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”.
WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on “anti-fertility” vaccine since the 1960s.
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 onthe development of birth control vaccines directed against thegametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involvedthe use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridomatechnology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluationof a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As aresult of this international, collaborative effort, a prototypeanti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raisingthe prospect that a totally new family planning method may beavailable 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.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
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 extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationshipbetween 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.
“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.
Neurologists have been ordered to monitor whether new swine flu vaccinations could trigger a deadly nerve disease.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent Published: 8:15AM BST 16 Aug 2009
Cut the cost of medical insurancePhoto: GETTY
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) has asked doctors to check for increases in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) once the national vaccination programme begins.
Its letter refers to the use of a swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976, when 25 people died from GBS, while just one died from swine flu.
The syndrome, which can be fatal, attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe. Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
The jabs being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13 million people during the first wave of the programme, expected to start in October.
Priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
In a letter sent by the HPA on July 29, neurologists have been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
It alerts them to the use of a swine flu vaccine in the US in 1976, which was followed by more than 500 cases of GBS, including 25 deaths. The US programme was stopped after 10 weeks because of concerns over its safety, and the Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.
The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.
According to the Mail on Sunday, two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA's Immunisation Department.
It says: "The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.
"GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
"Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk."
A second letter from the Association of British Neurologists is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chairman of its surveillance unit (BNSU), and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chairman of its clinical research committee.
It says: "Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member's involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barré syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
"Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS. Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case."
Last night, the HPA insisted that it did not expect to find links between the new vaccine and GBS, and said it wanted to monitor any connection between the flu virus itself and the syndrome.
Professor Miller at the HPA said: "This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We'll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.
"We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important."
The UK's medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.
"In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
"It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world."
Even though Liam Donaldson is not on the directors list we feel you need to have some information regarding this man.
Sir Liam Donaldson – Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Department of Health
This man approved Mercury & Sualene to be in the injection to be given to pregnant women & children, he is also the chair of the WHO (World Health Organization) Patient Safety Secretariat.
"Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system".
This is the man who has attacked TPUC over something we did not actually do; we just got blamed for the incident. http://www.tpuc.org/content/sir-liam-blinky-donaldson-attacks-anti-vac, that also included reports right across the media that were in fact untrue. But surely the media don't lie!
All I can say to those who did do it is thank you and thanks for the idea!
Then it came to our attention that an NHS magazine was warning staff that TPUC were targeting some hospitals telling the staff not to respond to us. http://tpuc.org/content/why-are-they-so-frightened-tpucorg. I wonder what they are so frightened of, telling their staff not to talk to us. All we are trying to do is give everyone the facts regarding this issue, whether you have the vaccine or not is your choice - but anyone being asked, persuaded into having it or are just unaware of the risks, should have the advantage of knowing all the facts and implications before making their decision. We have had many reports from people saying that no matter what they go to their GP about, they are being asked, if not somewhat persuaded into having the vaccine against Swine Flu - this includes my own friends. It seems everyone is on the make with each GP being paid £7 - £5 per vaccination they administer. Ask your GP if you can hold them themselves responsible for any adverse reactions to the vaccine you might suffer and in fact ask them to sign a disclosure to say you can before hand – watch the reaction you will receive!
Before you make any choice, please at least make it an informed choice!
Next week marks the first anniversary of the official declaration of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. On 11 June 2009 Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, announced to the world’s media: “I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials. In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose. On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met…The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic.”
It was the culmination of 10 years of pandemic preparedness planning for WHO—years of committee meetings with experts flown in from around the world and reams of draft documents offering guidance to governments. But one year on, governments that took advice from WHO are unwinding their vaccine contracts, and billions of dollars’ worth of stockpiled oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza)—bought from health budgets already under tight constraints—lie unused in warehouses around the world.
A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments. Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines? Why was key WHO guidance authored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir? And why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO? We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science.
New Jersey health officials say the country is due for a third wave of the pandemic flu and are reiterating their advice that immunization shots against regular influenza and H1N1 are the best protection against infection.
“You don’t want to get that,” said Bob Gogats, Burlington County Health Coordinator. “It makes you sick for quite awhile and immunization only takes a few minutes. Plus, it’s free. It doesn’t make any sense not to get it.”
Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties are providing free immunizations against both viruses at county-run clinics this month and in March. There are ample doses of both vaccines and supplies can be replenished if necessary, county officials say.
Even though Liam Donaldson is not on the directors list we feel you need to have some information regarding this man.
