military interests, has turned African soil into a testing ground for gene-drive technology, which poses significant risks, including ecological disasters and the potential for weaponized biology. Traoré has taken a firm stance, ordering laboratories to be sealed, samples destroyed, and all activities halted due to concerns over biosafety, ethics, and ecology. The public outcry from locals and anti-Western activists has also played a significant role, as they reject the narrative that this is a form of assistance, instead viewing it as interference. The issue of sovereignty, a core conservative value under attack worldwide, is a critical aspect of this debate. The military government of Burkina Faso is pushing back against foreign NGOs and projects that undermine local control, revoking licenses and asserting that Africans will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments. Traoré is a hero in this context, thinking outside the globalist box, while other African leaders succumb to the lure of handouts. Critics argue that halting this project could hinder progress in combating malaria, but this is the same fear-mongering tactic used to promote every globalist agenda, from vaccines to climate change initiatives.

Traditional methods, such as bed nets and insecticides, have proven effective in combating malaria without resorting to genetic manipulation. The ethical red flags surrounding this project are glaring, including a lack of transparency, potential long-term harm to biodiversity, and the absence of genuine input from the affected population. Gates’ track record is questionable, given his ties to population control rhetoric and investments that conveniently align with his charitable work. This suspension serves as a beacon for conservatives worldwide, highlighting the need to reject globalist overlords, protect borders, and prioritize fiscal and national independence. More countries should follow Burkina Faso’s lead, abandoning the Gates-funded initiatives that come with strings attached and investing in homegrown solutions that do not compromise their sovereignty. If we fail to do so, we risk becoming lab rats in their grand experiment, with our nations and ecosystems being exploited for the benefit of the global elite. The people of Burkina Faso have made it clear that they will not be used as test subjects for Western experiments, and their stance serves as a powerful example for other nations to follow. By taking control of their own destiny and rejecting the influence of globalist interests, they are reclaiming their sovereignty and protecting their people from the risks associated with untested and potentially harmful technologies.

Bill Gates’ GMO Mosquitoes – Flying Syringes for Forced Vaccination and Global Control

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested a staggering $41 million in Oxitec, a British biotech firm, to develop these genetically modified mosquitoes that purportedly aim to eradicate malaria. However, numerous health experts have dubbed these creatures “flying syringes,” because their true purpose is to covertly vaccinate the general population with potentially hazardous vaccines that induce sterility in both men and women, without their knowledge or consent. This could lead to a significant increase in infertility, with women becoming barren and men becoming impotent on a massive scale, highlighting just one of the many risks associated with this technology.

Back in 2008, Gates’ foundation doled out $100,000 to a Japanese scientist, Hiroyuki Matsuoka, to engineer mosquitoes that secrete malaria vaccine proteins in their saliva. Bite you? Boom – you’re “vaccinated.” No needle, no doctor, no choice. They called it a “flying syringe,” and it wasn’t some fringe fantasy; it was funded under Gates’ Grand Challenges Explorations, where he threw millions at 104 “bold ideas” for global health domination. Fast-forward, and outfits like Oxitec – backed by Gates cash – are releasing billions of GM bugs in places like Florida and Brazil, supposedly to fight diseases. But whispers from the lab? These could be tweaked to deliver anything: vaccines, gene therapies, or worse. These genetically engineered mosquitoes are not only being touted as a means to control population growth, but also as a way to inoculate people with vaccines without their explicit consent. As a seasoned finance analyst who has tracked the ways in which globalist billionaires transform “philanthropy” into lucrative business ventures, this initiative reeks of a depopulation agenda masquerading as a benevolent endeavor. Rather than saving lives, Gates is essentially attempting to playing god with people’s bodies, and the backlash from Africa is only the beginning. In essence, the hazardous and potentially deadly vaccines that people have been wary of and rejected can now be administered without their knowledge or consent, courtesy of these genetically modified mosquitoes. All it takes is a mosquito bite, and the vaccine is injected into the bloodstream, complete with untested and questionable substances, all without the individual’s permission. Why should any nation, proud of its heritage, allow Bill Gates and his associates to continue perpetrating their mass depopulation agenda on their soil? The very idea of allowing these “flying syringes” to infiltrate their ecosystems is a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and resistance against such insidious plans.

Bill Gates is Waging a High-Tech War on Mosquitoes

At What Cost to Humanity and the Environment?

Bill Gates’ ambitious plan to eradicate malaria is a complex combination of artificial intelligence, experimental vaccines, and genetic modification, known as gene drives, which are essentially “kill switches” for mosquitoes.

 At first glance, his plan appears to be a selfless act, aiming to save the lives of over 600,000 children under the age of five who die from malaria every year. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly altruistic endeavor lies a more sinister reality: Gates’ desire to control nature reflects the arrogance of the global elite, who view humanity and ecosystems as mere test subjects for their experiments. Gates portrays mosquitoes as malicious, but is he and his allies truly any different? Unlike mosquitoes, they have monopolized farmland, disrupted food supplies, and profited from crises under the guise of “charity” – actions that have had far more devastating consequences for human societies. The use of gene drives, the cornerstone of Gates’ mosquito eradication plan, poses significant risks to the environment and ecosystems. These irreversible genetic modifications have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of nature in unpredictable ways. While mosquitoes can be a nuisance, they also play a crucial role in pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. However, Gates’ solution to the malaria crisis disregards these essential roles, prioritizing short-term human intervention over long-term ecological stability. This reckless approach to genetic engineering is reminiscent of the same hubris that has plagued globalist experiments in agriculture, healthcare, and energy, which have often had disastrous consequences for the environment and human societies. The narrative surrounding the “war on malaria” also conceals a more insidious agenda: control.

Gates acknowledges that malaria research has been underfunded because its victims are “too poor to attract attention”, but who is responsible for perpetuating this imbalance if not the billionaires who profit from inequality? Gates’ projects are not about saving lives, but about consolidating power and using diseases as leverage to reengineer society and nature in the image of the global elite. The exploitation of the Global South by Western philanthropists and corporations has become a familiar pattern, with the beneficiaries of these “humanitarian” efforts often being the same biotech firms, AI companies, and elites who profit from controlling life at the molecular level. The use of gene drives as a tool for population control is a chilling possibility that cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Given Gates’ history of using the Global South as a testing ground for his experiments, it is not far-fetched to imagine the use of gene drives for more sinister purposes. The same individual who has treated people as lab rats now seeks to play god with the natural world, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that his actions could have for the environment and human societies. The growing resistance to Western “philanthropy” in the Global South is a testament to the fact that people are no longer willing to be treated as test subjects for the experiments of the global elite. Ultimately, if Bill Gates truly wants to eliminate parasites, perhaps he should start by targeting the ones that are monopolizing resources and exploiting humanity. Mosquitoes may carry malaria, but Gates and his allies are carrying the far more malignant disease of hubris, which has already had devastating consequences for the environment and human societies. The cure for this disease is not found in a lab, but in the growing resistance of people who are rejecting the control of the global elite and demanding a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Financially, this is a goldmine for the elite. Gates invests in biotech firms like Oxitec and big pharma players, then “donates” to projects that create demand for their patents. It’s vertical integration on steroids – fund the “problem” (engineered bugs), sell the “solution” (vaccines via bite), and watch royalties flood in while populations dwindle. Remember his TED talk where he released mosquitoes on the audience to make a point about malaria? That wasn’t a stunt; it was foreshadowing. And don’t buy the fact-check spin that his current projects aren’t for vaccination – the tech’s the same gene-editing toolkit, and history shows he’s funded the syringe concept directly.

Bill Gates is actively utilizing insects as carriers for hazardous pathogens and recklessly dumping untested mRNA technology on impoverished communities, flagrantly disregarding fundamental conservative values such as informed consent, secure national borders, and unrestricted free markets. The Nuremberg Code, established to protect human rights, is being blatantly disregarded, while national sovereignty is being deliberately compromised. The potential consequences of these actions are alarming, ranging from ecological devastation and unforeseen genetic mutations to deliberately engineered pandemics designed to justify further authoritarian control. The state of Florida has already been transformed into a testing ground for these experiments, with billions of dollars being invested under the supervision of Governor DeSantis, despite the absence of comprehensive long-term studies to assess the safety and efficacy of these measures. We must reject this blatant attempt at technocratic domination and instead support courageous leaders like Traoré, who are taking a firm stance against these dangerous experiments. It is imperative that we invest in genuinely effective solutions, such as locally driven agricultural initiatives and traditional medicine, rather than relying on patented, potentially lethal products promoted by Gates. If we fail to take immediate action to halt these egregious practices, we risk being subjected to an unending barrage of experimental technologies concocted by globalist elites, as this sinister agenda is driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth, power, and the systematic erosion of national sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Sudan Health Ministry Reports Over 1,300 New Cholera Cases in One Week

the Sudanese Health Ministry reported that from July 12-18, a total of 18 people died across Sudan due to this deadly disease spread via contaminated water. Over 91,000 cases since July 2024, a total of 2,302 deaths and infections recorded in 17 out of 18 states. Interestingly, the report then goes on to say that cholera cases in the Khartoum State are declining following a ten-day vaccination campaign, with 2.24 million people vaccinated (96% coverage). This was the report given by the WHO, stating that new cases dropped from 1,500 to 10-11 per day. Let’s quickly resolve the claims by the WHO.

Zimbabwe door-to-door cholera vaccination campaign

Zimbabwe launched a cholera vaccination campaign to immunize over 2 million people against the waterborne disease, amid an outbreak that has killed hundreds since early 2023. In response to the cholera update, the government implemented an oral cholera vaccination programme, aiming to inoculate over 2.3 million people. The single-shot OCV provides six months of protection against the diarrhoeal illness. So, boosters? But now, they are being used as a poster child for other countries to follow suit.

Mass cholera vaccination carried out in Southern Africa

SADC urged Member States to jointly plan and implement synchronised cross border vaccination campaigns against Cholera, if necessary, and mobilise vaccines for affected and non-affected countries at risk. The organization also devoted to “increase investment in the current cholera emergency response” and “accelerate local and regional manufacturing of cholera vaccines” among other measures. Cholera outbreaks had been reported in several SADC countries, most notably Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. In Mozambique alone, they rolled out a target to vaccinate over 2 million people against cholera. Kenya has also been running a much-celebrated Vaccine campaign. 72% Increase in Cholera Vaccine Revenues, If I’m talking about it, it means there is money involved.

The cost to immunize against cholera is between US$0.10 and US$4.00 per vaccination. The Vaxchora vaccine can cost more than US$250. Since the beginning of 2023, there have been 24 reactive cholera vaccination campaigns implemented in 12 countries. But, there is a global shortage of cholera vaccines. From January 2023 to January 2024, 76 million oral cholera vaccines (OCV) were requested by 14 countries, while only 38 million doses were available. The World Health Organization (WHO) has three pre-qualified OCVs: Dukoral®, Shanchol, and Euvichol®. One of these OCV manufacturers reported a 72% increase in revenues today. On February 15, 2024, Valneva SE reported its revenue for 2023. Last year, sales of Valneav’s DUKORAL® vaccine amounted to €29.8 million (US32 million), a significant increase from the €17.3 million recorded in 2022. This significant increase can be attributed to the recovery of the private travel markets and price hikes. In a press release, Peter Bühler, Valneva’s Chief Financial Officer, commented, “In 2023, Valneva successfully executed key strategic objectives despite a difficult economic environment…. we are entering 2024 in a good financial position to support our commercial and R&D objectives.” It’s a money-making gimmick for some, fuelled by something deeper and darker. The depopulation agenda.

EuBiologics main supplier of cholera vaccine to global vaccine stockpile

The Oral Cholera Vaccine was developed with the support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the International Vaccine Institute. This vaccine technology was then transferred to a South Korean Company EuBiologics, which is mass producing the Euvichol oral cholera vaccine. This vaccine was introduced in Haiti and Malawi as well as in other African countries. The WHO then pre-qualified this cholera vaccine and is now the only oral cholera vaccine available for mass vaccination campaigns. Why? Surprisingly, the other prequalified oral cholera vaccine Shanchol was discontinued and production stopped amidst cholera outbreaks. Coincidentally, Sanofi stopped producing the Shanchol vaccine citing less demand for cholera vaccines. Yet as soon as that happens and the Gates invested Euvichol is the only vaccine in the market the demand for cholera vaccines shoots sky high! Currently EuBiologics is the main supplier of the cholera vaccine to the global vaccine stockpile and Euvichol-Plus is the primary product in use.

Revelations about unnecessary and experimental vaccination

Notice the similarities between the vaccines that have been covered. The Oral Cholera Vaccine and the Oral Polio Vaccine have one manufacturer that Gates has invested in, and they become the main or sole supplier of the vaccine globally. In 2022, A European Parliamentary Question asked whether the European Commission had investigated the disturbing revelations about the unnecessary and experimental vaccination of the Haitian people organized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). What disturbing revelations? World renowned expert on cholera, Professor Renaud Piarroux, exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation organized a large-scale trial of the single-dose vaccine using bogus publications and modelling, without clarifying that cholera had disappeared in Haiti two years earlier. The aim of the mass vaccination campaign was to gain support and create a market for the oral cholera vaccine, since Bill Gates owns cholera vaccine factories in South Korea. This vaccine trial in Haiti had been supported as a joint investment between BMGF and with the European Commission (EC) committing close to EUR10 million. Additionally, the European Commission was jointly investing close to EUR100 million in ‘health in Africa’ with the BMGF. The European Parliament questioned why the joint investment (BMGF and EC) was happening despite Microsoft laying off 25,000 European workers, and with the claims that these experimental vaccinations were not necessary.

They always seem to have the money to give people poisonous vaccines but Not Clean Water… Don’t take their poison chemicals. Have you learned nothing? The people who seek to exterminate you … cannot give you healing. How do the African people not know that they have been test subjects for vaccines since Gates and company came along?

The WHO is a criminal racketeering organisation

As explained by Dr. David Martin, the WHO is a “criminal racketeering organisation”—founded by eugenicists—which has been, since 1953, “exclusively a vaccine promoting enterprise, for the benefit of the people who have a commercial interest in vaccines”. The minute the people who have a financial incentive to gain from the decision to declare a pandemic, the minute they’re the ones who are collecting data… they’re going to collect the data that actually justifies their existence. As long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, we have no possibility for accountability.

Namibia’s New Surveillance Strategy: A Leap Toward Better Health Security

Namibia has made a significant stride in public health surveillance by launching the Event-Based Surveillance (EBS) Guideline in Windhoek. This move aims to foster early detection and rapid response to health threats such as malaria and cholera, integrating information from diverse sectors for comprehensive monitoring. Supported by the Africa CDC and WHO, Namibia’s approach tailors public health solutions to its unique challenges, bolstering its capacity to manage acute health risks. This initiative comes at a time, coinciding with ongoing outbreaks in the region. With the third edition of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) strategy enhancing information flow from local to national levels, Namibia is reinforcing its ability to protect public health. The adoption of these guidelines aligns with continental efforts to strengthen public health systems and is a step toward improving epidemic intelligence across Africa.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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