WHAT WAS CONCLUDED IN THE HISTORICAL REVIEWS OF THIMEROSAL IN VACCINES? 

Let’s proceed to a careful evaluation of a historical timeline focused on the reviews of thimerosal in vaccines (from the CDC’s own website), beginning in 1999. First, on July 7th, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issued a joint statement that said that (quote) “There is no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule.” The American Academy of Family Physicians issues a comparable statement soon after. In October of the same year, the ACIP of that period reviewed information about thimerosal in vaccines provided by CDC’s National Immunization Program (and several vaccine manufacturers) regarding the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative – and although it is not clear what ACIP concluded, in November 1999, the CDC (which provides information to ACIP) stated that vaccine manufacturers, the FDA, and other agencies are working together to reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines, or to replace them with thimerosal-free vaccines, as soon as possible – which carried an implicit concession of there being a problem with thimerosal in vaccines.

But, then the FDA reviewed the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and allegedly found no evidence of harm. BUT as a precautionary measure, the FDA also recommended removing thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to infants – which is a contradictory measure: in that why would the FDA recommend the removal of thimerosal if its review process found it not to be harmful?

Then, in the year 2000, despite claims that thimerosal was not an issue, fifty-one vaccine and vaccine safety researchers and experts met in Atlanta, GA to review data regarding thimerosal in vaccines and nervous system disorders. A report summarising the meeting was then presented to ACIP. In the following year, being 2001, in the month of May, a risk assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a preservative, other than redness and swelling at the injection site. In October of the same year, the Institute of Medicine (or IOM’s) Immunization Safety Review Committee issued a report concluding there is not enough evidence to disprove claims that thimerosal in childhood vaccines causes autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder, or speech or language delay.

BUT, and this is very crucial to note: in the year 2001, except for influenza (or flu), thimerosal was removed from or reduced in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the US market. And so once again we arrive at a contradiction: despite the alleged safety of thimerosal and despite the alleged inconclusiveness of evidence proving claims of harm from thimerosal, the US government in the year 2001 removed it in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under, specifically those manufactured for the US market, by the way – which means they kept it in the vaccines that were exported. Well, here is what settles the contradiction: In 2001, the Director of the FDA Office of Vaccine Research and Review, William Egan, admitted under oath Mercury (thimerosal) was actually never tested for Safety in human beings. In other words, the US government did not have scientific evidence to justify the use of thimerosal in products ingested by people. Here’s an excerpt from William Egan;s testimony under oath.

Additionally, RFK Jr explained how the US government did NOT actually remove mercury from all vaccines, but instead just moved it around, while also leaving it in vaccines that many other countries in the world are still getting, especially the third world countries – as we’ve just alluded to.

THE COVER-UP OF THE LINK BETWEEN THIMEROSAL AND AUTISM

Let’s continue to evaluate the timeline on the discourse on thimerosal in vaccines, and when we proceed from the year 2003. Starting in January, the last children’s vaccines that use thimerosal as a preservative expired in this month. Then, in August, another study looked for a link between autism incidence and the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines. The study alleged not to find a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in Denmark and Sweden, where autism rates continued to increase although thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1992. And in November of the same year, a study found no consistent significant associations between exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and a variety of kidney, nervous system, and developmental problems.

Fast forward to the year 2004, and after reviewing what was said to be over 200 scientific studies that examined thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, the IOM concludes in a report that the studies “consistently provided evidence of no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.” Also in 2004, the ACIP recommended that children between the ages of 6 and 23 months routinely receive an inactivated influenza (flu) vaccine. However, the ACIP did not recommend using the thimerosal-free flu vaccine over the thimerosal-containing flu vaccine, while simultaneously claiming that the benefits of flu vaccination outweigh any risk from thimerosal exposure.

Following this, in the year 2006, in a statement prepared for the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs, the FDA concluded that the evidence reviewed by the IOM in 2004 does not support an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Similarly, in 2007, the CDC issued a statement on autism and thimerosal that states in part that (quote) “Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence [of autism] in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association.” (end quote). Well, later that year, results of a CDC study proceeded not to support an association between early exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and neuropsychological problems in children between the ages of 7 and 10 years.

This brings to the year 2009. During this year, results of an Italian study stated that immunisation in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines does not decrease neuropsychological performance later in childhood. And then finally in 2010, results of a CDC study did not support an association between prenatal and infant exposure to vaccines and immuno-globulins that contain thimerosal and an increased risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). [PAUSE] Now, this is an all-too convenient shift. The CDC, ACIP and FDA, went from not recommending and stopping the production of vaccines that contained thimerosal to not finding a problem with them at all. So, what changed?

