Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
March 26, 2012
In the course of August and September 2010, I wrote several articles for
Infowars on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for
“mass-scale distribution.” As the soft-kill depopulation agenda accelerates it seems all the more relevant to
re-post these articles as one. I ask the great Infowars-readership to project this information out to as many
people as possible. Only by countering the elite’s disinformation with genuine information do we stand a chance
against their plans for humanity.
Jurriaan Maessen
1:
Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction
In
its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called
“anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:
“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been
tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological
methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be
found here.”
The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that
needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD
were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:
“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern”
methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass
scale.”
The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also
mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to “cause bleeding problems, which may limit their
usefulness.”
“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been
suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”
Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial
results, the report was adamant:
“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several
ways:
1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support
to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which
the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology,
embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”
2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of
contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”
3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means,
established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that
have implications for human fertility and its control;”
4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in
reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments
of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”
The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the
RF?
“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty
groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty,
undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”
It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its
annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in
the field of anti-fertility vaccines:
“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first
phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India
and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of
protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the
immunization schedule.”
In its 1997 review of
anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget
to acknowledge its main benefactor:
“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller
Foundation, (…).”
In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in
third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same
time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open
talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.
Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College,
Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and
abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller
Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new
world order:
“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’. The scientific community knows very well that
such assertions are false - for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune
system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the
vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”
The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, quoted
“a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:
“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the
reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”
Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:
“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against
AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to
large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of
user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”
To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its
long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive
language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission. If you think
the RF and others have abandoned their anti-fertility efforts with the help of vaccines, think again
or
read this article.
2: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine
Coordinated by WHO
In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility
Reduction- which
outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of
documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health
Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for
Fertility Regulation”.
Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into
anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World
Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of
its members, to support:
“basic and clinical
research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation
embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology
and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a
result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical
testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the
current decade.”
In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development
Monitor reported:
“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for
anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches,
such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of
hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an
anti-hCG-vaccine.”
One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:
“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other
vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the
development of fertility regulating vaccines.”
Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the
implementation in developing countries. Griffin:
“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit
fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present
armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning
programmes.”
Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of
fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):
“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health
services.”
Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for
Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and
manufacture” of the vaccine:
“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be
summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel;
(b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of
antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and
manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”
In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human
Reproduction published a
report, stating:
“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human
reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility
regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them
on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family
planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at
the service level.”
Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was
replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously
the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued
on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization
are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between
the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness
of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:
“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale
clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced
from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than
consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect.
Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the
Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of
gossypol.”
In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding
“fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating
Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were
scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American
Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.
In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:
“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human
substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include
reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An
antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would
need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and
sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely
achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few
years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic
engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the
feasible.”
“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for
human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.
In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must
conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.
“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”,
to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles
and delivery systems.”
In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also
discussed:
“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document,
“immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude
and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs
(Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control
the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”
The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has
since the early 1970s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What
also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these
anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale
anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the
global elite.
3: On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents
Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”
It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce
anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case
now- average consumer-products.
The
1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance
“gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.
Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified
early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate
the toxic substance into crops.
“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that
has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling
approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and
efficacy of gossypol.”
In the
1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in
relation to food for “widespread use”:
“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the
cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men.
Before widespread use can be recommended, further
investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing
its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility
and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”
In the
RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):
“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise
as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it
is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide
have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its
clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of
gossypol.”
The following year, according to
the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction”
could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.
(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To
support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men
(…).”
Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of
gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”
The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the
1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at
the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”
It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the
dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these
“undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis.
If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would
be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.
Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the
substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a
media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.
In 2006, NatureNews
reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the
gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.”
Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of
food security, who was quick to bury any concern:
“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation
in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology
is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new
foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety
concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”
A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study
Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M
Universtity), Keerti Singh
Rathore as saying:
“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health,
particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent
increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”
“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where
gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering
that targets the genes that make the toxin.”
I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986
annual report, which reads:
“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering
the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness
as a contraceptive.”
In the
1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E.
Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S.
Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas.”
Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in
regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a
2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said,
“and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research
is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”
Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying
the name:
“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable
foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered
plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to
pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”
He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is
something of the long term:
“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically
modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be
eliminated or reduced substantially.”
The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah
Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in
food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the populous into oblivion comes into
view.
4: Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the
1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal
Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on
multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide.
Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.
Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the
admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the
way.
By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of
the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The
Foundation’s
1934 annual report states:
“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the
natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as
endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology,
general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”
“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the
monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the
University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain
species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the
various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”
In
the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates
serves to experiment on man in the future:
“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general
biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on
infra-man pave the way for that on man.”
In the book
Discipling Reproduction by Adele E. Clarke, the roots of Rockefeller-funded “anti-hormones” is being described in
some detail, pointing out that the family’s ambitions to control man’s fertility date back even further than
the 1930s. Clarke writes:
“On a cold morning in 1921, George Washington Corner, a physician and fledgling
reproductive scientist, awoke in Baltimore to discover that it was snowing.”
“By 1929”, Clarke writes a bit further on, “Corner had mapped out the hormonal
action of progesterone, an essential actor in the menstrual cycle and subsequently an actor in birth control
pills.”
The
1935 Rockefeller Foundation annual report acknowledges funding Dr. Corner’s research:
“To the University of Rochester, for research on the physiology of reproduction
under the direction of Dr. G. W. Corner during the threeyear period beginning July 1, 1935, and ending June 30,
1938, there has been appropriated the sum of $9,900. Dr. Corner’s activities are concentrated on a study of the
oestrus cycle, using monkeys as the experimental animals. A colony of about thirty monkeys has been maintained, and
experiments have furnished information on the normal histology of the reproductive cycle, the time of ovulation,
the relation of ovulation to menstruation and other anatomically detectable correlations of the oestrus cycle. Work
is continuing on two main lines: normal sex reproduction in the monkey, including the histology of ovary and
uterus, and, secondly, the effects of the ovarian hormone.”
Again, never forget that the Foundation in 1933 stated outright that “It was
essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”
Another essential problem which arises, of course, is how exactly the
funding-mechanism worked by which Corner’s research could be made ready for mass-consumption. Clarke mentions that
officially the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was the institute
responsible for the task of doing so. More specific: the Committee for Research in Problems of Sex
(CRPS):
“The NRC itself was founded in 1916 as an agency to inventory research toward
enhanced military preparedness.”
“The NRC”, states the author, “was a prestigious organization from its inception,
thanks to its early association with the NAS, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Kohler
(1991:109) has argued that the NRC essentially served as an intermediary between the foundations and scientists in
the interwar years.(…). The NRC/CRPS itself was funded almost exclusively by Rockefeller monies, initially through
the Bureau of Social Hygiene and, after 1931, through the Rockefeller Foundation.”
On the subject of so-called “current immunological contraceptive research”, Clarke
channels Rockefeller-president Max Mason:
“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what,
during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed
for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function
properly.”
In a February 1934 “progress report”
written by Warren Weaver (director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation) once again
underlined the endgame:
“Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and
extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of
physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of
life under rational control?”
The same Warren Weaver wrote a “biographical
Memoir” in honor of his friend Max Mason, revealing some more interesting facts. Weaver, who
describes himself as a great personal friend of Mason, gives a general description of him as
Rockefeller-minion:
“He had by that time developed a consuming interest in behavioral research, and particularly
in the possibility that the physical sciences, working with and through the biological sciences, could shed
new and revealing light on the normal and abnormal behavior of individuals, and ultimately on the social
behavior of groups of men.”
Here we have it. The blueprint for sterilizing vaccines has been first conceptualized way
back in the 1920s and 1930s by social scientists of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although later the eugenic
language (“anti-fertility vaccine”) was polished up with the help of some linguistic plastic surgery producing the term
“immunological contraceptive”, the ultimate goal remains the same.
|