The War Against Pharmaceutical Evil: Child Mortality from Vaccines

We recently looked at our war on pharmaceutical evil, addressing the hepatitis B vaccine. Well, this vaccine is far from being the only source of controversy as far as the health of children is concerned. And this is especially because FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary, appointed under the second Trump administration, publicly stated that data collected during the Biden-Harris administration indicated at least 10 children died “after and because of” receiving COVID-19 vaccines. As you would imagine, this also fueled much debate about vaccines and their alleged safety, and so today, we ought to address this further, looking at child mortality from vaccines, and the recent reports from the FDA.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION KNEW THE VACCINES WERE FATAL TO CHILDREN

Our war on pharmaceutical evil, addressing child mortality from vaccines. To begin with, in late November 2025, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary, appointed under the second Trump administration, publicly stated that data collected during the Biden-Harris administration indicated at least 10 children died “after and because of” receiving COVID-19 vaccines, likely linked to myocarditis (which is heart inflammation) and a known rare side effect of mRNA vaccines like those from Pfizer and Moderna.

Now, these remarks from Dr Marty Makary stemmed from an internal memo by Vinay Prasad, who is the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, who announced that a review of adverse event reports had identified these deaths between 2021 and 2024. Prasad called it a “profound revelation” and the first time that the FDA acknowledged COVID vaccines “have killed American children.” The memo, which was leaked and reported by outlets like The New York Times and NPR, prompted plans for stricter vaccine approval processes, including more rigorous testing for children, pregnant women, and annual flu shots. Additionally, Makary and Prasad, who were both critics of COVID policies before joining the FDA, credited a re-examination of data—initiated after Makary’s questions—for uncovering the cases. Reviews involved autopsies, family interviews, and physician assessments.

Now, to say that the memo from Prasad was poorly received by vaccine experts and physicians would be an understatement. Prasad’s claim provoked a rapid series of rebuttals. There was even a response from 12 former FDA commissioners, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, which called Prasad’s memo “a threat to evidence-based vaccine policy and public health security”, which signals they might be impervious to irony. Yet there’s something troubling—and telling—in the fact that this memo has provoked people to deny even the possibility of COVID-vaccine-related deaths. The idea that mRNA-based shots have, tragically, killed a number of children should not be deemed far-fetched. Even the former director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, tried to skip over this fact, but could NOT categorically deny it.

But, overall, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary’s statements accuse the Biden-era FDA of withholding safety signals on pediatric myocarditis deaths, framing it as a failure of openness. He states that (quote): “These were deaths, the data for which, accrued in the prior administration. It was not released to the public.

EVEN THE VAERS SYSTEM SHOWED COVID VACCINE RELATED FATALITIES

Senator Ron Johnson, who is a longtime critic of federal handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, delivered a serious rebuke of the corruption and suppression of information by federal health agencies, including the VAERS system. Now, for the purpose of our discussion, it is essential that we contextualise VAERS within the pandemic response. In essence, established in 1990, VAERS is a passive surveillance system co-managed by the CDC and FDA, designed to detect potential safety issues through voluntary reports from healthcare providers, patients, and manufacturers.

In October 2020, as Operation Warp Speed accelerated vaccine development, officials like Anthony Fauci hailed it as a cornerstone of post-authorization monitoring. However, by early 2021, as vaccination rates soared amid mandates, reports of adverse events spiked. Critics like Senator Ron Johnson argued this was NOT coincidence but correlation demanding investigation—especially given the system’s underreporting factor (estimated at 1-10% capture rate in 2010). 

Additionally, VAERS is crucial to note because of the myocarditis “signal”. This emerged in Israel’s Ministry of Health data by April 2021, showing elevated risks post-Pfizer vaccination. US agencies then confirmed it by June but framed it as “rare and mild,” issuing fact sheets without halting distribution. Meanwhile, officials hid this information, as internal emails (part of the 8 million pages) revealed in FOIA requests, where officials were seen debating public messaging to avoid “vaccine hesitancy.” This also ties into larger lawsuits, such as Missouri v. Biden (2023), where courts found evidence of government-social media collusion.

Ultimately, the VAERS system shows 38,472 deaths reported…and 9252 of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination, or within 1 or 2 days.” And so, the question is why were government agencies ignoring data even from their own systems like VAERS.

This brings us to a crucial question, which is: Why do governments lie about vaccine injuries? And upon investigation, it appears that the motive is not just ideological but profoundly financial. For instance, Dr Paul Offit, who is a pediatrician and co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, has long defended the vaccine industry. Now, in a recent discussion, he warned that acknowledging any connection between vaccines and autism could “break” the system, opening the floodgates to lawsuits and compensation claims that would overwhelm the legal and healthcare frameworks. 

This admission reveals the high stakes involved—stakes so enormous that they could topple the pharmaceutical industry. To understand this, we could look at the year 2000, which was a pivotal moment in the history of vaccine litigation. Outside the chambers of the United States Court of Federal Claims—commonly known as the Vaccine Court—thousands of families stood in line, seeking justice for children they believed had been harmed by vaccines. This special court, established under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, handles claims of vaccine-related injuries without the need for traditional civil trials. It’s designed to protect vaccine manufacturers from bankruptcy while providing no-fault compensation to victims. By that time, over 5,000 cases specifically alleging autism as a vaccine injury had been filed. 

Each of those families was poised to receive up to $5 million in compensation if their claims were validated—a figure that accounts for lifetime medical care, lost wages, and other expenses associated with severe disabilities. But these 5,000 cases were just the tip of the iceberg. Fast forward to today, December 2025, and the scale of the autism epidemic in America is staggering. According to the latest data from the CDC itself, approximately 1 in 31 children is identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).  Additionally, with the US population hovering around 340 million and children under 18 making up about 22% of that (which is roughly 75 million), extrapolating the prevalence suggests millions affected across all ages, as autism is a lifelong condition.

Now, imagine this: once the irrefutable evidence proving that vaccines can indeed cause autism becomes mainstream, well, then the Vaccine Court, which is already burdened, would face an avalanche of claims. And so, if we are answering the question of why governments lie about vaccine injuries, like autism, well… it is because admitting the truth would unleash civil litigation beyond the Vaccine Court’s shield, exposing pharmaceutical corporations to trillions in damages. Companies like Merck and Pfizer, with vaccine revenues in the billions annually, could face existential threats. More alarmingly, the ripple effects would extend to the US’s fiscal health: with concerns like skyrocketing insurance premiums, strained social services, and potential tax hikes to fund compensations. It might even undermine faith in government institutions, leading to broader societal unrest. It is this financial motive that (in part) explains the dismissive attitude toward autism families, which is why Dr Paul Offit and similar so-called experts have repeatedly claimed that exhaustive studies—over a dozen major ones—show no vaccine-autism link, when it is too obvious to ignore.

MISSISSIPPI DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY OVER RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES

And now look at infant mortality rates, in particular; and well, 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.

But, another issue to consider in light of the mortality of infants from COVID jabs is that 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.

LESSONS WE OUGHT NOT TO FORGET FROM THE COVID ERA

Now, for many of us, the fact that ramifications of the COVID jab on children are being discussed seems less like breaking news. We have long been aware of the issues with the COVID jabs, and protested the claimed urgency of giving them to ANYONE, let alone children. However, I believe we ought to appreciate the cloud in the sky the size of a man’s hand before the rain. Additionally, to us who know the truth is given the responsibility of making it known and believed by others. As such, this is not necessarily the time to ostracise those who did not know better, or who were only enlightened at a later time. Rather, I believe it is incumbent upon us to promulgate the truth above the COVID hoax, by communicating these facts at the level of understanding of those who are yet to fully understand them.

And I sincerely believe that this is worth considering because it is the irony of deception that those who are deceived often do not know that they are. Surely, if they knew better they would be empowered to act better. MEANWHILE, there are forces contending for the minds and spirits of men! For instance, it was (more than anything) deeply sad and disturbing to watch pregnant mothers gobble up tylenol pills (that were the subject of much scientific scrutiny for their harms on babies), and yet some mothers took to social media and posted videos of them taking handfuls of tylenol in a misguided protest against the Trump administration’s announced investigation of the link between tylenol and autism.

You cannot really see such things and think these people deserve to be left to their misguidedness – especially when it is the lives of children that are being risked. They OBVIOUSLY are deceived, even to the point of self harm or the harm of their loved ones. Therefore, reaching them and making the transition from the left to the right a conceivable and compelling option is quite important. You’d even recall that we made a similar point with fitness trainer and media personality Jilian Michaels, who did not always take to RFK Jr’s promulgated information about health, food and vaccines, and yet arrived at a similar conclusion as him when she did her own research about, for instance, how vaccines are “tested for safety”.

And so, there are lessons we ought to haul from the COVID era that must be implemented in the present as many gradually begin to ask the right questions, or take up the right stories on the news – even as we now see the subject of the harms of COVID jabs on children has come to the fore.

The first lesson is that we ought to always demand accurate and timely information. During the COVID era, we saw a great deal of censorship and the suppression of information. Even from bodies like the FDA, I think you’d recall that very jarring movement in September 2021 when a group of scientists and medical professionals part of the “Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency,” filed a FOIA request for all data the FDA relied on to license Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine (with a similar request made in the Senate), and the FDA proposed a 55-year timeline to process the Freedom of Information Act request, and yet that was information they allegedly used to license the Prizer COVID jab, and should have been able to release in a week, at best. Therefore, understanding that people make value judgements and form opinions based on information available to them, we ought to ensure that this information is not only available, but incredibly comprehensive. This is in part how we empower those who have not yet come to an understanding of the facts around COVID and vaccines to form better opinions.

Secondly, in winning those who are gradually beginning to question what happened during COVID and even vaccines at large, we must not imitate the ills of the left – especially their use of cancel culture and ostracisement. There has been a concerning development even among conservatives of assuming a monopoly on truth, and rejecting the inclusion of those who recently came to a similar understanding, which is basically what the left did with cancel culture and ostracisement. A notable example earlier this year was the comedian Whitney Cummings – she has a very liberal history; she was once reported as saying she would not allow people who are not vaccinated into her comedy special venues – that’s how intense it was. And yet, her reasoning changed, and one of the notable manifestations of this was her year roast on CNN, in which she reflected a perspective that many associated with conservatives about the lack of a Democrat primary, Biden’s health concerns, and vaccine mandates  – to the extent that she even asked if she was still on air.

Now, while many celebrated this shift in reasoning and perspective from someone who used to be incredibly leftist, other conservatives detested the possibility of Whitney Cummings entering conservative politics. They wanted her punished for her views when she did not know better. But, Whitney Cummings is not a policy maker who curated the COVID response, and was also (herself) a product of the information she received. Therefore, it was concerning that now that she progressively knew better, some felt entitled to gatekeep the truth or conservative views for those who held them long before Whitney Cummings did. 

This is obviously an error. The point of being privileged to know the truth is to be a custodian and protagonist of the truth – in other words, to make it known to many others. It is why we do not keep the Gospel to ourselves. It is why LN24 International serves as an extension of the Man of God Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, and disseminators of his teachings. Additionally, this is a principle from the Scriptures. In Romans 10:14 it reads “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso