Death by Vaccination: The Gates Foundation and the New Eugenics
Progressive Radio Network September 22, 2010
While lecturing at the elitist TED 2010 conference in Long Beach, CA, Bill Gates slipped a statement while speaking on the dangers of climate change and over population: “Vaccines? I love them.” His admission was made in the context of his philanthropic strategy and, as we will see, vaccines play a dominant role in his firm conviction that population reduction is an urgent priority for the survival of humanity. Then the question is, who should be eliminated from the population? Who is elected from the public to make such decisions? The short answer is no one. Hence it is being done quietly thru foundations, international agencies and private industry.
Today the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is “the most powerful charity in the world, and one of the most quietly influential international organizations of any sort.” The Foundation is funded to the tune of $34.6 billion plus an additional $30 billion from Warren Buffet’s investments. This is almost the entire budget of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Gates has followed in the footsteps of the Rockefellers’ lead to usher the New Green Revolution, an aggressive onslaught of genetically modified seeds (GMOs) to increase large scale corporate-influenced agriculture in Africa, India and elsewhere. The international GMO initiatives have devastated small cooperative farms that have served as the lifeline of food for centuries and as resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of farmers. Of course nobody among the oligarchic elite, such as Gates, Rockefeller and Monsanto execs, will suffer from the consequences of this failed revolution.
However, it is vaccine research and development targeting Africa primarily, but also other developing nations, that holds center stage in his Foundation’s strategic funding. During the recent 2010 World Economic Forum, Gates announced he would spend $10 billion over the next ten years on child vaccine development for poorer nations.. While calling this admirable might appear to be an understatement, which vaccines and which channels of funding require scrutiny in order to assess the value and motives of the Foundation’s mission.
In 2000, the Gates Foundation founded the International Finance Facility for Immunization (GAVI) and that organization’s Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines. GAVI is a global collaboration that includes governments, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, WHO, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, UNICEF, vaccine makers, and other influential entities. All of these are zealot vaccination promoters. The organization’s mission is to vaccinate every child in Africa. Through GAVI and its various programs, an estimated 250 million children in developing countries have already been vaccinated. But the Foundation itself does not perform drug and vaccine research and development. In addition to traditional grant giving, it also provides lines of credit. For example, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative received from the Foundation a $100 million line of credit to empower the nonprofit organization to influence HIV vaccine development within the vaccine industrial complex.
Over the past several years, evidence is accumulating over Gates’ and his Foundations’ duplicity in saying one thing and acting otherwise. For example, frequently Gates has stated his opposition to Big Tobacco and claims he refuses to invest or fund any organization and company contributing to smoking. However, a recent investigation showed that the Foundation has in fact invested in Big Tobacco for quite some time. Similarly, behind his verbiage on tackling climate change and shifting to non-fossil fuel technologies at the TED conference, Gates remains a heavy investor in Big Oil, particularly Exxon-Mobile and British Petroleum—perhaps the two oil companies the most corrupt history in recent decades.
We appear, therefore, to be faced with a serious uncertainty over the public image of the very likable, mild-manner Bill Gates, who expresses repeatedly his ambition to improve the health of the developing world, and then the possibility of other ulterior motives that are contrary to saving lives. Should we take Gates and his Foundation’s word that their primary objective is to improve the health and well-being of children in poorer nations by fighting disease and illness with vaccines? Or is his vaccine agenda another ruse with a more sinister agenda? For example, it is hard to imagine that Gates is unaware that his commitment to the Green Revolution is in point of fact a Green Disaster and that no GMO has lived up to its promise. Yet he simply continues his enormous funding of agricultural genetic manipulation projects. Therefore, we believe there is sound reason that his Foundation’s many international vaccine initiatives represent much more than excessively kind-hearted charity.
Over the past several years, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet has printed a series of in-depth analyses of the Gates Foundation with disturbing revelations. In a September 2008 article, “Misfinancing Global Health: A Case for Transparency in Disbursements and Decision Making,” the authors’ investigation came to the conclusion that aside from excessive funding of high profile Western institutions and organizations, there was “a heavy bias in funding towards malaria and HIV/AIDS, with relatively little investment into tuberculosis, maternal and child health, and nutrition--with chronic diseases being entirely absent from its spending portfolio.” And a later study by Dr. David McCoy from the Center for International Health found that “the grants made by the Foundation do not reflect the burden of disease endured by those in deepest poverty.” None of these findings have been covered to any extent by mainstream media nor any governing body.
No one can doubt Gates’ intellectual genius and talent/ Neither are we questioning his philanthropic endeavors that exceeds that of any other human being. So, then, why is his Foundation spending such wealth unwisely, and why is it ignoring far more effective and less costly solutions and practices for relieving the suffering of millions of children, women and men throughout the developing world?
In his deconstruction of Bill Gates’ charitable agenda, F. William Engdahl writes, “Vaccinating a child who then goes to drink feces-polluted river water is hardly healthy in any respect. But of course cleaning up the water and sewage systems of Africa would revolutionize the health conditions of the Continent.” Far more effective would be the Foundation donating its billions to improve sanitation and hygiene, and provide nutrition to the 2.6 billion people who have none, for increasing clean water sources so 900 million global residents can have access to drinkable water (now at 1 in 3 Africans). Instead, the Foundation could be funding thousands of health clinics focusing on the chronic illnesses these populations suffer from most. This is simply common sense. “Bad water,” says the Stockholm International Water Institute’s director, Anders Bentell, “kills more people than HIV, malaria and war together.”
Spending billions of dollars to develop new vaccines and launch monumental efforts to vaccinate African children plagued with diverse infectious illnesses promises to be a fruitless enterprise while these populations continue to live in squalor. After decades of mass vaccination programs across Africa, current vaccines have neither proven their medical effectiveness and safety nor their ability to truly enhance the quality of life of impoverished Africans. Instead, as part of its Millennium Development Goal, the Foundation prefers to make its Rotavirus Vaccine Program to battle diarrheal diseases one of its two major focuses (in partnership with PATH, the WHO and the CDC). The FDA has already announced warnings of Rotavirus vaccine’ life threatening adverse effects, such as intessusception or the severe twisting of children’s intestines that can lead to death. Children in developing countries, already suffering from extreme immune-deficiencies due to malnutrition, lack of sanitary living conditions, and local diseases only have their bodies further weakened after any vaccination.
As a keynote speaker at the TED 2010 conference, Gates laid out his rationale for an international effort towards global depopulation. He said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [projected to 9 billion people by 2050] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.“ New vaccines for depopulation? What Gates might be referring to by “new vaccines” is the creation of new generation sterilizing and/or aborting vaccines with an ingredient or genetically engineered component that can go undetected. Vaccines to prevent pregnancy already exist; in fact, they have been with us for a long time. One area of vaccine research the Gates’ Foundation is funding in its Grand Challenges Explorations is the use of nano-particles. Such engineered vaccines, with no gold standard for long term safety and efficacy, could virtually go undetected without highly advanced and expensive technologies to identify their presence.
As early as 1968, the Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report recommended anti-fertility vaccines as a viable means for lessening the human population growth rate that should be aggressively pursued.
The quandary lies in an ethical, moral and transparent means, which honor the free choice of the individual, for reducing the global birth rate. Unfortunately, past history shows that previous attempts to inoculate communities with anti-fertility vaccines have not only been unethical but covert and criminal. And when one thinks about it, what better way to lessen population growth, in addition to reducing years of life-expectancy, than through family planning vaccination programs spearheaded by government mandated international finance and health organizations, such as the World Bank, UNDP and WHO, and by willing governments and billionaires who are happy to help fund eugenic efforts? In addition, there are many powerful non-profit organizations, such as Save the Children and US Aid, who benefit handsomely from these multilateral institutions and rely upon their funding to carry out their demands.
An early anti-fertility trial using human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone essential for pregnancy, in vaccines was completed in 1988 in India through a Rockefeller collaboration with India’s National Institute of Immunology. The Rockefeller annual report declared success. Yet according to Betsy Hartman, Director of Hampshire College’s Population and Development Program, “although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible.”
Perhaps the most thorough documented investigation into the covert use of anti-fertility vaccines is a 1995 report, “Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth Control Drugs,” compiled by J.A. Miller, a correspondent for the pro-life missionary movement Human Life International. In the early 1990s, the WHO, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the US’s National Institutes of Health undertook stealth anti-fertility initiatives under the disguise of tetanus vaccination programs. These vaccines were administered to unsuspecting and poor communities in Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines.
The tetanus vaccines, manufactured by Connaught and Intervex in Canada, and CSL, Ltd in Australia (a leading maker of the H1N1 flu vaccine that has been implicated in statistically significant numbers of seizures and heavily supported by the Rupert Murdoch family) were laced with hCG. Scientists working on the project discovered that the tetanus vaccine was an ideal vehicle for introducing hCG peptides that when injected into a woman’s body would induce hCG antibodies thereby preventing pregnancy. In brief, a woman’s body turns on autopilot to attack her own natural production of hCG.
All would have gone well for the scheme’s masterminds if it were not for individuals working in local religious charities having observed some highly suspicious procedures. For example, why were only women between the ages of 15 to 45 receiving the tetanus shot and no men? And why were multiple booster shots required during the following months when a single tetanus injection is well-known to provide protection for ten years? In the Philippines, laboratory results of vaccinated woman in almost all cases discovered the presence of hCG antibodies; lab investigations into the vaccines uncovered the presence of hCG; and a subsequent investigation found that none of the hCG-laced vaccine lots had been registered with the government’s Bureau of Food and Drugs. The episode was entirely a black op, a super human stealth experiment preying upon poor innocent women.
While the above is the best documented example, other less well known eugenic experiments during the 1990s using anti-fertility vaccines have been conducted in Haiti and among the Akha people in Thailand, in poorer African-American neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and among indigenous people in North and Latin America.
A 1995 BBC documentary, “The Human Laboratory,” interviewed Filipino women’s activist Mary Pilar Verzosa, who reported on the vaccine’s adverse effects. These included fertility cycles that were “all fouled up,” spontaneous bleeding and miscarriages. Seemingly, women were not screened to determine whether or not they were pregnant before injections. Consequently in addition to interfering with a woman’s ability to become pregnant the WHO was launching a clandestine experiment to observe whether the vaccine would trigger miscarriages.
No published studies exist for long-term follow up on women receiving hCG-laced vaccines and associated severe adverse effects. Given the WHO’s past record of seriously flawed misjudgments and secrecy--their recent fabrication of a level-6 H1N1 pandemic being an excellent recent example--and those of the other organizations complicit in covert vaccine operations, we should not be surprised that such studies exist. Because the hCG hormone is involved in many other bodily functions besides pregnancy, it is likely that artificially creating hCG antibodies in a woman would result in a cascade of serious incurable health problems. The hormone plays an important role in endocrine functioning of the brain’s hypothalamus. It is a known diagnostic marker for certain types of tumors. Artificially interfering in its production could potentially cause any number of different cancers. Since hCG is essential for healthy pituitary gland function, such toxic vaccines would interfere with this master gland’s regulatory function of maintaining homeostatic balance, hormonal equilibrium, throughout the body’s endocrine system. There can be an incalculable number of adverse conditions resulting from such a vaccine.
If used with the wrong motives, vaccines can e excellent devices for lessening lifespan. In addition, there are unanswered questions about how safe and effective vaccines actually are. For example, a child will not develop cancer or acquire a chronic autoimmune dysfunction a week or two after receiving a flu or measles injection. Yet, vaccines, especially those relying upon animal tissue to culture viruses during the manufacturing process—the influenza, the MMR, and yellow fever vaccines—are known to be highly contaminated with foreign animal viruses (including Avian Leukosis Virus and Equine Arteritis Virus), genetic fragments of such viruses, oncogenes (genes that turn normal cells cancerous), and prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases and neurological disorders in animals and humans). Public awareness of this fact appeared in transcripts from private meetings of the Center for Disease Control’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee and the Evolving Scientific and Regulatory Perspective Workshop in 1998 and 1999 respectively and obtained by British investigative journalist Janine Roberts.
According to the committees’ participants representing, “the largest public health institutions in the West,” it is impossible to remove DNA contaminants from vaccines. When the question was raised whether or not vaccine DNA contamination could cause cancer or autoimmune disease, one respondent stated, “when you consider that almost every one of these vaccines is injected right into the tissue... I think you couldn’t do much more to get the DNA expressed [to get contaminating cancer-causing DNA taken up by human cells] than to inject it into a muscle in the way it’s being done.”
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Chairman of the health committees in the German Parliament and the European Council, reported that Novartis was using a “nutrient solution” relying on cancer-cell lines in a bioreactor to manufacture its H1N1 vaccine. He issued warnings that adverse reactions to this kind of engineered vaccine are unknown.
Bill Gates’ mission to protect poorer populations from disease through mass vaccination, his sense of urgency that the global population is too large and needs to be reduced, and his deep financial and collaborative enterprises with the oligarchic elite, health agencies and multilateral organizations with a past history of eugenic intentions and experimentation, make for a bizarre mix that raises serious questions about the truth behind his Foundation’s motives.
America has a long history of eugenic science through the first half of the twentieth century--John D. Rockefeller, Margaret Sanger, Paul Popenoe, Madison Grant and others. The names of the organizations and facilities they founded or supported tells the story. Andrew Carnegie’s Institute was the primary funder of the Eugenics Record Office that operated from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. The Laboratory was closed in 1944 after the public became aware of thousands sterilizations it oversaw.
Likewise the Rockefellers were major funders of not only Cold Spring Harbor but also the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, which became the center of the Nazi’s extermination experiments. The Rockefellers’ Population Council, with the mission to advance birth control, was first headed by Frederick Osborn, a leader in the American Eugenics Society. And there is no reason to believe America’s eugenic tradition has died out, although it has mutated into what might appear to be a less malignant form compared to the days when over half of the fifty states were conducting forced sterilization on poor woman and inmates in prisons and mental insitutes.
Nobody should doubt the eugenic agenda remains alive and well in America. In fact, behind the closed corridors among the global elite, it is gaining fuel. For these people, sacrificing poor people in the developing world on the altar of a distorted Manifest Destiny, and setting their own rules in modern technologies--vaccines and GMO seeds--with the potential to destroy every unborn child is simply racism and bigotry. Kenyon College anthropologist Ken Smail, in a 2004 World Watch article, wrote, “That there will be large scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic.”
The weakness in today’s elites’ depopulation agenda is fourfold. First it has always been the poorer, less educated segments of humanity that should be reduced and no one else. Therefore, second, since they cannot be allowed to have a freedom of choice or vote on the matter, the elites must make this decision for them. Third, their argument crumbles since it is the elites themselves that place value on one particular life as being different than another. And finally, since depopulation cannot be executed transparently, it must be done through deceit and clandestine means.
So what are the lessons to be learned from this? The wealthiest elite on the planet are rarely questioned about the correctness of their actions and schemes. As long as one of these individuals say they are giving huge sums of money to a cause to end disease and suffering, we are not suppose to probe further. Rather, in the case of mainstream media, such people are to be worshiped as saviors. The oligarchic elite are so well interconnected on multiple boards of directors, clubs for the rich and powerful, think tanks, and among the high ranks of elected legislators and politicians that it is difficult to have an open and honest debate on the merits of their actions and spending. When a Ted Turner says we should reduce the world’s population by more than half, and Bill Gates suggests a 15 percent reduction, do we really understand they are following a form of eugenic genocide?
Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotech and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Vaccine Nation (2008) and Autism: Made in the USA (2009)
 Beckett, Andy. “Inside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” Guardian UK. July 12, 2010.
 Engdahl, F. William. “Bill Gates Talks about Vaccines to Reduce Population.” Financial Sense Editorials. March 4, 2010.
 “Gates Foundation Decade of Vaccines.” The Lancet. March 2010. Vol. 10. No. 3. p. 39
 Beckett, Andy. Op cit.
 Schestowitz, Roy. “Gates Foundation Retreats After Being Exposed as Funder of Big Tobacco.” Techrights.org. April 19, 2010.
 Schestowitz, Roy. “Bill Gates Invests Heavily in Deception about Global Warming and in Abusive Monopolies.” Techrights.org. February 22, 2010.
 “What has the Gates Foundation Done for Global Health,” The Lancet. Vol. 373, no. 9675. May 9, 2009
 Engdahl, F. William. Op cit.
 Deen, Thailif. “Summit Failure on Water, Sanitation Would be Recipe for Disaster,” Commondreams.org September 14, 2010
 Deen, Thailif. “Time Running Out Faster than Water, Experts Warn,” IPS News. September 6, 2010
 GAVI Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAVI_Alliance
 “New Rotavirus Vaccine Danger: FDA Warns as Possibly Life-Threatening for your Child” Health and Wellness. February 13, 2007
 Butler, Byron. “Gates Foundation donates $7.8 million to global initiatives.” The Daily Tell. May 14, 2010
 Maessen, Jurriaan. “Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines for “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction.” Infowars. August 5, 2010.
 Miller, JA. “Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth Control Drugs?” Human Life International Reports, Vol. 13, No. 8, June/July 1995
 Centers for Disease Control. “ACIP Recommendation for Use of CSL Influenza Vaccine.” CDC Press Release, August 5, 2010
 Miller, JA. Op cit.
 Taylor, Daniel. “Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction.” Global Research. September 7, 2010.
 Gale, R, Null G. “Vaccines’ Dark Inferno: What is not on Insert Labels” Global Research. September 29, 2009; also see, Roberts, Janine. Fear of the Invisible: How Scared Should We be of Viruses and Vaccines. Impact Investigative Media Productions: Bristol UK, 2009
 “Does Virus Vaccine Increase the Risk of Cancer.” Bild.com (Germany) September 7, 2009
 Taylor, Daniel. “Eugenics Moves to the Twenty-First Century,” Old-Thinker News. August 27, 2007
 Smail, Ken. “Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable,” World Watch. September/October, 2004