Well, it turns out that almost 25 years ago, agencies from around the world met with one another in Georgia and conspired to remove critical data linking thimerosal in vaccines to autism. They never thought they would be found out, and so they lied about vaccines then – which certainly should make you think that they would do the same now.

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE IS IMPLICATED IN THE HENRY FORD STUDY

Now, you would have noted that the Institute of Medicine came up often in the evaluation of the timeline of thimerosal discourse. For additional clarity, the “Institute of Medicine” (most commonly refers to the former name of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in the United States, and it is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation founded in 1970 that is known for providing what is said to be independent, objective advice on health and medicine. Well, interestingly, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the IOM is involved in the development of the Henry Ford Study that proved vaccine harms in children who were vaccinated, in comparison to those who were not.

This includes, that those children who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders.

Now, how the IOM became part of this is that the lead investigator in the Henry Ford study and his colleagues agreed to perform a comprehensive comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children using the health system’s electronic medical records because FOR YEARS, the Institute of Medicine had urged the CDC to conduct such a study using its Vaccine Safety Datalink, but the CDC never did. Therefore, in a comical twist of irony, the institute that has stood behind agencies like the CDC and FDA and they claimed a lack of evidence for the harms of thimerosal, was the reason a study that proved the harms for vaccines took place.

THE HARMFUL NATURE OF THIMEROSAL, AND WHY IT IS DANGEROUS IN VACCINES

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study. Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in certain kinds of fish. At high exposure levels methylmercury can be toxic to people. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. For comparison, this is roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3 ounce can of tuna fish.

BEYOND MERCURY, METALS IN VACCINES IN GENERAL ARE A HEALTH CONCERN

But, in addition, beyond mercury itself, metals in vaccines (in general) are actually a massive health concern. You’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that Dr Toby Rogers PhD even exposed the fact that the FDA and CDC approved aluminum as ‘safe & effective’ in vaccines, based on a study of only 4 rabbits that was riddled with issues – and yet, this is the study that the FDA and CDC rely on. In this study, they promptly lost the results from one of the rabbits. So the study is actually based on just 3 rabbits. But, the results in the rabbits were nevertheless of great concern.

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

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

Meanwhile, five studies have linked aluminum-containing vaccines to asthma, autism, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In more detail, the CDC-funded study titled, Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months, which was published in the journal Academic Pediatrics, analyzed data from 326,991 children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Researchers calculated cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before 24 months of age and assessed its association with persistent asthma diagnosed between ages 2 and 5. Key covariates were adjusted, including sex, race, eczema, prematurity, medical complexity, and healthcare utilisation.

Well, Here’s what they found: (1) First, they found a strong dose-dependent relationship: Each additional 1 mg of vaccine-derived aluminum increased the risk of persistent asthma by: more than 26% in children with eczema, and more than 19% in children without eczema. In addition, Children receiving more than 3.0 mg of aluminum had significantly higher asthma risk compared to those receiving less or equal to 3.0 mg. There was more than a 61%asthma risk in children with eczema, and more than 36% in children without eczema. The association held across multiple sensitivity analyses, including when excluding extreme exposures and limiting to fully vaccinated children.

Then, similarly, brain tissue analyses, population-level data, and experimental evidence indicate neurotoxin aluminum vaccine adjuvants are strongly linked to autism.

A study by Boretti found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines is a plausible explanation for autism based on ecological studies, animal models, brain tissue analysis, and biological mechanisms. In addition, a study by Tom-ljenovic & Shaw found that a strong correlation exists between increased aluminum adjuvant exposure and the rise in ASD prevalence over two decades.

And both these studies are not hot, or controversial, considering that aluminum is an inflammatory and neurotoxic vaccine adjuvant, and when injected into mice was found to rapidly trigger symptoms similar to those observed in neurological developmental disorders. Similarly, the neurotoxicity of mercury, the tendency of autistic individuals to have elevated mercury exposures, and autistic individuals having difficulty detoxifying mercury.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND INFANT MORTALITY

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

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

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

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

RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES TAKE PLACE PARALLEL TO ATTACKS ON MOTHERHOOD

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

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

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

 “The Medical Cartel Sues RFK Jr for Pulling COVID Shot Recommendations”; and we ought to begin with some context. So, in the month of May, the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr,  announced the removal of the COVID vaccine from the CDC’s immunisation schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. Well, generally, even before this announcement, Kennedy noted that established side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine prove its detrimental nature. For instance, the ramifications from the COVID vaccine have included a form of heart inflammation called myocarditis and a related condition called pericarditis. He also pointed out that 15 vaccinated participants in Pfizer’s clinical trial died, compared with 14 participants who did not receive the company’s vaccine. And so, this announcement of removing the COVID vaccine from the immunisation schedule would seemingly follow the concerns that were expressed concerning it. Here’s the announcement video from the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Important to note is that the announcement is that the COVID vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy women and children. This unfortunately means that they have NOT explicitly removed the COVID jabs completely for pregnant women and ‘healthy children’. They just removed the recommendation from the CDC schedule. Meanwhile, the COVID jab still shows part of the recommended list of vaccines on the CDC’s website. And so, this development seems mostly symbolic – which is not an insignificant development – however, it does lack the requisite resoluteness in opposing the biological weapon that is the COVID jab.

THE HSS ANNOUNCEMENT ON COVID JABS PROMOTED A DISCUSSION ON THE IMMUNISATION SCHEDULE

Well, the HSS announcement on covid jabs further promoted a discussion on the immunisation schedule. The US has gone from 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025. Another way to say this is that, in 1986, before vaccine makers had broad immunity to liability for injuries, the CDC’s schedule had 7 routine childhood injections and none for adults or pregnant women. HOWEVER, the CDC’s 2025 schedule has 5 routine injections during pregnancy, over 70 routine childhood injections (from birth to age 18), and over 130 routine adult injections (up to age 79). And when we count non-routine injections, there are even more!

Well, Attorney Aaron Siri exposed that not one childhood vaccine on the CDC schedule was licensed with a true placebo-controlled trial, as chronic diseases skyrocket in kids. In an explosive testimony to COngress, he exposed a critical gap in vaccine safety research that demands attention. More specifically, and as Attorney Siri detailed in his 66-page submission to Congress, not a single routine childhood vaccine on the CDC’s current schedule (except COVAXIN for ages 12+) was licensed based on a clinical trial using a true placebo control group! This means that if a control group received another vaccine, that vaccine also lacked a placebo-controlled trial. And all of these claims are backed by FDA clinical trial documents—which is undeniable evidence that challenges the narrative of so-called “settled science.”

Therefore, Attorney Siri’s testimony raises a pressing question: Why haven’t there been studies on the safety of childhood vaccines with the rigor they deserve? And in light of this, he points to a pandemic of chronic disease plaguing America’s children. In the early 1980s, less than 13% of kids had a chronic illness. Today, over 50% suffer from conditions like asthma, allergies, and autoimmune disorders—many rooted in immune dysregulation. So, what has changed? Attorney Siri notes the CDC’s vaccine schedule has ballooned from 7 injections in 1986 to 29 by age one today, including in utero shots. This staggering increase, coupled with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shielding manufacturers from design defect liability, raises red flags. Furthermore, the absence of long-term, placebo-controlled trials leaves a gaping hole in a general understanding of vaccine safety, which means that the immunisation schedule could well be the reason why over 50% of children now face a health crisis.

So, clearly, vaccination has become a religion, and the vaccine enterprise has capitalised on this through the production of many vaccines that have been inserted into the schedule – so much so, that the moment a child is born, the vaccine enterprises regards that baby an automated consumer of their product, and thus a conduit for making a profit. Which then brings us to the crucks of today’s discussion, being the medical cartel that has protested the removal of COVID shots for children and pregnant women from the CDCs recommendation list.

THE MEDICAL CARTEL SUES RFK JR FOR PULLING COVID SHOT RECOMMENDATIONS

As referenced earlier, in what can be described as a disturbing attempt to continue pushing deadly genetic injections on the most vulnerable, 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.

In addition, the Cartel is demanding 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 argue 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. Finally, the plaintiffs claim Kennedy lacked evidence.

Let’s directly respond to this. First when these plaintiffs (being the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America) argue that the directive removing COVID shots from the CDCs recommendation list violates “norms” by bypassing the CDC and its ACIP panel – this complaint disregards the institutional and functional issues with the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) within the CDC.

Meanwhile, in a publication in the Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy Jr stated that (quote): “The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. It has never recommended against a vaccine—even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make matters worse, the groups that inform ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust.” (end quote).

All this is to say that the so-called “norm” that the plaintiffs argue Kennedy disregarded was an implausible consideration because the CDC and ACIP were riddled with corruption, conflict of interest and disregard for scientific enquiry. Therefore, there is no inherent burden to preserve a status quo that does NOT work. In addition, this removal of the COVID jabs from the recommendation list is exactly the kind of bold move needed to break the credibility crisis surrounding vaccine science and government health agencies (like the CDC and ACIP). This is especially considering that Secretary Kennedy remarked that the new appointees will NOT directly work for the vaccine industry, and will “refuse to serve as a rubber stamp,” instead being focused on fostering “a culture of critical enquiry.

BUT (as far as the plaintiff’s complaint on the violation of norms is concerned), it is also worth noting that unless norms are legally enforceable (meaning codified into law), they do not have absolute weight in legal considerations anyways.

So, that is our first response to the initial complaint from the plaintiffs. The second complaint they submitted was that Kennedy lacked evidence behind the directive to remove the COVID jabs from the recommendation list. Now, I’m certain that most of us know that there is an overwhelming amount of data that fully justifies pulling these jabs – all which these organisations are pretending does NOT exist. Let’s begin with the harm to pregnant women and their unborn babies.

First, we can make reference to the study by Chen et al, that confirmed that mRNA injections cross the placenta and reach the fetus. In particular, mRNA-1273 crosses within 1 hour, accumulates in fetal organs, translates into Spike protein, and persists after birth. Second, Thorp et al found that the CDC/FDA safety signal thresholds were breached for 37 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth, premature infant death, fetal cardiac arrest, neonatal respiratory distress, fetal malformations, and many more.

Then third, in animal models, a study by Karaman et al found that mRNA injections destroy over 60% of female’s finite egg supply — when looking at primordial follicles, which are the most immature stage of ovarian follicle development, representing the fundamental reproductive units in a female’s ovary; but again, this was in the animal studies. In human datA (which focused on approximately 1.3 million women), Manniche at al found that COVID-19 vaccinated women had approximately 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women.

Fourth, in light of the harms to the reproductive system specifically, Dr Naomi Wolf proceeded to detail the diabolical extent that Pfizer targeted the reproductive function of the human body. She states that they knew they were blocking women’s ovaries with lipid nanoparticles, they knew the lipid nanoparticles traverse the placenta. Furthermore, Pfizer KNEW there’s something with the biological seed of vaccinated men that is possibly dangerous to women or foetuses because Pfizer warned vaccinated men not to have intercourse with childbearing age women and that if they do, they ought to use 2 reliable forms of contraception.

If we, here at LN24 International – be on Yvonne Katsande Live, CTD, Talking Politics or The Watchmen (and even right here on The War Room) – if we can find all of this information and corresponding studies DESPITE not having a unique focus on vaccinology, then there is no excuse for the ignorance of the plaintiffs in the case we’re discussing! Which shows that their claim for a lack of evidence on the harms resulting from COVID jabs is selective amnesia coupled with premeditated deception – especially when we consider that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer knew about these harms!

But, let’s then proceed to look at the harms on children (in addition to the unborn children) as we have referenced. First, a recent study by Friedberg et al, involving 493,705 children and adolescents aged 1–21, found a 23% increased risk of developing autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 vaccination, with onset typically occurring around 9 months post-injection. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was NOT associated with any increased risk of autoimmune disease – which means that it is not even the strain of the virus that causes the health problem, but the vaccine! Meanwhile, Feldstein et al (who interestingly were from the CDC) found that children vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 159% more likely to get infected and 257% more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection.

Secondly, in a study by Berg et al, they found that among adolescents, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a 20% increase in emergency room visits and a 17% rise in doctor visits months after injection, indicating a measurable uptick in healthcare utilization likely due to post-vaccination syndrome. Thirdly, the OpenSAFELY study included more than 1 million adolescents and children and found that myocarditis was documented ONLY in COVID-19 vaccinated groups and NOT after COVID-19 infection. There were NO COVID-19-related deaths in any group. A&E attendance and unplanned hospitalization were higher after first vaccination compared to unvaccinated groups.

Then, in the largest review to date on myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination, Mead et al found that vaccine-induced myocarditis is not only significantly more common but also more severe—particularly in children and young males. The findings make clear that the risks of the shots overwhelmingly outweigh any theoretical benefit. Here’s Dr Peter McCullough providing more insight on vaccine induced myocarditis, who is also among the authors of the just referenced paper from Mead and company.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso