CONTEXTUALISATION: THE SEPTEMBER 22ND ANNOUNCEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRASTING THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE WITH TYLENON IN THE CAUSATION DISCOURSE

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

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, the vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

In addition, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

Similarly, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

In simple terms, Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she works/worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

By the way, ARPA-H is also modeled after DARPA, meaning that an alleged health research body is modelled to function as a military body – which is why I’ve often argued that the COVID plandemic policies were a militarised response, and not a health response. Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

This information came to the fore after Susan Monarez was nominated by Trump for CDC Director, many of his voters argued that she is not consistent with the vision for which Americans who voted for Trump expect to see implemented. Furthermore, people who were implicated in the consolidation of the COVID plandemic and the tyrannical pandemic preparedness efforts, are likely incompatible with the ambitions of an administration that is against such an abuse of power. Therefore, Susan Monarez, who also worked in the Biden-Harris administration, was likely going to be against a lot of what the Trump administration stands for anyways. Which is even exemplified by the fact that Susan Monarez was (in part) fired as CDC Director for trying to keep mRNA shots on the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and claiming that “vaccines save lives”.

And so, I think both these points (especially from the point of view of what voters want) (once again), as far as the Trump administration is concerned, Susan Monarez was removed because her works and inclinations are incongruous with what the VOTERS behind the second Trump administration want – and this is the catalyst that led to other CDC leadership like Demetre Daskalakis resigning: it is because they shared in Susan Monarez’s works and inclinations, which were against what voters wanted from the second Trump administration.

So, having covered this recapitulation or contextual background for today’s discussion, we ought then to proceed to analyse the letter that has become a notable feature in the present discourse pertaining to the CDC.

THE ISSUES WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER FROM DEMETRE DASKALAKIS

So, when Demetre Daskalakis resigned as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, his letter to leadership carried a tone of finality and moral conviction . In the letter, he declared “Enough is enough,” explaining that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s leadership had made it impossible for him to continue. As alluded to earlier, those on the left (and certainly the far left) have praised the letter as being principled, but when read closely it is less a defense of science than a portrait of the very rhetorical habits that drove the public to distrust the CDC in the first place: particularly rhetorical habits that include appeals to authority, catastrophic predictions, ad hominem attacks, and factual distortions.

Consider his charge that he can no longer serve in an environment that (quote) “treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.” First, this is a false dichotomy; in that it frames the choice as binary: either one accepts the CDC’s so-called “scientific reality,” or one is accused of designing policies to harm. Yet the last five years have shown what most Americans already know: which is that what CDC has called “science” has often been neither transparent nor replicable, but political judgment dressed in a white coat. And this includes associates of the CDC and the plandemic response, when we consider that when asked in a hearing, Fauci conceded that six foot distance during covid was not based on scientific evidence, and was rather a product of this thinking that this was a reasonable idea.

In any case, Demetre Daskalakis further accuses the new HHS of narrative enforcement, when, in reality, the CDC has become infamous for the same on his watch. Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates were not the inevitable products of neutral science — they were policy choices, frequently contradicted by the very data the CDC refused to release. Kennedy did not cause that collapse of trust. Power overreach and failed policy did.

And in light of our reference to Fauci, I found it funny that when his credibility was being ruined by his lies and back-tracking statements (like we just saw), in 2024, Fauci did not hesitate to make it clear that the CDC was the responsible party for the implausible guidelines articulated during the COVID plandemic – thus perhaps, inadvertently proving that the CDC is response for the collapse of trust towards it – not the second Trump administration of Robert F Kennedy.

But still, Daskalakis (in his letter) appeals to institutional sanctity. He states that (quote) “unvetted and conflicted outside organizations seem to be the sources that the Department of HHS uses over the gold standard science of the CDC.” [PAUSE] But, now, the claim that the CDC represents “gold standard science” rings hollow. The agency’s failures are well documented: think of the contaminated Covid tests, the shifting guidance on masks that left the public whiplashed, how the CDC withheld vaccine safety data buried in VAERS and VSD, and the FOIA evasions that stonewalled independent scrutiny. AND SO, to describe this record as “gold standard science” is an appeal to authority wholly unsupported by the evidence!

Then, furthermore, the catastrophism in Daskalakis’s letter is both striking while also ringing hollow. So, he warns that Kennedy’s policies will (quote) “bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer.” (end quote) Now, this is a combined fallacy: being both a false dichotomy and slippery slope. And this is because questioning the safety of excipients, the timing, number, or necessity of vaccines does not condemn the country to Darwinian misery.

In fact, mortality from infectious diseases like measles, pertussis, and diphtheria had already declined long before mass vaccination, thanks to sanitation, nutrition, and reduced exposure to livestock reservoirs. The fact of loss of protection due to waning immunity is not found in his resignation. But, in addition, balanced debate about risks and benefits does not mean “returning to the dark ages.” It means practicing science as it should be — open, skeptical, and transparent and with full accountability on scientific claims.

Then, finally on the catastrophism where Daskalakis claims that Kennedy’s policies will bring people “to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive”, this rhetoric becomes openly and unnecessarily hostile. And this is considering that in this letter, the new Kennedy-appointed and vaccine-critical ACIP members are dismissed as “people of dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor,” and Kennedy himself is cast as an “authoritarian leader.” These are ad hominem attacks, not arguments. They dismiss individuals rather than engage with data or reasoning. But, in contrast, here is what I think should be highlighted: the actions taken against people like the recently fired CDC Director Susan Monarez are not based on ad hominems from the Trump administration, but careful considerations of their failures and how incompatible they are with the mandate received. This is a crucial contrast, because these actions from the Trump administration reveal efforts towards institutional reform, and not the authoritarianism that people like Kennedy are accused of.

But then, the gravest claim in the letter by Daskalakis states that (quote) “eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated.” Meanwhile, Daskalakis gives us no quotations, policies, or documents to support this claim. AND YET, Ironically, the accusation is not only unsubstantiated but inverted. Kennedy has consistently warned against coercive health policies and corporate capture, both of which he argues worsen inequality. To portray the Trump administration’s emphasis on transparency and medical freedom as eugenics is a straw man — really, a distortion intended to silence rather than to debate.

But goes further, blaming Kennedy for violence. In particular, he states that (quote) “I am resigning because of the cowardice of a leader that cannot admit that his and his minions’ words over decades created an environment where violence like this can occur.”  So, this refers to a shooting at CDC. Again, no hint of evidence has been offered by Daskalakis or anyone else to connect Kennedy’s words to the crime. It is a post hoc fallacy, in which he is exploiting tragedy to smear a political opponent: it is shameless and ripens the fruit of his letter to rot.

DID THE BIDEN-ERA CDC EMPLOY A SATANIST TO MAKE HEALTH DECISIONS?

Then, finally, regarding the contents of the letter by Daskalakis, well, perhaps most jarring is his claim that Kennedy’s HHS has sought to (quote erase) “erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research to support equity.” This rhetoric here is catastrophic, baseless, and false. In reality, under Dr Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH has made HIV a top research priority. Far from “ceasing HIV programming,” Kennedy’s administration has pledged to tackle the epidemic with fresh eyes, free from the pharmaceutical capture that distorted earlier approaches. To suggest otherwise is not just hyperbole; it is disinformation.

But, now, if you’re wondering why discussion about the CDC necessitates references to transgender people, well, Dr Demetre Daskalakis was appointed to a senior CDC role as part of Biden’s push to diversify federal health leadership (in pursuit of DEI policies and standards)! He served as the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. And, notably, he claimed to have expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community – which is an aggravating thing to publish, because what does he mean “expertise in infectious diseases, especially among the LGBTQ+ community”?! Outside of HIV/AIDS, I do not think that diseases like e-coli, influenza, or chickenpox manifest differently on people based on sexual orientation.

But, of course, DEI appointments were not really meant to be backed by credibility. People just had to be or say things that make them employable under DEI standards. But here’s more about the concerning person that Dr Demetre Daskalakis is, and why it has even led to questions concerning whether the Biden-Harris-era CDC employed a satanist to make health decisions that were affecting Americans?

THE URGENT NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AT THE CDC

But, let’s proceed to discuss the need for institutional reform. First, we’ve spoken about the fact that one of the fatal flaws of the CDC is that it always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID). It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies that president Trump and RFK Jr have been working to enact.

But, the twist is that the CDC interestingly has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer, which states that (quote): “CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

But, in actual fact, the CDC is prone to financial corruption through a legal loophole. One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to (quote) “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

HOWEVER, this problem is not just evident in the CDC Foundation, but also in the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or the ACIP). In particular, a Congressional report confirmed that the CDC’s ACIP has been compromised since the 1990s! In particular, in the year 2000, a House report revealed that 7 of 10 ACIP rotavirus advisers had direct conflicts; not only this but members voted on vaccines while holding pharma stock or patents; every member received a conflict-of-interest waiver—”freely”; the ACIP also approved Rotashield before FDA licensing—and the pharmaceutical was later pulled for harming infants; and finally, since the year 2020, the ACIP had rubber-stamped mRNA shots despite mass injury and death. But, this issue of jarring rubber stamps for vaccines occurred even in 2018, as you’re about to see in this excerpt from an ACIP meeting.

Evidently, this shows that the CDC (and its ACIP) are implicated in the staggering financial conflict of interest at the heart of America’s vaccine schedule! In fact, Dr Paul Offit, who is a frequent CNN medical analyst and leading voice for vaccines, sat on the very committee (being the ACIP) that voted to add a rotavirus vaccine to the childhood schedule.

While on the committee, Dr Offit had his own rotavirus vaccine in development. By voting to mandate the entire category, he virtually guaranteed a market for his own product—a competitive lock-in. The vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies—a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then what happened next is that his vaccine, developed with partners Stanley Plotkin and et al., it replaced the failed one; all while he remained on the committee. Then he and his partners sold that vaccine to the pharmaceutical company Merck for $186 million – to which he told Newsweek that he had “won the lottery.” But, in actual fact, Dr Offit did NOT win the lottery; he voted himself rich. Which means that this is NOT just a conflict of interest; it is a catastrophic breach of public trust. And this is because the very experts that were tasked with safeguarding children’s health were making decisions that directly led to a massive personal windfall, after a voted-on product HARMED children. And so, evidently, this is the rot at the core of the system that has necessitated institutional reform in the CDC. It is not just that there is corruption, it is that those who are corrupt are so emboldened that they are even making hundred million dollar deals to profit from this corruption!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war on health, with a special focus on the concerning infant mortality rates, and the first thing to acknowledge is that the trends and observations for children (aged 0-14 years) that have been reviewed over various literature confirm that the health of the young population is deteriorating. And unfortunately, until now, the sharp decline in children’s immune systems was not capturing the attention of the so-called experts and public health authorities.

Therefore, many are now proffering that, to rescue children’s health, this issue needs to be viewed as an emergency. In light of this declared emergency, then policies for any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects could be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties. Thankfully, this mentality is being implemented in the status quo, as recently Mississippi state officials have declared a public health emergency due to the highest infant mortality rate in the past decade. Newborns in the state of Mississippi are experiencing congen-ital malformations, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome, as well as premature births in their mothers.

THERE IS A NEED TO INVESTIGATE DRUGS AND VACCINES IN DEALING WITH INFANT MORTALITY

Now, I just alluded to the fact that part of what is plausible about declaring a state of emergency regarding increasing infant mortality rates is that a declared emergency, could well necessitate the implementation of policies that require any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects to be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties.

Well, let’s then address where the communicated need to focus on drugs and vaccines comes from in light of the infant mortality rate. For many years, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added more and more shots to the childhood immunization schedule. In the 1980s, children received around two dozen doses; today, the official schedule calls for approximately 72 doses by age 18 (when counting each dose of multi-dose vaccines and annual flu shots). This aggressive schedule is the most extensive in the world.

However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.

This gap in safety research has been flagged by experts for decades. The prestigious Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) urged the CDC to investigate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule in reports published in 2002, 2005, and 2013. In those reports, panels of scientists raised concerns that simultaneous or back-to-back vaccinations might pose risks that wouldn’t be apparent in single-vaccine trials. Yet the CDC ignored these recommendations, undertaking none of the comprehensive safety studies requested by its own advisors. The lawsuit calls this pattern “deliberate ignorance,” noting that the agency offers no explanation for disregarding its most prestigious scientific adviser for over 20 years.

However, while all of this is happening, American children have been getting sicker: chronic health conditions such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and autism have surged in the past several decades. As such, seeing that the ballooning of the vaccine schedule from 24 to 72+ doses has occurred parallel with the increase in notable group of illnesses, such as autism diagnoses exploding from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 31, and over half of American kids now suffering from some form of chronic illness, this has thus been the most notable correlation, as far as environmental factors as concerned.

Now, of course, some will be quick to point out that correlation does not equal causation (although I believe the numbers contradict that logic at this point) — HOWEVER, the core issue remains that no one in authority (such as the CDC leadership) has rigorously investigated whether this massive increase in pharmaceutical interventions in early childhood could be contributing to these poor health outcomes, and especially rising infant mortality rate. INSTEAD, any concern about “too many, too soon” has been met with the refrain that vaccines are safe and that questions are unwarranted. As far back as 1984, federal policy was explicitly oriented to “not allow” safety doubts about vaccines to persist, lest vaccination uptake decline. In essence, the public was told to provide proof of harm — even though the very agency in charge refused to actively look for that harm.

And so, a declared emergency now puts the onus on the state to view and investigate drugs and pharmaceuticals as one of the sources of the problem, and this is an incredibly necessary paradigm shift in how pharmaceuticals have been viewed in American society. And perhaps to emphasise this need for a paradigm shift even further, I would like to show you this jarring excerpt from CBS News, where (in trying to make sense of the rising infant mortality rates in Mississippi), their medical contributor – instead of pointing to the obvious, being the many vaccines and other pharmaceutical interventions infants have been taking without tests on their cumulative impact – well she says the problem resides with a combination of health care access as well as social challenges.

I’d like to point out that women were giving birth to healthy babies in their homes years before the advances we see in medicine or even the availability of many hospitals – and this includes in rural places as well. And so, while access to state of the art hospitals is a reasonable expectation in the modern context, I do not think the lack of such access suffices as a root cause of rising infant mortality rates – and is thus a driver of the problem at best.

INFANT DEATHS LINKED TO TRANSGENERATIONAL MRNA “VACCINE” FATAL ADVERSE EVENTS

Which brings us to this question: If we are saying that infants are barely making it to their first birthday, which means 12 months of life, then someone could ask: How much of this has to do with pharmaceuticals as opposed to say, overall quality of health and life – or even a combination of health care access as well as social challenges, like the people over at CBS seem to suggest. In other words, we need to address the question of how much of pharmaceutical products are being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates? And to address this, I would like to bring our collective attention to the CDC’s own website.

If you go to the page titled “Vaccines & Immunizations”, and look under “Vaccines By Age”, when you count the vaccines listen from birth all the way to 12 to 23 months, infants are recommended to have the following: It begins with 2 vaccines at birth, then 6 from one through to two months, 5 at four months, 7 at six months, 1 at seven through to eleven months; and then 9 vaccines at twelve to twenty three months – which brings it to a total of approximately 30 vaccines (depending on how many are taken between months 12 – 23). So, clearly infants are being bombarded with many jabs, for an age group that does not yet even have a body mature enough to metabolise a lot of what is being injected into their bodies. And so, evidently, there is a significant number of pharmaceutical products being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates.

But, this is not even the most concerning part, because it would seem, infants do not even have to be inoculated themselves to deal with the adverse effects of vaccines. More specifically, the CDC’s own data shows babies born are now dying at a 77% excess rate — years after mass vaccination of childbearing women. The 30-year decline in infant mortality collapsed in 2021, immediately following the mRNA injection campaign. The excess infant death causes mirror those observed in vaccinated adults, thus suggesting a transfer of mRNA “vaccine” genetic material to offspring! In other words, the mRNA vaccines created a transgenerational crisis, where children are dying who were never injected, but whose mothers were.

THE THALIDOMIDE SCANDAL: PHARMACEUTICALS HAVE A HISTORY OF HARMING INFANTS & MOTHERS

Now, even as we discuss the health concerns observed especially in the generation born after the introduction of the Covid Vaccine, it is important that we never forget pharmaceuticals have a wide and dark history of harming infants and mothers, which brings us to the global Tha-li-domide scandal.

Thalidomide, which worldwide maimed an estimated 20,000 babies and killed almost 100,000, was widely used between 1958 and 1962 and was marketed as a wonder drug against morning sickness for pregnant women. Most of the women who took the drug suffered from miscarriages or stillbirths that were not documented as potential Thalidomide victims. The few surviving babies were severely deformed or died later in infancy. And like the Covid jabs – the morning sickness drug was not once tested for fetal safety; while its wide usage then conveniently made the drug companies millions.

Then, after Thalidomide was discovered to be the cause of the fetal slaughter, there was no criminal trial that resulted in accountability or conviction and many health ministers and health leaders refused a public inquiry. Blame was passed back and forth until almost every one involved in the scandal grew old or passed on. The one criminal trial held was with the German scientists who concocted the drug; but that trial was ultimately terminated without a judgment. The court cited the difficulty in determining the individual culpability of the accused, concluding that their guilt would be considered minor (which was strange, considering the global harmful impact of thalidomide). But, still to this day, nobody was held accountable for Thalidomide – while restorative justice measures have included, in Australia, an apology from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to survivors of the Thalidomide scandal.

But, I say this to say that the pharmaceutical industry has a notorious history of harming infants and mothers, and people tend not to know a lot about this because there are little to no criminal persecutions of the relevant actors. And so, what we are seeing today in light of rising infant mortality rates are the diabolical (and yet) audacious actions of a pharmaceutical industry that has been allowed to get away with murder and culpability in harm.

THE CENTURY-LONG EVIDENCE OF VACCINE-INDUCED SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME

But, it also does not take medical or scientific gymnastics to make a case for investigating pharmaceuticals in the modern, post-thalidomide context when we can also easily see a similarity in the relationship between infant death rates plus pharmaceuticals AND the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome, also called SIDS plus pharmaceuticals – especially since the creation of the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, which has been associated with those deaths. For example, in 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered which belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s.

Likewise, as detailed by Sir Graham Wilson, in the early 1900s, there were over a dozen cases in the medical literature (and likely far more that weren’t documented) where groups of children received an incorrectly prepared diphtheria vaccine, and collectively, thousands became severely ill, with hundreds suffering an agonizing death. A wave of deaths hence followed DPT vaccine’s adoption, which like those following the COVID vaccines, became a “mysterious syndrome,” initially being called “crib death” and then “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS). In turn, a few doctors saw this and spoke out against it. For instance, Dr Paul Thomans argues that historical data indicates that in the United States 97% of SIDS cases take place less than one week after a vaccine regiment.

THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND INFANT MORTALITY

There is also a notable causal relationship between vaccines and infant deaths – beyond the vaguely named sudden infant death syndrome. For some context, in 1957, Archie Kalokerinos M.D., desiring to serve the people, requested to be stationed in the neglected rural Aboriginal communities, as their infant mortality rate was 10% (whereas it was 2% in the surrounding white communities). Many diseases were rampant there (pneumonia, severe ear infections, severe infant irritability, and a frequent inability to feed the afflicted children), but were ignored and blamed on the said-to-be uncivilised habits of the mothers.

BUT, then Dr Archie realised these deaths were due to severe nutritional deficiencies and quickly saved many lives (e.g., by injecting IV vitamin C or giving zinc). However, the infant death rate climbed to 50% following an infant vaccination campaign. And this came with an alarming discovery: Dr Archie realised that in the same way infections depleted vitamin C, vaccines actually did the same! Additionally, he also discovered that vaccinating a child who was currently ill was frequently lethal (which, to varying degrees, has also been reported throughout the medical literature). But, thankfully, in learning this Dr Archie rapidly stopped the vaccination deaths with injected vitamin C. In fact, later, he used vitamin C even to treat many other conditions too (e.g., otherwise fatal measles cases).

Similar to the hidden evidence of the causal link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, not only is one of the most frequent complications of vaccination neurological injury, but ever since the smallpox vaccine hit the market over two centuries ago, severe and unusual injuries have ALSO been reported throughout the medical literature. BUT… rather than disclose these injuries to the public, the medical profession chose to conceal them under the ERRONEOUS belief that the public good of vaccination justified hiding anything which would create vaccine hesitancy.

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. [PAUSE] 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.

RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES TAKE PLACE PARALLEL TO ATTACKS ON MOTHERHOOD

Then, finally, it bears mentioning that the rising infant mortality rate takes place parallel to attacks on motherhood. We’ve seen it time and again, from the glossy magazine covers glorifying “child-free” living to the snide late-night jokes about “breeders” and “stay-at-home moms.” It’s no longer subtle. The war on motherhood is loud and broadcast 24/7 across every major platform. And make no mistake—this is NOT just about personal choice. It’s a coordinated cultural campaign in an effort to devalue life and being a mother. In fact, in August 2024, the United States surgeon general issued an official public health advisory that parenting was bad for your health. And just days before the 2024 Election Day, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline, “It’s almost shameful to want to have children.”

This was a coordinated effort to make people devalue life and especially the life of children, so that when they are dying at alarming rates, it was merely supposed to be an abstractly unfortunate incident to those who still cared, but not enough to warrant a declared health emergency, likely one that will have great consequences in exposing the diabolical role of pharmaceuticals. It’s the same anti-life playbook behind forced DNR orders and the brain death phenomenon, used to justify people dying without much probe.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

We live in a society where it’s becoming easier to access death than to receive proper care especially for the most vulnerable.

Ethical and Human Rights Alarm Bells

External scrutiny is mounting. An  investigation revealed that Canada’s euthanasia laws are among the most permissive in the world, now available not just to the terminally ill but to individuals with unmanageable suffering even when their pain might be mitigated through better social assistance, housing, or mental health support .

Alarmingly, Canada’s euthanasia program may inadvertently be pushing non-terminal, often disabled, individuals toward choosing death due to systemic neglect. Ontario data shows that many euthanized persons, particularly those not near death, came from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In one stark case, a man with a COVID vaccine injury a disability caused by a medical intervention was approved for assisted death, revealing how easily suffering can be pathologized when it’s rooted in a healthcare system failure.

This isn’t abstract speculation. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has condemned Canada’s system for being structurally ableist providing death rather than life-supporting remedies and strongly opposing its planned 2027 expansion, which includes mental illness as a sole condition for euthanasia.

Slippery Slope: When Death Outpaces Care

The broader narrative is disturbing. As our society grows older and health systems strain, MAiD becomes a costly shortcut financially and existentially for governments that would rather see an end than invest in care.

Add to this the delay of just a few years to 2027 for allowing euthanasia solely on grounds of mental illness, and we’re watching a regulated decline of life’s value. Critics including MPs like Tamara Jansen are pushing back, introducing bills to halt this expansion, warning that from March 27, 2027, people suffering from common conditions like depression could walk into a doctor’s office and die with minimal oversight..

Only God Gives and Sustains Life

From a biblical standpoint, life is a sacred gift from God. Our Lord is described in Acts 17:28 as giving not only life but being its very “in Him we live and move and have our being.” To circumvent that design and justice is not just medical it’s spiritual rebellion.

When society begins telling struggling individuals that “you’re better off dead,” we echo the cries of ancient civilizations that worship death over deliverance. We run the risk of echoing false idols that cheapen life.

Let’s Uphold Life, Not Expedite Death

We must urgently redirect resources toward:

• Affordable housing and robust palliative care

• Accessible mental health services

• Inclusive policies centered on inherent human dignity not convenience

A Christian ethic says: Let’s heal, not kill; let’s support, not abandon; let’s love especially those whom society deems unworthy.

Let’s ensure that the most vulnerable don’t become the easiest exit.

The AAP Declared War on Vaccine Choice

AAP recommended removing all religious exemptions for vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAP sets Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

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

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it). However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

AAP is prioritizing medicalization over preventative measures

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

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

Parents are seen as an Obstacle to Return on Investment

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

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

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

The war against the cancer epidemic in children, and to begin with: for the first time in modern medical history, children as young as eight are being diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer—a phenomenon so rare it was virtually unheard of before 2021. But now, oncologists are breaking ranks, exposing what they call a “global epidemic” of fast-moving cancers directly linked to COVID-19 vaccines, while the medical authorities who once demanded blind faith in these shots have gone eerily silent as the many children get sick.

Against this backdrop, Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is a pioneering cancer researcher, recently dropped a bombshell during an interview with Tucker Carlson, by bluntly connecting the dots between mRNA vaccines and the surge in deadly cancers. His warning follows a flood of reports from frontline doctors witnessing bizarre, rapid-onset tumors in young patients—cases that they state defy decades of medical understanding. Meanwhile, Dr Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist from the University of London, has called for an outright ban on mRNA vaccines, declaring they have no place in medicine outside of terminal cancer cases; and this came as his research found mRNA fragments inside tumors, suggesting the shots may be fueling cancer growth.

More specifically, Dr Dalgleish highlighted that researchers have identified traces of mRNA within cancerous tumors, noting that this genetic material plays a role in their rapid growth and the aggressive spread of these cancers. He asserted, “Cancer caused by mRNA vaccines is a known outcome.” He subsequently issued a cautionary note, emphasising that mRNA vaccines should NOT be utilised as a preventive measure against cancer, as they are implicated in its causation!

Now, the timing of these cancers is undeniable. Before 2021, childhood cancers like glioblastoma and advanced colon cancer were statistical anomalies. Now, pediatric oncology wards are filling with cases that progress at terrifying speeds—what doctors now call “turbo cancers.” Yet instead of investigating, public health agencies and pharmaceutical giants have doubled down on censorship, smearing dissenting experts as “conspiracy theorists” while quietly updating vaccine injury compensation programs to include cancer claims. The term “turbo cancer” isn’t even a recognised medical term, yet doctors continue to report aggressive cancer cases, in adults and young children without a history of medical issues!

Not only that but the parallels to past medical scandals are chilling. Just as Big Tobacco buried evidence linking smoking to lung cancer for decades, the COVID vaccine pushers—from the FDA to Pfizer—are gaslighting the public while children suffer. Evidently, history repeats itself when profit outweighs ethics. The same institutions that lied about opioids, asbestos, and Agent Orange are now dismissing vaccine injuries as “anecdotal.” But with doctors like Dr Soon-Shiong and Dr Dalgleish risking their careers to speak out, how long can the facade hold? As grieving parents demand answers, one question burns: If vaccines are safe, why are the architects of this experiment refusing to debate their critics in the open? And this is one of those questions that say a lot more than any possible answer. But, here is Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong revealing what is evidently concerning data: which reports aggressive prostate cancers in men as young as 40-50, and colon cancer in kids aged 10-12. And the culprit is a prostate enzyme (called TMPRSS2) that helps spike proteins invade cells faster, accelerating cancer growth.

STUDIES ARE LINKING mRNA JABS TO THE ACCELERATION OF CANCER GROWTH

Adding to what Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr Angus Dalgleish are warning about, studies are actually linking mRNA jabs to the acceleration of cancer growth. For instance, in a groundbreaking landmark study titled “Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination” – researchers discovered that COVID-19 mRNA injections can trigger profound, long-lasting genetic dysregulation in individuals who develop new-onset adverse events or cancer following vaccination.

The study was conducted by scientists from Neo7Bioscience (namely Dr John Catanzaro, Dr Natalia von Ranke, Dr Wei Zhang, and Dr Philipp Anokin), as well as researchers from the University of North Texas (namely Dr Danyang Shao, Dr Ahmad Bereimipour, and Minh Vu), as well as researchers from the McCullough Foundation (being Dr Peter McCullough – himself – and Dr Nicolas Hulscher) and also Kevin McKernan from Medicinal Genomics. So, using high-resolution RNA sequencing of blood samples and differential gene expression analysis, the researchers found that COVID-19 “vaccines” severely disrupted the expression of thousands of genes—inducing mitochondrial failure, immune system reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that persisted for months to years after injection!

These findings strongly suggest 3 alarming ramifications. First, these findings suggest that mRNA vaccines can induce gene expression profiles consistent with tumor formation and chronic disease. Secondly, this also suggests that mRNA-vaccinated individuals may be at heightened risk of cancer, immune dysfunction, and inflammatory disorders. Finally, the synthetic mRNA and long-lasting spike protein appear to create sustained cellular stress that disrupts normal genetic regulation. And so, evidently, it is time for the immediate withdrawal of these dangerous gene therapies to protect the population still considering booster doses.

DNA IN THE VACCINE VIALS MAY BE CAPABLE OF CHANGING HUMAN DNA

Now, since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify the human gene by combining their sequences with the human genome. However, “Fact-checkers” refuted this, stating that mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA. And it’s not only Kevin McKernan: human biologist, professor Ulrike Kämmerer, PhD, at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany conducted earlier stages of this research. Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that around half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating they had absorbed the vaccines.

Well, Kevin McKernan (who was among the researchers of the study we just referenced) – he then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells, as well as their descendant cells, contained vaccine DNA. After this, he tested to see if any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells since it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk. However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA integration are less clear. Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory. Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure the integration is not a result of misreading or random error. Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was only detected on two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results.

PFIZER’S COVID-19 JAB GOES INTO LIVER CELLS AND IS CONVERTED TO DNA

By the way, this issue is seen also with liver cells. According to Swedish researchers at Lund University, the mRNA  from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA! SO, the researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA. The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA. Now, reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus. And of course you can conduct your own research about, especially the difference between the normal and reverse transcription process.

However, what remains important to note from this information is this: this whole process of reverse transcription occurred rapidly within six hours. And yet… the vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen! And so, they lied about the relationship between the mRNA jab and the human DNA – something that the President of Loveworld Inc. has always made plain: mRNA affects, and makes editable, the human DNA!

VACCINE MANUFACTURERS KNEW THE VACCINES COULD CAUSE CANCER

By the way, this is not new information for vaccine manufacturers – they knew vaccines have this effect on DNA, and were especially aware of the cancer causing capacity or mRNA. In fact, Pfizer put cancer causing agents in their vaccine!

So, all of this, explains why mRNA vaccines are linked to cancer, but why doctors are seeing a surge in cancers in children – it is a ramification of the mass COVID vaccination campaign!

FOOD COMPANIES ARE ALSO CULPABLE FOR THE CANCER EPIDEMIC IN CHILDREN 

Let’s bring in food companies as additional culprits in the childhood cancer epidemic – and we especially have to focus on herbicide producers. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the world’s most widely used weed control agents. Public health concerns have increased since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. To further investigate the health effects of glyphosate and Glyphosate-based herbicides, the Ramazzini Institute launched the Global Glyphosate Study (GGS), which is designed to test a wide range of toxicological outcomes.

For the duration of the study, glyphosate and two GBHs, Roundup Bioflow used in the European Union (EU) and RangerPro used in the U.S., were administered to male and female Sprague–Dawley rats, beginning at gestational day 6 (via maternal exposure) through to 104 weeks of age; and glyphosate was administered through drinking water at three doses.

Well, the findings from the study showed that in all 3 treatment groups, statistically significant dose-related increased trends or increased incidences of benign and malignant tumors at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to historical and concurrent controls. These tumors arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in Sprague–Dawley rats (with a background incidence of less than 1%) and yet after exposure ot the GBHs, 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurred before 52 weeks of age and increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumors. This tells us that these GBHs, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are highly carcinogenic!

But, the study referenced, while it does predominantly focus on rats, is intended to show the dangers that emanate from GBHs. And so, I think not only does it offer insight for the rise of cancers in children, but jarring also in pets. Which I think is a massive indicator because pets are most exposed to environmental factors, that might be a cause for concerns – from food, to vaccines and household chemicals. For instance, the average life of a golden retriever used to be 17 years, but now it is in the single digits, and they often die from cancer or diabetes. Evidently, this tells us that there must be a change in environmental factors that needs to be investigated, especially given that these changes are parallel to the epidemic of cancer in children.

On top of this, it is crucial to remember that the current American agriculture system origin story involves large chemical companies – if you got a chance to follow the expose of food companies on one of our programmes called ‘Starting Point’ here on LN24 International, you would have noted that Monsanto, for instance, was one of nine wartime government contractors who manufactured Agent Orange from 1965 to 1969. As a result, in the status quo, 85% of the food people consume started from a patented seed sold by a chemical corporation that was responsible for creating a chemical weapon that was used in the Vietnam War, and has biological ramifications that are still felt even today!

AGROCHEMICAL COMPANIES ARE TAKING A PAGE FROM BIG PHARMA’S PLAYBOOK

And yet, in the midst of these concerns, Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Now, there are actually scientists who have performed experiments that echo what the Scriptures teach about sound codes. Take Japanese scientist Dr Masaru Emoto. He claimed human consciousness has an effect on the molecular structure of water. One of the experiments he did was to place different written words on water and to note the effect it had on water crystals. From his experiment, it can be seen that different words and their intention have different effect on the structure of water crystals, with words such as, Thank You, Love, Compassion, Truth, Peace, Love & Gratitude, Humility etc creating beautiful crystal structures and unkind words creating distorted, non-symmetrical dysfunctional crystal structures.

As incredible as this revelation is, it also provides an explanation for the undeniable reality of divine healing. Think about it: Pastor Chris was ministering in Nigeria to people all over the world, and when he would speak worlds declaring healing or commanding devils to leave a person, wherever the person is, there would be a response. Well, in light of sound codes and how water responds to words, we ought to consider that approximately 55% to 78% of the human body is water. And so, that water surely can also respond to words!

Excitingly, this principle does not only apply to words, but further applies to thoughts! There are other studies that show that through your thoughts, you release subatomic particles changing their forms. This means that these particles respond to energy that is coming from you, and that your thoughts have energy that affects your environment and the circumstances of your life. This further exemplifies what the Bible says is Proverbs 23:7 “As a man thinketh so is he”.

And so, divine healing not only is an undeniable reality, but even science corroborates what God already gave us as principle and precedent in the Scriptures! Well, an appreciation of this truth is paramount in a time when medicine is not only politicised, but highly influenced by interest groups that represent the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine enterprise. Which brings us to an awe-inspiring testimony, and a comparison between divine healing and the medical industry.

Now, you’d recall that before the HSLHS we had a lengthy discussion about the advancements in autism causation discourse. We ought to revisit that in light o this portion of our discussion.

RECAPITULATION: THE PROGRESS IN AUTISM CAUSATION DISCOURSE

So, in essence, 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.

Again, 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!

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.

Now, here’s what personally upsets me about autism and the pharmaceutical lobby pretending it does not know the cause, while gaslighting parents with autistic children. Beyond the sheer evil and deception, what is incredibly aggravating is that it is robbing people of the opportunity to live out their true potential. I think one of the most painful circumstances to find yourself in (as a person who can exercise agency and choice) is when you realise that you are living below your potential. But, for individuals afflicted with autism (especially the severe end of the spectrum) they are robbed of that potential, and the opportunity to exercise their will to be what God has predestined them to be! And so, it really is an evil affliction.

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