by Jurriaan Maessen, IW

In the course of the last couple of weeks, Infowars published a three-part series on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” I ask the great Infowars readership to launch a counterstrike against the new world order by, on our part, mass-distributing this information to as many people as possible. The more people aware of the Rockefeller’s plans for humanity, the smaller the chance that they will be successful. They may have the vaccines and GM Food, but we have the knowledge to stop them in their tracks.

Jurriaan Maessen

Part 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 essayPopulation 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.

Part 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 70s 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.

Part 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 a 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 masses into oblivion comes closer into view.

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 essayPopulation 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.

Part 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 70s 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.

Part 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 a 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 masses into oblivion comes closer into view.

by Gordon Duff, VT

There is a certain absurdity for a group only remotely related to Christianity calling for a “revival of the Christian faith” in a New York rally, led by “Cowboy Jesus” freak Glenn Beck. Beck, whose claimed religious beliefs are based on Mormonism, an offshoot of Christianity originally based on polygamy and closely resembling the Islamic Shia sect, predominate in modern day Iran, is one of the top entertainers of Israeli-American Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

However, most followers of current “political hate theology” are “Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists consider themselves a form of evangelical Christianity but differ strongly in the role of Jesus Christ as “savior.” Their Jesus didn’t come to America to live among the Native Americans nor is he the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Melding two religions, one meant to venerate Christ and another based on despising him has created an abomination.

Christian Zionism is a form of defacto form of Judaism with Christ taking a secondary role as “savior,” as accepted in the traditional Christian concept of the ‘trinity.” Christ, according to Christian Zionist beliefs, acts as an arbiter of judgement more closely associated with Hasatan (Ha-Satan, the “challenger” or “accuser”) as described in Job 1:6-12. The “adversary” of the Judaic texts, subservient to G-d is an analog to the “Christ” figure in Christian Zionism, a figure associated with war, pestilence and suffering. Christian Zionism and its “Luciferian” Christ is a philosophical construct of “new age” mythologies of space aliens, the Bermuda Triangle with a touch of Revelations for dramatic effect.

In that sense, Christian Zionism has bridged a gulf, not with Judaism but with Satanism.

Lord of the Rings is more closely aligned with the teachings in the gospels.

What Beck and his cronies try to keep from the “star wars” religious sects they pander to is that their special brew of race fear, sexual humiliation and science fiction isn’t even a real front for support of Israel or the rule of America by the 1.4% Jewish population that they consider “genetically superior” to Christians. The subtext “master race” theory that, to “conservatives” explains, to them at least, the predominance of Israeli citizens or Jewish American Zionists in an unbelievable percentage of positions of control, not only in government and the media but with a virtual stranglehold on the American banking and economic system as well, exceeds Hitler and Himmler’s wildest dreams.

With all the praying and wailing and Glenn Beck’s prolific tears, the addict and Fox News demagogue, minor noise-making clown prince of his Rothschild masters, the banking firm in control of the Federal Reserve and all other western currencies as well, the true aspect of this primitive spectacle was obvious. Several thousand morally confused and religiously misguided Americans, feeling abandoned by their government and spiritual institutions now fallen into disrepute, clearly demonstrated how easily Americans could be manipulated. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi “Furniture-man” Netanyahu continually jokes about this in both public and private.

With proof coming to light in the past few days that the Tea Party movement is not only funded but was originated by a reclusive Israeli-American billionaire and the Fox/”Ground Zero Mosque” scandal, Netanyaho seems on sound footing.

Beck has demanded, for weeks, to know who is secretly funding the “Victory” Mosque that he insists is an offense to victims of “9/11.”

Glenn only needs to look at the name on his paycheck.

Beck and his followers serve another important purpose, “living proof” of the racial superiority of Jews. With recent studies showing Jews to be a race distinctive from European Caucasians, reputed by some studies to have much higher percentages of Neandrathal genes, the concepts as presented by Zionists that Jews are more clever and aggressive than “whites” is one more suited to the Third Reich than the modern world.

More curious, indeed, is the fact that the concepts of racial purity with roots, not 5000 years ago, but 50,000, are inconsistent with the beliefs of Christian Zionists who profess than all mankind came from a single common ancestor 5000 years ago. In accordance with the teachings of “creationists,” all mankind would share equally in the exact same genetics as Adam and Eve, though Zionists insist their race was totally distinct from others by that time.

This speaks to the heart of the matter and the heart of the beliefs of Beck and his confidants. Christians, if not children of Adam and Eve, as is supported by the Torah, “Goyim,” are not, as such human.

Thus, the basis of Christian Zionism and “creationism” is the establishment of a belief system that enslavement of peoples, as may be witnessed by the political and social restructuring of recent years is based on mythical scriptural interpretations, “creationist theory” that proves Christians to be a form of animal, less than human, not made in the “image of G-d.”

Thus, the concepts of the “elect” are not meant to reflect a group chosen out of mankind as righteous or deserving of salvation but of a class of mammal or “cattle” that are, by a form of divine selection elevated to human status.

Where the Torah describes, ad nauseum, how rights and protections afforded humans are to be withheld from other ethnic groups, it has taken Christian Zionism to define through “creationism” and a radical reassessment of the divinity of Christ to clarify the status of Christians and other non-Jews as proto-humans.

In an almost bizarre twist of events, a political movement melding bizarre cults based on alien lifeforms, “Cowboy Jesus” and the pseudo-science of ‘creationism” can, on one hand, build a consensus based on the concept of inferiority of non-white races and, at the same time, herald itself as a sub-human race petitioning Zion for inclusion in an afterlife.

And so it goes…

by Kurt Nimmo, IW

The Department of Justice has fired a salvo in the war against patriotic Americans supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The DOJ has issued Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism –Terms and Concepts, a 120-page propaganda addendum described as “a glossary designed primarily as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations.”

	The DOJ glossary will be used by the federal government and increasingly federalized law enforcement to criminalize language used by the patriot movement.

The glossary describes the word “constitutionalist” as a “generic term for members of the ‘patriot’ movement. It is now often used to refer to members of the sovereign citizen or common law court movement. Sometimes the word ‘constitutionalist’ is also used.”

According to Merriam-Webster, a constitutionalist is a person who adheres to a form of government according to constitutional principles.

The DOJ is now apparently in the business of newspeak. In his dystopian novel on totalitarian government, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell introduced the term doublethink, from which the terms newspeak and doublethink were later derived. Newspeak has come to mean any attempt by the government to restrict or modify language. The DOJ, in an effort to further demonize a growing patriot movement, has attempted to redefine the word consitutionalist in true newspeak fashion.

The word constitutionalist is now shorthand for the sovereign citizen movement, in other words people who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are violent cop killers. Earlier this year, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were killed in a shootout allegedlyinvolving a man and his son who were supposedly linked to the sovereign citizen movement in Ohio and Florida.

Prior to this incident, the FBI, an agency of under the DOJ, profiled the “domestic terror threat” posed by the sovereign citizen movement. “Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement,” the FBI wrote on April 13, 2010. The FBI provides contact information for turning in people who espouse “the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens.”

The DOJ prefaces its glossary by stating that “the fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity,” and then precedes to connect constitutionalists to alleged cop killers.

In addition, the DOJ’s glossary attempts to criminalize people who use the terms New World Order, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and One World Government. The latter term, according to the DOJ — obviously under the ideological sway of the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center — is used by “some right-wing extremists” to claim “white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world.” In short, if you believe there is an effort to establish world government, you are an anti-semitic Jew hater.

The DOJ glossary arrives after the appearance of the Department of Homeland Security’s report on “right-wing extermism” and a similar report produced by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and leaked to Alex Jones by a police officer last year. The MIAC report specifically singles out supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin — the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party in 2008 — as domestic terrorists posing a threat to law enforcement.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The DOJ glossary will be used by the federal government and increasingly federalized law enforcement to criminalize language used by the patriot movement. It will be used in an effort to compile a hit-list of patriots and target them as threats to national security. The glossary is part of an ongoing campaign to demonize those of us who insist the United States is a constitutional republic and portray people who insist the government respect and follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as violent cop killers and white supremacist extremists.

For more on the DOJ glossary, see Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide. A PDF of the glossary is available here.

by Paul Bonneau, StR

The tenacity of the meme, that government is here to help us and protect us, is hard to understand. All evidence throughout history points in the opposite direction–that government is here to prey on us, and that if there is anything we need protection from, it is our own governments. Why do people cling to this harmful meme?

A possible clue was provided last night, when I was watching an old Paul Newman movie, “Hombre.”

In that movie, Richard Boone plays a really tough, nasty bad guy (and does a great job of it). In one scene, Boone walks into the stagecoach station to get a ride, and is told all the seats for the next stage have been sold. He then walks up to Newman and explains to him that Newman is going to give Boone his ticket. Another passenger, a young man in Army uniform, starts objecting to Boone’s behavior, whereupon Boone transfers his attention to him. He explains the young man is going to hand over his ticket, and if he doesn’t think so, he will have to shoot it out with Boone. Eventually, not wanting to lose his life over a stagecoach ticket, he hands it over to Boone; but the shame is palpable. Everyone else in the station is looking at him as he walks out.

An individual thinks government is here to help us, for a very good reason: to protect his psyche. If he thought the contrary, that government only preys on us, he would be placing himself in the same shameful position as that young man in “Hombre.” He would be saying to himself, “These bastards rob us every day, and there is not a damn thing I can do to stop it!” Or worse, “I don’t have the courage to stand up to it.”

It is much easier for people to imagine they are simply buying services from the government, and of course the government participates in this self-deception by laying a thick coat of euphemism and outright lies over reality. But it is revealing, the ease with which people swallow these lies. Again, it’s protection for the psyche.

Even some “libertarians” will often insist that the only legitimate job of government is protecting our rights. Nothing could be more absurd, than looking to the Richard Boones of this world to help us; but the psyche must be protected.

When will people give up this harmful meme, that allows the ruling class to parasitize them? When will they look reality in the face? And when will they begin to do something about it?

I believe it is starting. The Tea Parties, however clumsy and uncoordinated and internally inconsistent, are good evidence. When the next Great Depression shows up with a vengeance, it will be hard to maintain this meme any longer. It will be interesting to see what happens when the scales fall from their eyes, and when shame is replaced with outrage.

by Connor Boyack, 10AC

The history of the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an insightful look into the fears and concerns shared by the founders of this nation. In the Federalist/Anti-Federalist duel over the nature of the proposed federal government and the Constitution’s ability to both empower and restrain it, some individuals proved more prescient than others in warning about the creature exceeding the powers of its creators and continually assuming new authority.

It was hoped that the plain language of the last amendment in the Bill of Rights would clearly affirm the fidelity with which officials must adhere to the Constitution. Its language is succinct and its meaning clear: any powers not delegated to the federal government are denied it, and thus reserved to the states and to the people.

Interestingly, this amendment has become commonly referred to as a “truism”—a statement which is obviously true, and which provides no new insight or meaning. Examples of truisms are “where there is smoke, there is fire”, “torture is barbaric”, and “abuse of power comes as no surprise”. The Supreme Court stated in 1931, in United States v. Sprague, that the tenth amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.” A decade later, they similarly wrote:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers…

If the denial to the federal government of any undelegated power is indeed a truism, then why has that entity repeatedly exercised authority for powers it was never given by the states? It is because the tenth amendment is a false truism: a statement to which many give lip service, but in which few truly believe. In short, it is not true. History, of course, bears out the reality that it indeed is untrue, despite its plain language and generally understood implications. It should be true, and ideally would indeed be little more than an unnecessary truism.

Ignored though it may be, the tenth amendment provides advocates of limited government and state sovereignty a fulcrum upon which to hinge their efforts. We can and should work to make this amendment a truism in fact—a statement that is largely unnecessary, because internal and external restraints force the federal government to operate only within the powers delegated in the Constitution.