IT WAS ALWAYS A FAKE VACCINE

They were never vaccines to begin with. It was always a lie from the beginning.  

Dr. Ryan Cole: 15 Ways the COVID Shots Injure and KiII

According to Dr. Ryan Cole, the COVID shots can cause harm in 15 distinct ways. Researchers have revealed how nanoparticles are being utilized in these shots, and what the effects are of the persistence of synthetic RNA in the body. Additionally, scientists are exposing the circulation of synthetic spike protein and its impact on human health. The spike protein itself is a harmful agent that can have far-reaching consequences. Experts are also examining the brain accumulation and impact of these shots, as well as the potential for peripheral nerve damage and organ damage. Furthermore, the COVID shots have been linked to myocarditis and heart issues, and are also affecting the adrenal glands and elastic fibers. The shots are also causing reproductive harms, weakening immune systems, and leading to vascular damage and clotting. Moreover, abnormal protein accumulation, immune tolerance, and increased cancer risk are all being actively studied as potential consequences of the COVID shots. Dr. Cole’s insights highlight the need for continued research into the effects of these shots on human health and the need to stop them.

Vaccine injections altered human immunity on a global scale

According to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, vaccine injections have drastically changed human immunity worldwide, and he’s sounding the alarm. By analyzing the electronic medical records of thousands of patients before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Hulscher has uncovered compelling evidence of vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or VAIDS. The shocking spike in autoimmune diseases, chronic infections, and even cancer cases is prompting Hulscher to call for immediate and thorough scientific scrutiny of the long-term consequences of these vaccines, with the ultimate goal of potentially bringing an end to the mRNA vaccine era. Hulscher’s findings are sparking intense debate and raising critical questions about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and he’s urging the scientific community to take a closer look at the devastating impact they may be having on human health.

 mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform

Under oath, Dr. Robert Sullivan confirmed it. mRNA tech is NOT a vaccine — it’s an experimental gene-modifying platform. It forces the body to produce toxic spike proteins, causing lung, heart, and organ damage. It is linked to autoimmune disorders and abnormal cell growth, and they KNEW IT. These are crimes against humanity were committed, the truth was censored to protect Big Pharma and billions were made — at the cost of YOUR health

What is Gene Therapy, and Why the Interest?

Gene therapy involves modifying or introducing genetic material to treat or prevent diseases, often targeting conditions like genetic disorders, cancers, or viral infections. It’s a broad field, encompassing mRNA vaccines (which some call gene therapy due to their use of genetic instructions) and approaches like CRISPR or viral vector therapies. According to dubious researchers and institutions, it offers potential cures for previously untreatable conditions, rapid vaccine development (as seen with COVID-19), and massive commercial opportunities. Biotech giants like Moderna and Pfizer, backed by government contracts, have poured billions into this space, with mRNA platforms alone generating tens of billions in revenue during the pandemic.

mRNA is about Centralized Control and Power

The push for gene therapy is tied to powerful institutions—Big Pharma, governments, and organizations like the World Health Organization or the Gates Foundation—that are centralizing control over health. Globalist entities—think WHO, GAVI, or multinational corporations—are accused of using gene therapy to standardize medical interventions worldwide, bypassing national sovereignty. mRNA vaccines, rolled out globally during COVID-19, were a test case for mandating experimental tech under the guise of public health. gene therapies could be weaponized to alter populations, either through sterilization, genetic selection, or other dystopian outcomes, echoing historical eugenics programs.

Eugenics, as practiced in the early 20th century, involved elites promoting policies to “improve” populations, often targeting marginalized groups. Figures like Bill Gates, whose foundation funds vaccine and gene therapy research, has made comments on population control through health interventions. While Gates frames this as reducing poverty to lower birth rates, its a slippery slope toward eugenics-like goals, especially when gene-editing tools like CRISPR could target specific genetic traits.

mRNA is a Trojan Horse

mRNA vaccines as “gene therapy” because they introduce genetic instructions into cells. They’re a gateway to normalizing genetic manipulation. Kennedy’s recent cancellation of $500 million in mRNA funding cited safety, resonating with those who see mRNA as a tool for globalist agendas rather than public good.

mRNA for Profit and Power Concentration

From a finance angle, gene therapy is a goldmine. The global market is projected to hit $13 billion by 2026, driven by high-cost treatments (some therapies cost $2M+ per dose). This enriches a small elite—pharma CEOs, investors, and their political allies—while tying healthcare to corporate control. The gene therapy’s push isn’t just about health but about creating dependency on proprietary tech, with potential for social engineering if access is gatekept or tailored to certain groups.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

SENATOR RAND PAUL, AND THE RENEWED CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI

 “The Renewed Criminal Referral of Anthony Fauci”, and to begin with, ever since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out worldwide in early 2020, Anthony Fauci has been at the center of it. Well, it has been about 5 years later now and no one has been held accountable. In light of this, Senator Rand Paul has said it has been Fauci who must be held accountable; in fact, Senator Rand Paul insisted that the evidence pointed to COVID-19 originating at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where gain-of-function research was happening – and that it all pointed to Fauci.

But, now there is a vested interest in pursuing criminal action against Fauci, and it this becomes more apparent as Senator Rand Paul renewed his criminal referral of Dr Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice on Tuesday, accusing the former NIH director of orchestrating a cover-up related to NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that allegedly contributed to 18 million global COVID-19 deaths. Paul cited Freedom of Information Act emails showing Fauci’s awareness of the research despite his congressional testimony denying NIH involvement, along with allegations of record destruction and perjury. This follows Paul’s prior referrals in 2023 and 2025, amid ongoing debates over the pandemic’s origins and potential preemptive pardon by President Biden.

In addition, Fauci has been accused by some of overreach and has faced calls for LEGAL accountability. Of course, this has been a subject of interest for many, especially those who experienced significant harm and loss as a result of the made-up covid responses and even the COVID jabs and boosters.

And so, we have to have a detailed discussion on what legal accountability would entail and explicitly establish that Fauci has in fact committed a crime. In light of this, a crime is generally understood as being a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law. Different nations may have aspects of the law that are unique to their relative context, but when it comes to criminal law – this is typically standard across different jurisdictions. And so, what is key to establish for the purpose of our discussion, and also in light of the criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, is Fauci’s culpability in committing unlawful conduct. In addition, there must be a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the resulting consequence or harm to the (literal) millions of people in the US and the world at large. But, before we proceed, here is what Senator Rand Paul had to say concerning the rationale behind the renewed criminal referral.

WHY THE CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI WAS INITIATED TO BEGIN WITH

But, while we speak of the renewed criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, it is worth noting why this criminal referral was initiated to begin with. In essence, Senator Rand Paul long pointed to an email from February 2020 in which Fauci detailed a call with British medical researcher Jeremy Farrar, who was director of the Wellcome Trust at the time. According to Fauci, those on the task force call, including Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other “highly credible” scientists with expertise in evolutionary biology, expressed concern about the “fact upon viewing the sequences of several isolates of the nCoV, there were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats and that there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.”

“The suspicion was heightened by the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine the molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan.

DID FAUCI COMMIT UNLAWFUL CONDUCT RELATING TO THE COVID VIRUS AND PLANDEMIC RESPONSE?

And so, let’s begin by asking whether Fauci committed unlawful conduct (1) first, while leading the NIAID, (2) second, in his role in the plandemic response that was coerced on states and nations, and (3) thirdly even possibly with respect to the creation and leak of the virus itself. Well, right of the bat, it certainly appears so because in July 2024, the US District Attorneys began working together to criminally charge ANTHONY FAUCI with racketeering, collusion in creating the Wuhan virus and premeditated murder of thousands via Remdesivir and the Covid jabs.

Frankly, we could stop here – because this fairly establishes Fauci’s culpability in both the creation of the COVID virus, and the plandemic response; including the interventions used, being Remdesivir and the Covid jabs – all pointing to unlawful conduct. But, this is not even the gist or end of Fauci’s unlawful conduct. Back in the month of May, Lawrence Tabak, the Principal Deputy Director of the NIH, confirmed that Anthony Fauci committed a federal crime by providing false testimony to Congress under oath. Under US Code Title 18 and section 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false statements to Congress. The penalties for such an offense can include up to five years in prison.

Then there is the abuse of children. In particular, Fauci used children as guinea pigs for so-called medical interventions. Fauci made sure that none of those children had guardians, which is illegal, and then he hid what he was doing to his board. In addition to all of this, Fauci was also disposing of the corpses of these children who died in illegal experiments.

ASSESSING FAUCI’S MALICIOUS INTENT TO HARM THROUGH COVID PROTOCOLS

Having established Fauci’s unlawful conduct, we then also have to assess whether Fauci acted maliciously to cause harm. For clarity, malicious intent is the intentional desire to cause harm, damage, or injury to someone or something. It is the kind of misconduct that is NOT due to, say, laziness or ignorance, but rather it is a conscious decision to act in a harmful way. Well, with respect to this, not only did Fauci act with malicious intent to cause harm, but he has even done this before in relation to a different case.

First, the proof of Fauci’s malicious intent to cause harm is found in his intentional distortion of information and scientific fact, especially seen in the plandemic responses – including the claimed safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs. In fact, even he conceded that it was mostly guess work or discussions he does not recall, and yet, they formed mandates on their guesses, and subjected society to them.

Secondly, Fauci’s malicious intent is also seen with his dismissive attitude towards the inalienable freedom of choice and the bodily autonomy of people. In particular, he intentionally contributed to a plandemic response that would make vaccine mandates inescapable, thus robbing individuals of the ability to make an informed choice on whether to take the vaccine, while some (among those who did not take it) lost their jobs and livelihoods. This binary outcome where you either take the jab or lose access to basic necessities, or institutions in society was intentionally curated with malice, as you’re about to hear Fauci express. And this resurfaced during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing, in which Representative Dr Rich McCormick, being a medical doctor himself, questioned Fauci on him making it difficult for people to live their lives in dignity, and robbing them of the ability to make informed healthcare decisions.

BUT, as alluded to, Fauci has also done this prior; that is to say, he has previously acted with malicious intent to cause harm before! In particular, this relates to the drug AZT. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. It was said to be powerful, but unspecific, meaning that the drug was not selective in its cell destruction. Well, Fauci pushed AZT, and it killed an estimated 330,000 people. AND, When doctors found effective treatments as a much safer and plausible alternative, Fauci proceeded to silence them – REFUSING to test those alternatives. All of this is to say that Fauci is not new to the unlawful conduct of maliciously harming people, while instituting measures to silence others.

DID FAUCI BENEFIT FROM THE COVID RESPONSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

But, then following this, additional evidence of culpability and malicious intent is found in how Fauci benefited financially from the curated and made-up Covid response at the expense of others. According to RFK Jr, not only does the NIH get the royalty [from the Moderna injection], but the individuals who work for Anthony Fauci, they each get what they call patent margin rights. So they’re gonna collect royalties – around $150,000 a year forever, potentially, from those vaccines. [PAUSE] This reveals that the COVID response was a coordinated effort, for which he knew the likely outcome, hence he was able to profit from it.

Furthermore, in his 492-page book, Robert F. Kennedy reveals how Fauci committed a crime against humanity. In particular, as NIAID Director, Fauci controlled $6.1 billion in annual research funding. NIAID’s funds are expected to improve American health, as well as to eliminate viral allergic illnesses and autoimmune diseases. However, under Fauci’s watch, the chronic disease crisis has become worse. The turning point came in 2000. In Gates’ $127 million mansion, him and Fauci forged an alliance. Their goal was a vaccine empire with unlimited expansion potential. Gates called it “philanthropic capitalism” (which you would have heard him speak about). But, what this meant is that public health became their vehicle for diabolical plans, while profit became their engine.

EVEN IF FAUCI CLAIMS DENIABILITY, HE STILL ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Assuming that Fauci would attempt to claim deniability, it would also be possible to show that he engaged in a crime of omission through negligence – based on his words. So, Fauci knows that COVID was not a naturally forming virus, and that it was leaked in the lab in Wuhan – because the US worked with China on that virus and leak. However, in private communication, Fauci would merely concede that the COVID virus does not seem natural, BUT, he proceeded to commission the publishing of the ‘Proximal Origins’ letter (which you’d recall from our previous discussions), and this letter, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine on 17 March 2020, was written by a group of virologists including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes and Robert Garry. The authors examined possibilities of an accidental leak of a natural or manipulated virus from a laboratory, and (very deceptively) concluded that genomic analyses indicated that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”. So, Fauci’s crime of omission here was not investigating his suspicions as a person curating a pandemic response! He is therefore responsible for silencing critical discourse in 2020 on the origins of COVID.

ACCOUNTABILITY AS THE RESULT OF THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH

All of this is to say that there was a lot of planning that went into the COVID hoax, with premeditated outcomes – thus making it easy to establish Fauci’s criminal liability. HOWEVER, if they had it their way, this would not even be a conversation – because they wanted absolute control over people and a monopoly on truth. BUT, they did not plan for the Church of Jesus Christ!

In fact, you’d recall that Anthony Fauci came to Washington even on January 8th last year to answer questions on how he flipped his position on public policy for masks, how the agency he headed funded risky research in China, and how post-infection immunity was downplayed – especially as a chief architect of the US’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was behind closed doors for two days of questioning from the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. And this was the first time he answered questions under oath since November 2022. Members of the panel asked Fauci about how he flipped positions on mask policy, seeing that he started from the position that masks wouldn’t work to curb transmission of COVID-19, according to emails he sent in early 2020, to then being an ardent supporter of not only wearing masks but mandating masks. Last year, he was also confronted by Senator Rand Paul in a committee hearing about statements he made concerning natural immunity; and this next clip is from the committee hearing in 2022.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that the relevant stakeholders do not hide behind legal loopholes. Which brings us to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

PETER MARKS & THE FDA’S COVER-UP OF THE HARMS OF COVID JABS

Now, proceeding to look further into Peter Marks’ works at the FDA, many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people. One of the ways people were made aware of this was through the recently leaked recordings showing how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division, being Peter Marks at the time, refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients, and even medical practitioners who were treating vaccine injured patients.

Here’s why this is important to note: generally, in looking through what transpired with the COVID-19 response, Anthony Fauci is commonly blamed for all that went amiss – and correctly so. However, we must not also miss the people who were also directly involved, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy; and one such person is Peter Marks. Peter Marks is the primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were (quote unquote) “safe and effective”).

He was also the person who kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID jabs (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). The parties involved in this process, which included, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause (who were the Director and Deputy Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, respectively); they reported that there were (at that point) no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Peter Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).

BUT, despite all of this, the media lied about Peter Marks. They stated that Marks was pressured to be anti-vax by RFK Jr. Yet, no single specific action is cited. Some articles even call Marks a hero, and he is praised by past FDA officials who now consult for drug companies or serve on their board. And funny enough, Peter Marks has now joined their ranks as one among those who embody the problem with the revolving- door corruption between the FDA and the corporations it is supposed to regulate – especially pharmaceutical companies.

FROM FDA REGULATOR TO ELI LILLY EXECUTIVE — THE REVOLVING DOOR OF CORRUPTION EXPANDS

More specifically, six months after his removal from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Peter Marks has officially joined Eli Lilly — the same company that has become notorious for particularly employing former FDA officials. In any case, Marks will serve as Senior VP for Molecule Discovery and Head of Infectious Diseases, working alongside Rachael Anatol, who is another recently ousted regulator. Meanwhile, his former FDA counterpart Patrizia Cavazzoni also quietly landed at Pfizer as Chief Medical Officer earlier this year.

IN FACT, nine of the last ten FDA commissioners have actually gone on to work for major pharmaceutical companies shortly after leaving public office. Within the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, officials routinely rotate between government agencies, global NGOs, and Big Pharma — advancing personal careers while deepening institutional entanglements across the syndicate. And to paint a picture of both this corrupt revolving door relationship and also just how global this syndicate is.

Dr Elizabeth Nabel, who is the former Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the NIH — Joined Moderna’s Board of Directors. Dr Scott Gottlieb, who is the former FDA Commissioner — Joined the Board of Pfizer to promote vaccines on TV during pandemic. Dr Stephen Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner — Became Chief Medical Officer at Flagship Pioneering, which is the venture capital firm that launched Moderna. Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, who is the United Kingdom’s former Deputy Chief Medical Officer and member of the Vaccine Task Force — he was appointed as Senior Medical Consultant at Moderna. Then, Dr Jeremy Farrar, the former Director of the Wellcome Trust — he was appointed as Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, Dr Soren Brostrom, the Director General of the Danish Health Authority — he was also elected to the Executive Board of the World Health Organization. Then, Dr Moncef Slaoui, who is the former Chief Scientist of Operation Warp Speed — he previously served as an executive at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and as a Board member at Moderna. Dr Julie Gerberding, who is the former CDC Director — became President of Merck Vaccines, later serving as CEO of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (the NIH). There is also Dr Luciana Borio, the former FDA Acting Chief Scientist and member of the Biden COVID-19 Advisory Board — she became a Partner at ARCH Venture Partners, which is a firm heavily invested in biotech, while (as we just alluded) Dr Patrizia Cavazzoni, the former Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) — Appointed as Chief Medical Officer at Pfizer, and Dr Peter Marks, the former Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) — has recently been appointed Senior Vice President for Molecule Discovery and Head of Infectious Diseases at Eli Lilly.

It is jarring how repetitive and global this revolving door corruption is; it is factually a syndicate that has gotten so bold in its endeavours, that it has become a network that erases the line between public health stewardship and corporate profiteering — which is a deeply embedded conflict of interest that undermines both trust and safety.

THE REVOLVING DOOR CORRUPTION IS INDICATIVE OF A BROADER ISSUE OF DIABOLICAL CORPORATIONS

Now here is why this revolving door issue matters beyond the specific individuals who are involved in it. A frequent criticism of corporations (which I believe also applies to governmental bureaucracies) is that their organisational structure encourages sociopathic behaviour – in fact, you would have heard me quote the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, when he warned that “Capitalism has metamorphosed”, in that while we used to have corporations that sought to make profit through contributing products and services that added a net positive to society, that has since changed for a handful of them, and now they seek to make profit at the expense of the best interest of society.

Well, this typically occurs because MEMBERS of these entities are shielded from legal or personal accountability for their actions, with any wrongdoings being attributed to the corporation as a whole. In contrast, the main form of accountability most members face is the pressure to advance the institution’s mission (e.g., to make more money), leading to the proliferation of increasingly unethical methods to achieve that goal. To illustrate this, consider this quote from Peter Rost, who is a former executive at Pfizer and one of the few pharmaceutical leaders to speak out against the industry: He stated that (quote):

“It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry [speaking about the pharmaceutical industry] and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organised crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry … The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves – well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway – look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank … However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen … to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation. It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of. When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay.”

Now, this genuinely sounds like a cry for help, from someone who fell into the pharmaceutical rabbit hole, only to discover later that they had become everything that they found morally reprehensible. Which clarifies, in part, how many of the people in this industry overlook what they know and are asked to do. But, on the other hand, we also know that there are those who are driven by their gain: be it power brockering or money. For instance, during the COVID plandemic, there was essentially zero daylight between Anthony Fauci’s agencies and the pharmaceutical industry; and this incestuous relationship was a significant part of the problem. But, here’s more on the propensity of pharmaceutical companies to function like the mafia or mob.

Furthermore, why this revolving door issue matters beyond the specific individuals who are involved in it is that it also points to a culture of disregard for morally acceptable or ethical conduct. In other words, pharmaceutical companies had a streak where they just did not fear consequences as much as they should, because they often got away with very heinous conduct – either through out-of-court settlements, or because of the work done through the pharmaceutical lobby. As such, this created a culture of outright corruption.

For instance, you’d recall that in May this year, the FDA Commissioner in this second Trump administration, being Dr Martin Makary, he publicly exposed a longstanding practice where agency inspectors accepted luxury limousine rides from the very pharmaceutical corporations they were tasked with overseeing. This underscores deep-seated conflicts of interest that have undermined the integrity of drug safety inspections, especially at overseas manufacturing facilities.

Now, the issue centers on foreign inspections, where the FDA’s oversight of drug production has historically relied on “scheduled” visits—essentially announced in advance. These setups, Makary argues, are “no inspections at all. They’re a joke.” Companies get ample time to polish their operations, hide violations, and even roll out the red carpet. Enter the limos: lavish rides provided by inspected firms, blurring the line between regulator and regulatee. While not outright bribes, such perks create an aura of favoritism, potentially softening enforcement. Makary’s exposure highlights how these rides were routine, eroding public trust in the FDA’s gold-standard claims. And this is not hyperbole; especially as the numbers paint a grim picture.

In particular, the FDA inspects thousands of foreign facilities annually, many in countries like India and China, which produce up to 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients for U.S. drugs. A 2023 Government Accountability Office report flagged delays and weaknesses in these checks, exacerbated by COVID-19 travel bans. But post-pandemic, the return to fieldwork revealed these ethical lapses. In response, the FDA announced an expansion of unannounced inspections in May 2025, aiming to catch bad actors off-guard—those falsifying records or concealing contamination risks. The policy also explicitly bans inspectors from accepting industry-provided transport, including taxis, limos, or for-hire vehicles, alongside lodging perks. “This is a key step… to ensure that the FDA is the gold standard for regulatory oversight,

WORLD’S FIRST INTERNATIONAL GOVERNING BODY DECLARES mRNA INJECTIONS BIOLOGICAL & TECHNOLOGICAL WMDS

But, while all of this happens, there are strong efforts that are pushing against the works of pharmaceutical companies, and the vaccine holocaust. Notable among them is that in a stunning and historic move, the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (or A.I.N.) International Tribunal has issued an ORDER and DECLARATION stating that “mRNA nanoparticle injections are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.” And, of course, this marks the first formal judicial declaration by any recognized international authority categorizing the COVID-19 mRNA products as biological weapons.

Now, also important to note is that, in December 2024, Canada’s Ministry of Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs (CIRNAC) formally acknowledged the Alliance of Indigenous Nations, its Treaty, and its International Tribunal—a judicial body composed of judges from every continent. In its official letter dated December 13, 2024, Canada affirmed that its relationship with the A.I.N. exists on a Nation-to-Nation basis, thereby recognizing the Tribunal as a sovereign legal authority under Indigenous and international law.

Also important to note is that the declaration by the Alliance of Indigenous Nations International Tribunal that the COVID vaccine is a biological and technological weapons of mass destruction aligns with our recent study by Zywiec et al, which demonstrated that the COVID-19 mRNA injections violate the Biological Weapons Convention, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, and the US Constitution. It also aligns with Minnesota Bill HF3219, which classifies mRNA injections and related products as weapons of mass destruction under Section 609.712, prohibiting their possession or distribution within the state.

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

FLORIDA SURGEON GEN: ALL VACCINE MANDATES IN FLORIDA WILL BE ENDED

And now onto our main discussion regarding the acceleration of the vaccine reckoning, and we ought to begin with the announcement from the state of Florida. Once again, on September 3rd, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo announced a plan to eliminate all vaccine mandates in the state, including those required for schoolchildren to attend public schools. This move, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, positions Florida as the first state in the US to attempt a complete rollback of vaccine requirements.

Now, Dr Ladapo, has also been known for being a vocal vaccine skeptic, but, it was particularly notable that – as a government official, and in the course of his announcement – he denounced vaccine mandates as “immoral” and likened them to “slavery,” arguing that they infringe on individual and parental rights. He went so far as to ask rhetorically (quote): “Who am I, as a government or anyone else, to tell you what you should put in your body?” and he asked this crucial albeit rhetorical question emphasizing personal choice over state-imposed requirements. Continuing, he declared that the Florida Department of Health would work to repeal all vaccine mandates, stating, “All of them. Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.”

Of course, for many, this was a welcomed announcement because Florida currently requires vaccinations for schoolchildren against diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, and hepatitis B. Some mandates fall under the authority of the state health department, which Ladapo said would be repealed immediately, while others require legislative action from Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature. Governor DeSantis expressed support for the initiative, announcing the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In addition, supporters expressed that the decision is a triumph for medical freedom; for instance, Dr Robert Malone,who warned about mRNA vaccines and has been recently appointed to the new and vaccine critical CDC’s advisory committee, well, he praised Ladapo as a “measured scientist” aiming to reform the system. In addition, posts on X from many Floridians and Americans reflected similar sentiments, with some users celebrating the announcement as a defense of bodily autonomy – which appears to be the main theme following the announcement from Dr Ladapo; in that not only did Dr Ladapo articulate the overreach in allowing governments to tell people what to put into their body (or children’s body), but also the great response from citizens is that many people want their inalienable freedom of choice and right to bodily autonomy to be respected. And so, as far as a government mandate is concerned, I’d say this is reflective of what a healthy execution of the government’s duty to care should look like: it is one where people can exercise the freedom of choice, and the government does not have power to mandate policies that encroach on this inalienable freedom and complementary rights. But let’s revisit the moment of the announcement.

Also quite notable is the alluded to announcement from Governor Ron DeSantis concerning the creation of a “Florida Make America Healthy Again” commission, chaired by First Lady Casey DeSantis and Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins, to align state policies with federal health initiatives led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Governor DeSantis said the new working group will recommend state-level integration of Make America Healthy Again principles.

Under Kennedy, the US Department of HHS is reportedly “taking bold, decisive action to reform America’s food, health, and scientific systems to identify the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic to ultimately Make America Healthy Again.” DeSantis thus added that the commission will focus on complimentary principles including “individual medical freedom, informed consent, parent rights and also market innovation.”

THE OPPOSITION TO ENDING FLORIDA’S VACCINE MANDATES REVEALS THE VALIDITY OF THE MOVE

Now, as expected, the so-called public health experts swiftly condemned the decision to end all vaccine mandates in Florida, warning of potential outbreaks of preventable diseases. For example, Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated, “Today’s announcement by Gov. DeSantis will put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.” Similarly, Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), called the move “frightening,” noting that unvaccinated children could endanger immunocompromised individuals. 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, ironically, the opposition to ending Florida’s vaccine mandates actually reveals the validity of this move – especially considering the people and organisations opposing it.

First, the CDC is quite literally the centre of vaccine controversy (as we have been discussing recently), ranging from the blatant disregard for scientific evidence and financial corruption – therefore, their support for vaccines does not hold the weight that Dr Richard Besser, the former acting director of the CDC thinks it might. Which then brings us to Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, following her remark that ending vaccine mandates in Florida will allegedly “put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick, and have ripple effects across their community.”

So, for some context, 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!

Secondly, 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).

THEREFORE, their contribution to Florida ending vaccine mandates has nothing to do with health and the well-being of children, but everything to do with money and a disregard for human rights and the protection of inalienable freedoms like choice. And so, considering that bodily autonomy is a massive theme in discussions about ending the vaccine mandates in Florida, I would thus argue that the AAP’s opposition to ending vaccine mandates serves to validate the move more than to lessen its credibility.

Then, still in opposition towards Florida’s ending of the vaccine mandates, 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.

Secondly, the dark and corrupt Rockerfella-linked history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption, when it comes to the medical industry, as you’d recall from one of our previous discussions here on ‘The War Room’.

Ultimately, critiques on moves away from vaccination might seem plausible to the unsuspecting mind, until you actually consider that those offering the loudest critiques do so, not out of genuine concern, but out of concern for their pockets, and those of the pharmaceutical companies funding them.

THIS IS THE TIME TO DOUBLE-DOWN ON SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SHOWING THE HARMS OF VACCINES

But, now, to push the envelope further, I would like to argue that it is time to double down on scientific findings showing the harms of vaccines in general because the evidence exists in abundance now, and we need to capitalise on the events in the status quo that we referenced in the beginning. For instance, with mRNA jabs, the largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to-date, provides robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death via multiple organ systems. We found that 73.9% of the deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by the shots. This study has endured relentless censorship in its journey to final publication.

Among the 240 deaths adjudicated as related to the vaccine, the primary causes of death were: Sudden cardiac death (at 35%), Pulmonary embolism (12.5%), Myocardial infarction (12%), Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) (7.9%), Myocarditis (7.1%), Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and Cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%). This means that the consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggest there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death.

Similarly, another autopsy paper focused solely on myocarditis deaths—proved that COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis can be fatal. In all 28 autopsy-confirmed cases, the vaccine was causally linked to the death, with most deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination. In more detail, applying the Bradford Hill criteria, the researchers confirmed a strong causal relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and fatal myocarditis, particularly in young, previously healthy individuals. These results shatter the false narrative that vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare and benign—as they show that it can and does result in sudden cardiac death.

Therefore, the temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis – this all suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis.

THIS IS ALSO THE TIME TO REFUTE THE SCIENTISTIC CULT, AND MAKE ROOM FOR DISSENT

Since 2021, critics of the new generation of mRNA so-called “vaccines” have been bewildered by the immunity of this enterprise to empirical data showing that the products are neither safe nor effective. And many of the critics did not seem to realise that they are challenging beliefs that are not rooted in scientific evaluation, but in claims from the vaccine enterprise and scientific religion. This is why the plausibility of vaccines rests on claims of their claimed almost miraculous emergence with the smallpox vaccine, while also being sustained by unqualified heroic deeds about how vaccines got rid of some of the worst diseases in human history. Well none of this is true (as we have discussed previously) and yet, to say this is regarded as heresy! And the reason lies with how the vaccine enterprise and the medical industrial complex have leveraged religion.

In actual fact, when we look back at the 2020 – 2022 period, we can observe the workings of this scientific religion. For instance, after being locked down and systematically terrorised by the mass media for most of 2020, most of humanity anxiously awaited the vaccine that was heralded as their savior and liberator. As vaccine investor, enthusiast and self-proclaimed philanto-capitalist Bill Gates repeatedly stated in the spring, the world would only be able to go back to normal (quote) “when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.” Now, this was an uncanny thing for anyone to say, considering that the freedom of people does not rest on the proclamations of mere man. But, the proclamation that “almost every person on the planet” needed to be injected with a novel substance (about which they knew nothing) seemed like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel. And yet, that was the script: that entire playbook (from predictive programming through Event 201 – to the utter erosion of human rights, the destruction of economies, closure of businesses, learning institutions and closure of Churches) all of this was part of their script, and what can be called their claimed sacred document.

Well, when the emergency-authorised mRNA vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, most of humanity was apparently unaware that they were not vaccines in the traditional sense of inactivated or attenuated pathogens that would induce an immune response (which, as we’ve previously discussed, is not sound or scientific logic). In any case, the new injections were the genetic code for instructing the body to create a foreign, toxic protein. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg understood this, and he starkly contrasted with the public when, during an internal meeting with company executives on July 16, 2020, he stated that (quote): “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modify- ing people’s DNA and RNA to directly code in a person’s DNA and RNA. Basically, the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.” But, people could not say this openly, because the vaccine enterprise and scientistic cult has made dissent something akin to heresy. However, in this time when we are seeing the vaccine reckoning accelerating, we ought to capitalise on this by forcing discourse on those who tried to hide behind the “trust the science” slogan.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are engaged, and held accountable. Which brings me to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

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 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

Healthcare as one of the 7 areas that globalists seek to manipulate, and we ought to start with some historical context, regarding how the COVID plandemic enabled globalists to test a militarised healthcare system.

Now, in former US president Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961, he stated that “…in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many understand what he was referring to. We’ve seen the cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretences. We’ve also seen the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatised soldiers that it spits out. Evidently, war, to some, has become big business! And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream (in other words – if they can weaponise the laws), the MIC will continue to grow.

In light of this contextualisation of the MIC, one would think that other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex; in that this MIC seemed a far more diabolical industry. Well, that was until the covid pandemic, but not forsaking a number of prior controversies. But this is really to say that among its many lessons, the Covid plandemic era has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you essentially get the same result. Meaning that not only is the “medical-industrial complex” every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, but, it is also every bit as real a problem, precisely because they are different sides of the same coin since the military industrial complex informed the weaponisation of the healthcare system in the COVID era. So, how did this happen?

Well, during the Covid era, one can infer interesting parallels to military operations. For instance, by early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the Covid “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared in March 2020, after the Covid response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) was ceded to the National Security Council. Civil liberties – including the freedoms of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, or to obtain legal relief – were rendered null and void. In addition, top-down diktats on how to manage Covid patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. Meanwhile, the mandated protocols also made no sense: they ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics; they shamelessly lied about well-known interventions, while their mandated protocols killed people.

What was also interesting to note during that time is that those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to de-license, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And the subsequent violence was no different.

But, speaking of lies about well-known interventions, you’d recall the ivermectin debate, that president Trump was involved in during that period. Well, as more evidence came out supporting Trump’s claim of the comparative benefit of using ivermectin in comparison to vaccines and all other protocols that were mandated, the FDA in the Biden era, even tried to back-peddle on their dismissal of ivermectin. In particular, the FDA claimed their Ivermectin smear campaign was only related to people self-medicating w/ a veterinary formulation of the drug.

However, in a 2021 interview with the American Medical Association, FDA Director John Farley discouraged physicians from prescribing Ivermectin, calling it a ‘tragic choice’. He stated that (quote): “Making that choice to choose Ivermectin over a vaccine can be a tragic choice that can lead to them getting very sick, getting admitted to the hospital, or even dying from COVID.

This ultimately means that the concerning tenets that have driven the military industrial complex were incorporated into the healthcare system. During covid, globalist debuted this militarised so-called healthcare response, and thus in seeking to manipulate healthcare, want similar control. Why else would there be a WHO pandemic treaty and IHR that try to centralise power to dictate health policy on the Director General, except to great a legal justification for a militarised top down approach to global healthcare?

MEDICINE BECAME BIG BUSINESS: THE COMMERCIALISATION OF SICKNESS AND INFIRMITY 

Now, in light of the parallels between the military and the medical industrial complexes, we alluded to the fact that in light of the operations of the military industrial complex, war has become big business. Well, as far as institutional capture is concerned, the medical establishment has done the same, especially with cancer. You’d recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ how not only is cancer man-made, but it is also big business, a multi-billion dollar industry. It involves getting people to get cancer, to be poisoned with chemotherapy, and large amounts of money spent on continuous research for a cure that apparently does not exist (which is a lie). And the biggest proof of this intentional weaponisation and commercialisation of cancer is that, simply put, cancer did NOT really exist more than 50 years ago but started booming with the introduction of processed food loaded with massive amounts of sugar and chemicals.

So, you’ve just heard the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. warn about the artificial and genetically modified food that causes cancer. Well, another crucial cause is exposure to carcinogenic systems. Now, a carcinogen is any substance, agent, or process that can induce cancer. They can cause cancer by damaging DNA or interfering with cellular processes (hence cancer is known as an attack on healthy cells by a cancerous cell). Examples of these carcinogens include asbestos, benzene, radon and even tobacco smoke.

This is critical to note because it exposes a detrimental irony when it comes to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is also a carcinogenic system! It is inherently a harmful concoction of chemicals that was initially created as a weapon, and then suddenly became rebranded as a highly profitable health intervention.

There you have it, this same chemical agent that was used to kill people is now being used to allegedly treat cancer. And ironically, despite the modifications on it, chemotherapy can also function as a carcinogen! More specifically, chemotherapy drugs are designed to target and destroy rapidly dividing cells, including cancer cells, but they can also affect healthy cells that divide quickly, like those in the bone marrow, hair follicles, and digestive tract. However, some chemotherapy agents, particularly alkylating agents, have been linked to an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia or other secondary cancers. And the risk of developing a second cancer after chemotherapy is influenced by factors like the type of chemotherapy drugs used, the dosage, the duration of treatment, and the individual’s overall health. ALL of this is to say that (IRONICALLY) chemotherapy also functions as a carcinogen, meaning that it is a cancer causing agent.

And so this details the institutionalisation of the commercialisation of sickness and infirmity. The medical industrial complex sees sickness as an opportunity to form a market or customer base; and so, this industry interventions that it knows are harmful or not effective in the long run, and merely brands them as an acceptable panacea. What makes this a problem of institutional corruption, as opposed to mere isolated cases of unethical business conduct is that this is standard practice in the medical industry – all while legitimate or just better cures are hidden.

Take Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who we recently discussed. So, in an interview with Tucker Carlson he detailed that there actually is a medical breakthrough in fighting cancer. However, because of politics, the Deep State and Big Pharma it’s being suppressed. Meaning that there is an intervention for which he has the data and research to prove has been helpful, yet special interests block it – pointing to systemic institutional corruption in the medical industry. Meanwhile, Dr Mark Hyman also told Tucker Carlson about the keto diet’s ability to fight cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and more. And so, literally eating certain good organic foods, is a comparatively far better option to chemotherapy.

MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS: THE MEDICAL CARTEL’S TOOL FOR WEAPONISING LAWS

We then also have to address how the medical industrial complex weaponised laws, through formal legal avenues and also through the establishment of organisations that serve special interests. For instance, we’ve spoken about the audacious incident where the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have filed a federal lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr for withdrawing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women.

The cartel also demanded a federal judge reinstate the COVID shot recommendations (again for children and pregnant women)—and block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed them. Then, they also argued that Kennedy’s directive violates (quote) “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel, and undermines their ability to push the shot to patients and secure insurance coverage. This revealed a jarring display of the audacity of the medical industrial complex to use laws to fight or undermine progress. Because they obviously know that there are serious ramifications from the COVID jabs, but were adamant to use formal legal structures to block the US Department of HHS from enforcing or promoting RFK Jr’s May directive that removed those jabs from the recommendation list.

Similarly, we’ve been told to “listen to scientists” for years, while their credibility was tied to medical societies and associations that vouched for their alleged credibility. BUT… the dark and corrupt history behind the largest group of health professionals in the US, being the American Medical Association, suggests that these organisations are part of the problem of systemic institutional rot and corruption.

Thankfully, the corruption of these medical associations is being exposed on the regular today. For example, files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (also called WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical. The American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine.

And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.” Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Meanwhile, WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine. In any case, the WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.

Then there is also the American Heart Association. This association exposes systemic corruption in the medical industry in that it also serves to propagate false and detrimental health directives. You’d recall that we had a discussion of the hoax behind the claim that humans need to consume very little saturated fats and salt, which heavily implicated Ancel Keys, who had the backing of the American Heart Association. Well, even in the status quo the American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves less than 6% of total calories from saturated fat. This is to say, that for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat – the same saturated fat that has now been proven to be essential for your health and to play an essential role in the functionality of your body!

Well, this unaccountable attitude towards accurate nutritional science in the present (as well) is actually less surprising when you consider that the AHA has been operating as a corrupt, anti-health lobby institution for the medical industrial complex, and even food companies. For instance, this year, the American Heart Association sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering unhealthy items such as candy and soda—part of the MAHA initiatives.

Well, when you follow the money, you understand why the AHA has these inclinations. Not only is it funded by many pharmaceutical corporations, but General Mills and Pepsi Co are both forum members of The American Heart Association.

The question then is, why have these associations averted scrutiny for all these years? Well, for one the people who back them, like the Rockefellers have deep pockets: they not only pay for their operations, but pay to insure they either receive positive coverage (think the mainstream media and vaccines), or pay to ensure they remain under the radar. The second reason is that these organisations play on the liberal inclinations of society, in a world where identity politics are also expected to govern organisational culture. For instance, (and this is not a joke), the American Medical Association declared WEIGHT measurement, through the Body Mass Index (or BMI) to be RACIST, of all things – which obviously fit well in a culture of “body positivity”, and negative reinforcement for unhealthy habits.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The MIC creates conflicts of interest, with physicians influenced by financial incentives from drug companies or corporate regulations, leading to overprescribing, inflated drug prices, and unnecessary procedures like complex surgeries that may not improve outcomes. The system profits from managing symptoms rather than curing diseases, as “a cured patient is a lost customer.” This is compounded by lobbying, with the pharmaceutical industry spending heavily to influence policy, blocking reforms like price caps on medications.

Defenders of the system argue that corporate involvement drives innovation, producing life-saving drugs and technologies. They claim profit motives ensure efficiency and that the U.S. leads in medical advancements, with American professionals among the world’s best. However, even proponents acknowledge waste—U.S. healthcare spending is one in five dollars, yet life expectancy has dropped to 76.1 years (2021) from a 2014 peak of 78.9. Alternatives proposed by critics, like those from the Health Justice Commons, emphasize holistic health, community-driven care, and the right to refuse treatment, challenging the MIC’s profit-first model. The debate remains heated, with some calling for systemic overhaul or abolition, while others see reform within the current framework as viable.

Dangers of the Medical-Industrial Complex

Medical-Industrial Complex: Profit Over People

Big Pharma thrives on managing chronic conditions, not curing them. A cured patient is a lost revenue stream, so the industry pushes lifelong prescriptions like statins or antidepressants. For example, the global pharmaceutical market was valued at $1.5 trillion in 2023 (Statista), with the U.S. accounting for nearly half. Companies like Pfizer or Moderna prioritize high-margin drugs over low-cost cures, citing cases like insulin, where prices have soared despite being around for decades.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Erosion of Individual Liberty

The MIC, often backed by globalist entities like the World Health Organization (WHO), pushes centralized mandates that strip away personal choice. Vaccine mandates, for instance, have sparked outrage among conservatives, with X users citing examples of coerced medical interventions or censored discussions on alternative treatments like ivermectin during COVID-19. The CDC’s 2021 push for universal vaccinations, despite low risk for certain groups, exemplifies this overreach, clashing with the principle of bodily autonomy. Dr. James Thorp, a veteran OB-GYN, delivered a shocking statement exposing the deliberate targeting of pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Systemic Corruption and Regulatory Capture

Big Pharma’s influence over policy is staggering. From 1999 to 2018, the industry spent $4.7 billion lobbying Congress, outpacing all other sectors. This ensures policies like extended patents or blocked Medicare drug price negotiations, keeping generics unaffordable. The revolving door between regulators and industry is blatant—over 60% of FDA’s senior leadership have ties to pharmaceutical companies. This corruption stifles innovation and keeps prices sky-high.

The Medical Industrial Complex’s Iatrogenic Harm

The MIC’s overreliance on drugs and procedures causes significant harm. Medical errors and adverse drug reactions are the third-leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 250,000 people annually. The opioid crisis, fueled by aggressive marketing from companies like Purdue Pharma, led to 70,630 overdose deaths in 2021. Meanwhile, unnecessary surgeries—like spinal fusions, which cost $80,000-$150,000 each—often yield no better outcomes than conservative treatments.

Unsustainable Healthcare Spending

The U.S. spent $4.5 trillion on healthcare in 2022, or 17.3% of GDP—highest in the world. Per capita, that’s $13,493 per person, nearly double Canada’s $6,319. Yet, life expectancy has plummeted to 76.1 years, down from 78.9 in 2014, showing diminishing returns. This bloated spending diverts resources from productive sectors, crushing economic freedom.

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma

Prescription drugs are a cash cow for Big Pharma. In 2022, Americans spent $405 billion on retail prescriptions. A single vial of insulin, costing $10 to produce, retails for $300-$500, with prices rising 55% from 2014-2019. Blockbuster drugs like Humira, used for arthritis, cost $6,000-$7,000 per month, despite being on the market for 20 years. Patent gaming and lobbying prevent generics, fleecing patients and taxpayers.

Exorbitant Hospital and Procedure Costs

A three-day hospital stay averages $30,000, with costs for procedures like heart bypass surgery hitting $200,000. For-profit hospitals, a cornerstone of the MIC, charge 2-4 times more than nonprofits for identical services. This gouging bankrupts families—medical debt contributes to 60% of U.S. bankruptcies, affecting 530,000 households annually. The MIC’s bureaucracy is a financial black hole. Administrative costs consume 8% of healthcare spending, or $360 billion annually. Compare that to Canada’s 1-2%. Insurance companies and compliance with federal mandates drive this inefficiency, burdening small businesses—key to conservative economic values—with premiums averaging $7,500 per employee yearly.

High healthcare costs stifle growth. Businesses face rising insurance premiums, reducing hiring and investment. Individuals lose disposable income, with 41% of Americans skipping care due to cost in 2022. This drags down productivity and innovation, core conservative priorities, while enriching globalist corporations. End lobbying loopholes and enforce transparency. Reject Globalist Control. Oppose WHO-driven mandates. Encourage natural and preventive health to reduce MIC dependency.

The medical-industrial complex is a financial and moral disaster, bleeding the people dry while eroding freedom and health. Its $4.5 trillion price tag, coupled with 250,000 deaths from errors and a globalized supply chain, demands a conservative overhaul: decentralize, deregulate, and put patients—not profits—first.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The war against the pandemic industrial complex, and we ought to begin with some recapitulation. To begin with, it is essential to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.

More specifically, the draft pandemic accord has been under development for three years by delegates of 194 Member States of the World Health Organization. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a pandemic treaty or accord allegedly to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).

But, here’s where we find the concerning context behind the pandemic accord and the amendments to the international health regulations. In essence, the IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, less than 48 hours after negotiations on them finished. This haste was in blatant violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements! Meanwhile, in December 2021, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate the pandemic agreement, but this body failed to reach agreement for the 2024 world health assembly.

Following this failure, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was then mandated “to finish its work as soon as possible” and no later than a year. The reason for this is that the WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director-General (DG) recently claiming that (quote) “the next pandemic could occur tomorrow.” However, the problem with this manufactured sense of urgency is that it is not based on a sincere interest to prepare against genuine health concerns, since for one viruses and lab leaks do not occur naturally. But, secondly, the pandemic accord is drafted to orchestrate a power grab. This is to say that drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralise management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health, all while undermining the sovereignty of nations. But, ultimately, what this hastened nature of the pandemic accord and the IHR amendments shows is that its acceleration emerges out of political interest, and not organic necessity – especially seeing that the WHO even undermined its own regulations in the process.

However when we consider that the WHO is not a genuine health-focused body, and instead is one that has been working against the advancement in good health practices while pushing a bacteriological warfare agenda, this context is not difficult to appreciate. However, what should be jarring is that the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”

DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS

Let’s talk about a development in light of the IHRs. For clarity, the IHR are an existing legal agreement outlining the rights and responsibilities of WHO and its member states in handling international public health events, while the Pandemic Accord is a potential new international agreement being negotiated to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response. Therefore, the IHRs and the Pandemic Agreement serve complementary but somewhat distinct purposes in global health governance – differing primarily in scope, objectives, and focus (but are ultimately serving the same purpose – which is the functionality of the WHO, and its potential increase in power), hence, they IHR and the pandemic accord are often discussed in conjunction. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on amendments to the IHR since 2005.

Well, much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and this is what countries would be making themselves subject to after July 19th, if they do not withdraw. However, many nations are actually raising concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed, and conflict of interest – and we ought to emphasise why these are valid concerns, and not mere considerations that do not end up having a weight in the value judgments made by nations concerning the IHR, and the pandemic accord.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS CURATE AN EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY

But, first, with IHR, on Saturday 19 July, amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) become binding international law (which I think is a dangerous paradoxical statement). In any case, these IHR give the WHO legal authority to influence lockdowns, travel, medical mandates and digital health IDs across major Western nations. How this happens is that through these amendments, the WHO can declare a global emergency — even if there’s no outbreak in your country. That means unelected officials in Geneva could trigger lockdowns, jab campaigns, or border closures in your city based on events somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in the current amendments to the IHR, they deleted the requirement that health measures respect your dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those exact words are scrubbed, and are replaced with vague “equity” language that paves the way for coercion & censorship. Then, because they know that international law is not actually binding (like we;ve discussed previously here on The War Room, the amendments the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land.

Then, if after Saturday 19th, your government is pressed to exit, they have made that option incredibly difficult. This is because July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. And so, the fact that we are having this conversation now is quite jarring seeing that many leaders and citizens have been speaking out against this attempt at a power grab for years.

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS ALSO DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Now, I mentioned earlier that the IHR and the pandemic accord ultimately serve the same purpose even though they are presented as different bodies of law. And to drive this further, I’d like to indicate how parallel (and frankly identical) their provisions are when it comes to the erosion of sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’d like for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.

Let’s directly respond to this. In essence, while Article 3 of the pandemic accord affirms national sovereignty (on paper), the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (especially when you look at Articles 31–33). And this happens because these provisions empower the WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through: (1) a global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (according to Article 12); a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (according to Article 13); a Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (according to Article 18); and a National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (according to Articles 4, 6, 16). And then to top it off, once ratified, countries would be expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, thus subjecting national decision-making to international influence. And so, while article 3 of the pandemic accord is paraded as a preliminary response to concerns of the erosion of sovereignty, the entire accord completely disregards it in various avenues!

Furthermore, this means that the global concept of (quote-unquote) “One Health” remains in the pandemic agreement. And One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” This therefore introduces a problematic expansion of the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies!

KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

It does not stop there, because there are a number of detrimental provisions that are outlined in the pandemic agreement, detailed in various articles of the document. First, the WHO pandemic agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorisations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (through Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (which you see in Article 12.6). And what this is aimed towards is a global deployment of more experimental injections.

Secondly, there is no built-in liability or compensation for injuries. This is to say that although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. To add to this, Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests the WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.

Then thirdly, the pandemic agreement further lays groundwork for vaccine passports and digital surveillance! In Article 6.3, the agreement mandates development of inter-operable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance, which culminates in vaccine passports.

MEANWHILE, THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS ARE A MONEY MAKING PLOT

What is most aggravating about this discourse on the IHR and the pandemic accord is the fact that it is all ultimately a plot by greedy psychopathic people who want to make more money. More specifically, in the 20 years prior to Covid-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (and you can find this in the section on “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) deaths are attributed to Swine flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. IN CONTRAST, about 1.3 million people are reported to die yearly from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. But, undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak like swine flu and ebola constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.

Then, the World Bank teamed up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in their official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases; such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But, to justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high-burden diseases, they needed to show that pandemics cost economies far more. And what they did is that they presented a graph, in which they drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e. probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then they drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.

Based on this graph, covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria, and HIV combined. This means that the WHO considers a virus with a less than 1 percent mortality rate (being the COVID virus) to require orders of magnitude more finances than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years. This math does not make sense, except you’re trying to justify funnelling money towards the pandemic industrial complex!

And this is not even the gist of it all: there is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media, and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. It is a deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations, and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member States go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.

And so, even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, if nations are not careful and quick to use this opportunity to resist this agenda, they may come into force in their respective nations. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid; taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting this agenda – it is nothing short of diabolical and abhorrent and a threat to the principles of sovereignty and the more plausible aspects of democracy that we are supposed to protect.

THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the WHO is not even competent to be given such a potentially expanded role. And here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.

For starters, the WHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for Covid, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus as reports increased of spread in the population in Wuhan, China, and subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates.

Then secondly, despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from Covid-19 to children, the WHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children – which in various contexts, set the scene for drastic ramifications such as crippling education quality, and youth suicidality. The WHO’s COVAX mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly $10 billion vaccinating people it knew were mostly already immune, and never at high risk.

In addition, and in an effort to promote its pandemic preparedness prevention response agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, the WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign of demonstrable misrepresentation and confusion. Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment. And so, ironically, while the pandemic accord calls for so-called “better adherence to honesty and evidence”, it evidently directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself. But, president Donald Trump long exposed these issues of corruption and manipulation in the WHO, as early as 2023, and even prior – in his first administration.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso