The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Food and agriculture as another of the 7 areas targeted by globalists; and to begin with, knowing that COVID was a diabolical hoax, we ought not to miss the curious relationship between COVID lockdown and the food chain system, in that the COVID lockdowns revealed the weakness of overly centralised supply food chain on a global level. Government-mandated shutdowns disrupted food distribution hubs and shuttered meat processing plants, causing chaos, riots, and unrest worldwide as people scrambled to find food for their families. So much so that in 2023, 282 million people globally experienced high levels of acute hunger – which is an increase of 8.5 percent from 2022’s already elevated levels. In the United States (alone), the US Department of Agriculture reported that one in eight American households lacked adequate food in 2022.

You’d think this would be the time to support farmers around the world, and to encourage local food systems that are resilient in the face of supply-chain disruption. Instead, in country after country, cabal-affiliated leaders proceeded to crack down on independent farmers and force them to comply with draconian new rules in the name of combating climate change – which marked the beginning of consolidated efforts to weaponise laws in a bid to target food and agriculture.

THE WEAPONISATION OF LAWS TO DISRUPT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

For instance, in Ireland, the agricultural sector was ordered to cut carbon emissions by 25% in seven years. This was a requirement that would obviously drive many farms into bankruptcy and would force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.  Meanwhile, in Canada, the goal became a fertiliser reduction of 30%, including reductions in manure use on organic farms – while manure was the only viable alternative to chemical fertiliser. Farmers proceeded to ring the alarm bells that this policy will devastate the food supply. And even though milk prices were hitting record levels, Canadian officials still forced farmers to dump their milk if they produced more than an arbitrary quota. Dairy owners were further banned from giving the milk away to neighbours or homeless shelters. For instance, in Ontario, farmers could not even sell their milk directly to consumers at all, but were rather mandated to sell it to a single government-approved body which then decides how it is distributed.

Then, in the Netherlands, the government required a 30% reduction in livestock and mandated cuts in nitrogen of up to 95% – and this is the nitrogen that is released from cow manure and, if used properly, is an earth-friendly fertiliser. In any case, the government also promulgated plans to seize and shut down up to 3,000 farms to meet climate objectives. During this time, protests by Dutch farmers have been met with force, including the police firing live ammunition rounds at protesters. Denmark, Belgium, and Germany considered similar nitrogen reduction policies. And, both the UK and US had already put schemes into place to pay farmers not to farm. In fact, in huge areas of the Midwest, large corporations were seizing prime farmland through the law of eminent domain to install solar farms – despite the fact that these installations could instead be built in sunny, arid deserts where they would not disrupt the food supply, thus proving that this was a deliberate measure to disrupt the work of farmers, as opposed to being about alternative sources of energy.

But, it was not just large corporations who were front and centre of the seizure of land in the US – the government was a key stakeholder during the Biden-Harris administration. You’d recall that Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry, remarked that small farms are significant emitters of nitrogen, necessitating a push for the US federal government to crack down on farming in America allegedly to combat “global warming.” Kerry further insisted that the United States must massively reduce farming to meet the radical “green agenda” goals laid out by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. According to the former Secretary of State, the world can’t tackle climate change without first addressing the agriculture sector’s emissions – and farmers in the US were front and center of his plans.

Of course, we mentioned that this weaponisation of laws to disrupt the agricultural sector is not exclusive to the US, and has included measures from the UK as well. In late 2024, this was seen with the target of specifically family farms, through the introduction of a tax on inherited agricultural assets. And concerningly, how this plays out is that (essentially) a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land, and this is according to analysis by the Country and Land Business Association. This is to say that a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would then face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

But, doubling down on their efforts, the Labour government has also paused the Post-Brexit subsidies paid to farmers to boost food production and the environment without warning! And the news of the pause came amid protests to Labour’s changes to agricultural inheritance tax rules. Clearly, pause leaves thousands of farmers at a crossroads as to how they can plug the subsidies, which are being phased out. Meanwhile, under the SFI scheme, farmers are paid for actions aimed at boosting NOT ONLY food production, but also nature, including by improving the condition of their soil as well as planting hedgerows, trees and wildflowers.

THERE ARE CORPORATIONS (DELIBERATELY) HINDERING FOOD SUPPLY

But, finally, since 2020 there has been a significant increase in the number of unexplained fires and other events damaging farms, barns, food warehouses, food pantries, and the food supply chain in general, prompting the FBI to warn that the food system is under threat from cyberattacks. So why was this happening? In other words, why was the food supply system being disrupted, seemingly on purpose? And who is behind this global assault on our farmers? Well, this brings us to a discussion about corporations that have been functioning as a hindrance to food supply. And for anyone who delved into the entities behind the tyrannical COVID policies, you may also note that many of the corporations we’ll discuss are quite familiar.

Let’s start with Bayer/Monsanto. Bayer merged with Monsanto in 2018, effectively combining the companies responsible for Agent Orange and pioneering chemical warfare. And just for some added context, Agent Orange, was a mixture of herbicides that US military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.

In any case, in 1999, Monsanto’s CEO, Robert Shapiro, bragged that the company planned to control (and I quote directly here): “three of the largest industries in the world—being agriculture, food, and health—that now operate as separate businesses.” Also adding that (quote): “there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Well, today these chemical manufacturers control a huge percentage of the world’s food supply. And Monsanto has already been in the news a number of times in relation to their war on food, especially news relating to lawsuits affecting farmers.

More specifically, since Monsanto began selling their patented ‘Roundup Ready’ genetically modified (GM) seeds they have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement. Their heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions have been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for millennia, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. Michael White, who is a fourth generation farmer and seed cleaner living in the northeast corner of rural Alabama never imagined that he would become the target of the conglomerates aggressive legal tactics. But unlike other farmers who could not afford the legal battle or faced demoralisation of other kind, in his area Michael White refused to give in to Monsanto and in doing so became one of only a handful of farmers to maintain the ability to speak publicly about his case.

The second corporation we will look at is Cargill, alongside the US Department of Agriculture (also known as the USDA). Cargill is a World Economic Forum partner and the largest private company in the United States. It monopolises unimaginably vast swaths of the global food industry, including meat processing in the United States. And Cargill’s business practices, along with bigger-is-better policies enforced by their cohorts at the United States Department of Agriculture, have led to the closures of many local abattoirs which forced farmers to depend on a few corporate mega-slaughterhouses. This leaves farmers waiting 14 months or longer for butchering slots, for which they often must transport their animals hundreds of miles—and indeed, farmers and ranchers must book processing dates up to a year before the animal is even born! Furthermore, the high fees charged by Cargill’s slaughterhouses contribute to the skyrocketing price of meat—all while the farmers themselves are barely paid enough to cover the cost of raising the livestock. And the USDA, meanwhile, made sure that their policies prevent farmers from processing meat themselves on their own farms.

Then there’s the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust, which was the former owner of Glaxo before it merged with SmithKline, played a major role in Britain’s Covid debacle and is unapologetic about its goal of reducing food sovereignty! Now, interestingly, the Wellcome Trust also funds “Livestock, Environment and People” (also known as LEAP), which is an organisation dedicated to developing and testing behavioural modifications to coerce the public into removing meat and dairy from their diets. However, LEAP’s co-director Susan Jeffs bemoans that motivating people with environmental impact labels on their foods does not seem to work: stating that “People are already settled into very established habits”. She also went on to suggest altering what the industry provides, thereby forcing consumer choice. And of course, the industry referenced here tends to be pro veganism and eating insects. But, this attitude from Susan Jeffs is ultimately because the Wellcome Trust researchers recommend “availability interventions” that “rely less on individual agency” to reduce access to animal food products.

Then there is, of course, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. Starting with the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General, would like you to believe that food production is responsible for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. Then subsequently, he calls for transforming the global food system toward plant-based foods, reducing meat and dairy in our intake, and enforcing policies to save the climate through restricting diet. In fact, a WHO 2022 report concluded that (quote) “considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plant-based diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products.”

And of course, you are likely familiar with the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset agenda. Part of their messaging has been why eating insects could reduce climate change, why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, and even why we might be eating insects soon. Suffice it to say that their plans for your dietary future are clear. However, in addition to this, there is a link between a limitation on food intake and their sinister plans for “smart cities.

Then, finally, we then have to talk about the Rockefeller Foundation, because members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates. Essentially, in 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (also known as IBEC) to modernise and corporatise agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. The IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (also known as AIA), which is a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organisation, also helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. And while the IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the “Third World” by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised!

However, this tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertiliser for heirloom native crops were then replaced with a model of mechanised chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.

And it is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit from the petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and unfortunately replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. And there were consequences for this. For example, India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients essentially disappeared from the diet. In addition, illnesses such as anaemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased in the country. Therefore, while the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it actually poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertiliser and seeds they needed. And I believe you would have also deduced that the latter Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers. But this is a reminder to South American, Asian and African countries (as we are about to discuss) to sever themselves from these organisations  especially because people who profit from your suffering, cannot be your helpers. In addition, these regions are wealthy and have intelligent people, enough for us to be self-sufficient.

However, the Rockefeller Foundation did not end in the Americas or Asia – they also launched an attack on the African continent. More specifically, in 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. And in response, hundreds of African organisations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.

And by the way, the Rockefeller Foundation has also set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. This is another sinister plan to watch, and pray against.

However, what is incredibly dangerous and important to note is that a number of these corporations waging a war on food tend to project themselves as pillars for good. They have invested a lot into curating a public image that makes their evil works either go unchecked or even be covered by the promulgated message that their actions are for the greater good. And to say this was intentionally done is not a mistake – their philanthropic (or more accurately, philantro-capitalistic) works are nothing more than a public image campaign. For instance, the corrupt wealth and influence of figures like John D. Rockefeller was resented by Americans who knew its source. And to counter that, John D. Rockefeller embarked on a campaign of so-called philanthropy, primarily to redeem his public image; and not because he is inherently a philanthropist.

SECRET MANIPULATIONS OF CROPS, TO MAKE THE PUBLIC CONSUME GMO FOODS

So, here’s another manipulative tactic that has been used in the war on food and agriculture – especially pertaining to wheat. Wheat itself in its organic form is not the issue in question; the issue especially relates to genetically modified wheat; and this is because the Big Fake Food Corporations are NOT ONLY dumping this GMO wheat in massive quantities into the food supply, but also that in doing so they have actually known for 40+ years now what gluten has been doing to the digestive system of consumers. More specifically, there is something that’s found IN the gluten that is VERY IMPORTANT to these fake food corporations: which is a protein called Gliadin. They discovered this protein in gluten was highly addictive. When you eat GMO wheat, the gliadin in the gluten goes straight to your brain and makes you CRAVE MORE FOOD, and also  makes you HUNGRIER.

And once they discovered what this gliadin protein does to your brain, the Big Fake Food Corporations started dumping their GMO/gluten/gliadin-filled-wheat into just about everything they make that ends up on your grocery store shelves. Essentially, gliadin stimulates your appetite and makes you hungry for more sugar and more grains! Which means that the more you eat their genetically modified wheat, the more you’ll want! Now, you’d recall that with the COVID-19 jabs, government bureaucrats working in conjunction with Big Pharma had to sabotage HCQ and Ivermectin for their profits.

Well, similarly, some governments are not only NOT doing anything to prevent this harm to the public, but a number of lawmakers have all been bought off and are colluding with these big fake food corporations – the same food companies that do not care about you and have been selling you toxic, addictive fake food that they have tinkered with to make you constantly want to eat more of it in order to increase their profits. Obviously, this relationship between lawmakers and Big Food is diametrically opposed to the government’s mandate to act in the best interests of its people.

However, when you follow the development of the genetically modified week, what is utterly concerning is also the revelation that many believe that there was no genetically modified wheat, especially in northern America. And yet, people found illegal strains of wheat in different parts of North America.

WE ALSO HAVE A PART TO PLAY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS

Then finally, while the issues we have discussed today are systemic and a consequence of the plans of sinister actors, we must also not miss an opportunity to compound on our activist efforts to ensure a clean, organic, cost-effective and functional food supply system. And honestly, it begins with supporting local food producers! First, we need to demand this on a legislative front though engaging the relevant stakeholders and policy makers, but also with the choices we make. It is jarring the extent to which consumers have also substituted the support for things like local farmers markets for convenience stores. And we saw this, for example, when American farmers across the country were reported to be struggling because the so-called elite class only wanted imported foods, instead of buying foods from American farmers and American companies.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso