Twenty-eight minutes to listen at 1.5 x speed (I recommend this speed or higher), or half that to scan. This post summarizes material that was compiled over many years.
The lynchpin of history is leadership. Without Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, or Eisenhower, we would be living in a different world. We also have the monsters—Stalin, Hitler, and the ultimate butcher, Mao. Genocide geeks remind me not to forget Genghis Kahn, who left genes that survive in 16 million men today. He and his armies slit their forefathers’ throats and raped their women.
Bill Gates is the current mafia don of genocide. He was recently tracked to London, where he was presumably directing the replacement of Boris Johnson with another murderous World Economic Forum puppet.
DR. STEVEN KARANJA, an obstetrician-whistleblower for the Gates’ depopulation plot in Kenya, had a warning for us:
After his experiences, he predicted before COVID that the conspiracy was planning a worldwide attack on us. He was killed in April 2021, and his death was officially ascribed to the coronavirus.
Watch the story on the Diabolical Agenda movie HERE at the Children’s Heath Defense website. It will not take long.
Then, read the following excerpt from chapter 10 of The Real Anthony Fauci titled “More Harm Than Good.” You need this book on your bookshelf, so HERE is the Amazon link. The Kindle version remains at $3 for now.
The rest of this post is all RFK, Jr.’s. Not a word needed to be abridged.
Population and Sterilization Vaccines
Early twentieth-century America saw the snowballing popularity of eugenics, a racist pseudoscience that aspired to eliminate human beings deemed “unfit” in favor of the Nordic stereotypes. Twenty-seven state governments enshrined elements of the philosophy as official policy by enacting forced sterilization and segregation laws and marriage restrictions. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt laws requiring sterilization of intellectually challenged Americans. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans.”50
John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s keen interest in eugenics colored his passion for population control. The oil baron scion joined the American Eugenics Society and served as trustee of the Bureau of Social Hygiene. The Rockefeller Foundation dispatched hefty donations in the 1920s and early 1930s to hundreds of German researchers, including those conducting Hitler’s notorious “twins studies” at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin.51 The Rockefeller Foundation curtailed donations to Nazi Germany’s medical institutions before Pearl Harbor, but Rockefeller’s success promoting the eugenics movement had already captivated Adolf Hitler. “Now that we know the laws of heredity,” Hitler told a fellow Nazi, “it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”52
In the early 1950s, the Rockefeller Foundation conducted fertility studies in India that historian Matthew Connolly characterizes as an example of “American social science at its most hubristic.” In one of the collaborations with the Harvard School of Public Health and India’s Ministry of Health, the Rockefeller Foundation studied 8,000 tribal people in seven villages in the Khanna section of Punjab to determine whether contraceptive tablets could dramatically reduce fertility rates.53 According to Linsey McGoey, “The villagers were treated like lab specimens, subjected to monthly questioning but otherwise ignored.”54
Rockefeller’s researchers did not initially inform the Punjabis that their pills would prevent women from bearing children. McGoey describes the villagers as “shocked,” “dismayed,” and “resentful” to learn that the medication they credulously consumed was intended to render them infertile: “Some were incensed by the effort to limit their future progeny.”55
Over the next two decades, the Rockefeller Foundation conducted frequent anti-fertility programs in India and elsewhere, earning the growing animosity of physicians, human rights activists, and poverty specialists who criticized the foundation for focusing on population growth while ignoring the realities of persistent poverty that makes large families so indispensable to Indian and African villagers.56
“Today,” McGoey adds, “the Gates Foundation is pouring money into experimental medical trials that are facing criticism similar to those directed at the [Rockefeller Foundation’s] Khanna study. Like earlier philanthropic foundations, The Gates Foundation has the financial and political clout to intervene in foreign nations with relative impunity, and to remain unfazed when the experiments it funds go awry.”57
Gates’s fetish for reducing population is a family pedigree. His father, Bill Gates Sr., was a prominent corporate lawyer and civic leader in Seattle with a lifelong obsession for “population control.” Gates Sr. sat on the national board of Planned Parenthood, a neo-progressive organization founded in 1916 by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger to promote birth control and sterilization and to purge “human waste”58 and “create a race of thoroughbreds.”59 Sanger said she hoped to purify the gene pool by “eliminating the unfit” persons with disabilities—preventing such persons from reproducing60 by surgical sterilization or other means.
In 1939, Sanger created and directed the racist Negro Project, which strategically co-opted Black ministers in leadership roles to promote contraceptives to their congregations. Sanger stated in a letter to her eugenics colleague, Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble), “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”61
“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things,” Gates told Bill Moyers in 2003. “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.”62
Overpopulation, Gates’s father told Salon in a 2015 interview, was “an interest he’s had since he was a kid.”63 In 1994, the elder Gates formed the William H. Gates Foundation (the family’s first), focused on reproductive and child health in the developing world. Population control was an enduring preoccupation of his son’s philanthropy from its inception.
Gates has made a long parade of public statements and investments that reflect his deep dread of overpopulation. He describes himself as an admirer and proponent of the population doomsayer Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, whom Gates describes as “the world’s most prominent environmental Cassandra,” meaning a prophet who accurately predicts misfortune or disaster.
By the way, I share Gates’s fear that if humanity persists in juxtaposing exponential population expansion atop linear resource growth, we will all land in a nightmarish Malthusian dystopia. I’m troubled, however, by his apparent comfort in using coercive and mendacious tactics to trick poor people into dangerous and unwanted contraceptive programs. The proven paths to zero population growth are the mitigation of poverty and empowerment of women. Women with alternative career opportunities seldom choose the heavy and hazardous burden of serial maternity. Virtually every nation with a stable middle class has fertility below replacement rates.
But Gates’s careless public statements and the programs that he habitually funds suggest that Gates has involved himself in sketchy stealth campaigns to sterilize dark-skinned and marginalized women without their informed consent—including by the deceptive use of dangerous sterility vaccines.
On February 20, 2010, less than one month after he famously committed $10 billion to the WHO, Bill Gates suggested in his “Innovating to Zero” TED Talk in Long Beach, California, that reducing world population growth could be done in part with “new vaccines”:64
The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion [here he is almost quoting Bryant et al.]. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent . . .65, 66
Gates’s defenders—and the Gates-subsidized “Fact Checker” organizations—scoff at critics who interpret literally Gates’s 2010 statement that he hoped to use vaccines to reduce population. They explain that Gates intended, by this inartful construct, to suggest that lifesaving vaccines will allow more infants to survive to adulthood, thereby reassuring impoverished parents that they need not have so many children. But this hypothesis rests on the sketchy premise that his vaccines reduce child mortality—a proposition that Gates has never demonstrated and that current science does not support. His peculiar choice of words naturally fueled speculation that he was engaging in a premeditated campaign to use vaccines to sterilize women. His questionable antics in promoting antifertility drugs and WHO’s widespread use of stealth sterility vaccines credibly fuel such sentiments.
Depo-Provera: A Cruel Irony
Population control has been the central preoccupation of the Gates Foundation since its inception. In 1999, Gates’s $2.2 billion commitment to the UN Population Fund doubled the size of the Gates Foundation.67 The same year, he funded, with a $20 million contribution, the founding of the Johns Hopkins Center for Population.68
In 2017, the Gates Foundation adopted the goal of administering contraceptives to 214 million women in poor countries.69 Gates’s contraceptive of choice is the long-term infertility agent Depo-Provera. Population planners have administered Depo-Provera primarily to poor and Black women in the United States since its invention in 1967. In the United States, 84 percent of Depo-Provera users are Black, and 74 percent are low-income.70 Depo-Provera’s biggest promoter, Planned Parenthood, specifically targets Blacks71 and Latinas72 in its marketing campaigns. UN data demonstrate that Depo-Provera is seldom administered to White or affluent women or girls in the United States or Europe.
Depo-Provera is a powerful poison, with a devastating inventory of wretched side effects: Under federal law, the Depo-Provera label must bear FDA’s most stringent Black Box warning—due to its potential to cause fatal bone loss. Furthermore, women have reported both missed periods and excessive bleeding; blood clots in arms, legs, lungs, and eyes; stroke; weight gain; ectopic pregnancy; depression; hair loss; decreased libido; and permanent infertility.73 Some studies have associated Depo-Provera with dramatic increases (200 percent) in breast cancer risk.74 The FDA warns women not to take Depo-Provera for longer than two years, but Gates’s program prescribes at least a four-year course—or indefinitely—for African women and goes to great lengths to avoid warning Black women about the concoction’s many drawbacks.75
Between 1994 and 2006, Bill & Melinda Gates teamed with the Rockefeller and Andrew W. Mellon Foundations, the Population Council, and USAID to fund a seminal family-planning experiment administering Depo-Provera to approximately 9,000 impoverished women in the town of Navrongo and districts of Ghana.76 (Though USAID’s stated underlying principles for family planning are “volunteerism and informed choice,” it hasn’t always worked out that way.)
A disturbing 2011 exposé of the collaboration by the Rebecca Project for Justice, “The Outsourcing of Tuskegee: Nonconsensual Research in Africa,” documented how Gates’s researchers lied to the Navrongo women, telling them that they were receiving “routine healthcare” and/or “social observations”—never informing them that they were part of a population control experiment.77 Gates’s researchers violated US research laws by failing to administer informed consent forms to the women they injected with Depo-Provera. Nor did they obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval for a human experiment that lasted an extraordinary six years. Under direction of Gates’s PI, Dr. James Phillips, and his fellow Pfizer and Gates’s PIs, deliberately fabricated and falsified research data to fraudulently “prove” Depo-Provera safe.78 Based on such “proofs,” in 2011, Gates expanded his project to fund Depo-Provera programs for some 12 million women across sub-Saharan Africa.79,80
That same year, 2011, a study by a prestigious BMGF & NIH-funded research team from Gates’s own Washington School of Public Health published an article in Lancet Infectious Diseases, written by Heffron et al. (2012), reporting that African women who used injectable Depo-Provera were much more likely to acquire HIV/AIDS compared to untreated women. Depo-Provera injections double a woman’s risk of contracting and transmitting HIV.81 This result was not an enormous surprise. For twenty-four years, diverse studies have shown that Depo-Provera thins the vaginal wall, easing transmission of HIV. Furthermore, the researchers found Depo-Provera increases the rates of HIV/AIDS infections to a recipient’s sexual partners. Despite her funding from Gates, the study’s lead author, Dr. Renee Heffron, and her fellow researchers recommended informing HIV-infected women of Depo-Provera’s grave risks and to use alternative non-progesterone-based contraceptives: “Women should be counseled about potentially increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition and transmission.”82 The confirmation of the risk by his own scientists posed an obvious conundrum for Gates since it pitted his passion for population control against his avowed commitment to end the spread of HIV in Africa. Population, it turns out, trumps HIV-prevention in Bill Gates’s catechism.
Without offering any scientific research to substantiate their claims, Gates’s deputies, a cabal of extreme population control advocates, worked with Pfizer intermediaries to viciously attack Heffron’s research findings. The critics included BMGF, Planned Parenthood, the UN, Ronald Gray of the Gates-funded Johns Hopkins University, James Shelton of USAID’s Office of Population, and others.
Under these fierce attacks by Gates’s minions in the medical cartel, Dr. Heffron and her research team courageously stood their ground and retained their professional integrity. The Lancet published Heffron’s withering response. Dr. Heffron pointed out that her attackers cited no convincing science and that the two recent studies—by Heffron and the WSPH team—capped a quarter-century of published research documenting increased HIV risk among women taking Depo-Provera.83
To combat this crisis, WHO—by then, wearing Bill Gates’s boot on its neck— convened a group of handpicked experts, all sworn to secrecy, for a closed-door meeting in Geneva on January 31, 2012, to discuss damage control on the Heffron study and the mountain of HIV research that supported her. On February 16, 2012, WHO and its mysterious expert cabal—unsurprisingly—announced its preordained decision: Women living with HIV/AIDS or at high risk of HIV/AIDS can safely use Depo-Provera.84
Betsy Hartmann, a longtime reproductive rights advocate, ridiculed WHO’s convenient new guidelines: “This reversal despite 25 years of studies citing an increased risk of HIV transmission among women using it raises question marks whether WHO abandoned caution due to ‘outside encouragement’ by special interest groups.”85 Hartmann was clearly referring to BMGF.
In the wake of WHO’s self-serving declaration, Melinda Gates announced in July 2012 a billion-dollar contribution as BMGF’s share of a four-billion-dollar collaboration with USAID, PATH, and Pfizer with the goal of promoting Pfizer’s Depo-Provera across sub-Saharan Africa.86 Pfizer and USAID committed the remaining $3 billion to African contraceptive projects.
Outcry and censure from dozens of international women’s rights advocates and reproductive health groups greeted Melinda Gates’s announcement.
According to a detailed report by Jacob Levich, “The Real Agenda of the Gates Foundation,” “Mrs. Gates minimized the proven risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS with Depo-Provera by directing the public to a contrived eight-page ‘Technical Statement’ published by the Gates Foundation’s supplicants at WHO, assuring the public that Depo-Provera is safe, and that all contrary scientific research that linked Depo-Provera to HIV infection was “inconclusive.”87
To quell the growing uproar, Gates funded a WHO study to debunk the HIV association once and for all. This time he skipped over Heffron to fund a more “reliable” group of researchers (environmental lawyers call this sort “biostitutes”). On October 21, 2015, WHO released its investigation—which, not surprisingly, concluded that “There is no evidence of a causal association between DMPA use and an incidence in women’s risk of HIV acquisition.”88 WHO then issued new guidelines that mirror precisely those recommended by Pfizer, Depo-Provera’s manufacturer.
Some forty reproductive health groups demanded that WHO’s director, Margaret Chan, sideline the new guidelines until Gates’s study could survive a rigorous reevaluation process. WHO ignored those pleas.89
The centerpiece of the Gates $4 billion caper is a “self-injection” syringe—a plastic bubble attached to a needle—for administering Depo-Provera. Pfizer creates the gizmo, but Gates’s Seattle-based legate, PATH, markets it under the new brand name “Sayana Press.” PATH’s former director, Chris Elias, was by then president of the BMGF. Through PATH, Gates will distribute these devices, costing $1 per three-month dose, to 120 million women in sixty-nine of the world’s poorest countries.90 With contributions that Gates plans to squeeze from those governments, these lucky ladies will pay little or none of the cost.
Pfizer, of course, will make a killing. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch, “Pfizer could potentially earn approximately $36 billion in sales resulting from an unprecedented Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) investment—$560 million from BMGF, totaling $4.3 billion with government contributions—that promotes Depo-Provera as the optimum contraceptive for women of color and low-income women.”91
Levich explains that this scheme is a cunning dodge to evade US regulations that require Pfizer’s label to include its dire Black Box warning bearing the words: “FDA,” “Black Box,” “warning,” and “osteoporosis,” and that the administering clinician inform every recipient that the drug poses life-threatening harm. In the United States, pharmacists can never dispense Depo-Provera directly to a patient to self-inject, since the law requires that medical personnel counsel each patient about risks. Ignoring these safeguards in Africa would expose Pfizer to criminal prosecution and thousands of lawsuits under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which could allow aggrieved African women to sue negligent US drugmakers in US courts if they suffer injuries as the result of failure to warn.92 Pfizer’s apparent strategy for insulating itself from liability is to use PATH and BMGF as surrogates to market its contraception.
Furthermore, to promote Depo-Provera’s uptake among Blacks, PATH makes a series of outlaw, off-label claims that Pfizer could not legally make about the product. PATH claims that Depo-Provera protects against endometrial cancer and uterine fibroids and reduces risks of sickle cell anemia and iron deficiency anemia—diseases that disparately injure Blacks. FDA has never approved Depo-Provera for cancer prevention or for any of these other uses. It is therefore illegal for Pfizer to promote these off-label claims. Presenting Gates and PATH as its intermediaries is apparently also Pfizer’s strategy for evading US laws that prohibit off-label claims. Levich adds: “These statements taken in totality are contextually false and designed to specifically circumvent the FDA’s Black Box warnings. If Depo-Provera is genuinely a safe and effective contraceptive, with only minimal side effects, why then are Gates, Hopkins, USAID, Planned Parenthood, and Pfizer’s other intermediaries deliberately concealing the plain “Black-Letter” FDA Black-Box warnings in their effort to minimize and conceal Depo-Provera’s life-threatening harm?”93
Put bluntly, Gates and his confederates are tricking African women into taking the contraceptive by deceiving them about its safety and lying about its efficacy against diseases that disproportionately harm Blacks—something Pfizer executives could go to jail for. Gates’s willing partner in this fraud is USAID.
USAID’s Director, Dr. Rajiv Shah, has been a serial coconspirator in Gates’s many racist flim-flams. For a decade prior to his gig running USAID, Shah worked for Bill Gates’s foundation (2001–2010) as the principal fundraiser for GAVI’s World Immunization Programs. Shah candidly acknowledged that BMGF’s and PATH’s stamp of approval on Depo-Provera serves as a clever strategy for insulating Pfizer from criminal and civil prosecution for violating FDA regulations.94 Gates’s caper aims to artfully remove the FDA’s jurisdiction by using PATH as its surrogate and by effectively transferring regulatory authority to the WHO.
The Rebecca Project for Justice characterizes Gates’s African project as “A family planning strategy that unethically targets women of color to prohibit births of beautiful [Black] children, by not informing mothers of Depo-Provera’s deadly risks as mandated under US law/regulations; thus, denying women of color their inalienable right to choose and access safe reproductive health.”95
Depo-Provera came honestly to its notoriety as the tool of choice for racist eugenicists. Israel banned Depo-Provera in 2013 following a scandal in which government health workers seeking to radically reduce the number of Black births were targeting African Jews with Depo-Provera. Sharona Eliahu Chai, lawyer for the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), condemned the government policy of preventing Black Israelis from reproducing: “Findings from investigations into the use of Depo-Provera are extremely worrisome, raising concerns of harmful health policies with racist implications in violation of medical ethics.”96
In 2002, India banned this dangerous drug from all family welfare programs after a similar scandal: government officials were targeting lower-caste Indians.97 Many other nations, including Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, prohibit the use of Depo-Provera on their nationals. European countries largely restrict the use of Depo-Provera and require full disclosure of risks for women and informed consent prior to its use. Gates and USAID have taken advantage of political disorganization in Pakistan to administer “self-inject” Depo-Provera to Muslim women. In contrast to its US counterpart, USAID, the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) does not fund, purchase, or provide Depo-Provera for Swedish-assisted projects in developing countries.98
Sterility Vaccines / Chemical Castration
Gates’s defenders ridicule as “conspiracy theory” the suggestion that Gates, or any reputable public health authority, would use “life-saving vaccines” as a stealth vehicle for surreptitiously rendering women infertile. But one of Gates’s earliest philanthropic undertakings was a 2002 project to administer tetanus vaccines to poor women in fifty-seven countries.99 For reasons we are about to discover, critics credibly suggest that these vaccines may have been secretly laced with a formula the Rockefeller Foundation developed to sterilize women against their will.
On November 6, 2014, four years after Gates pledged at a TED Talk to use vaccines to lower birth rates, medical researchers and doctors associated with the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB) and the Kenya Catholic Health Commission accused WHO, UNICEF, and GAVI of secretly conducting a mass sterilization program against Kenyan women, under the veil of eradicating tetanus disease.100, 101 The Washington Post reported similar charges by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association (KCDA).102
The Catholic doctors became suspicious due to WHO’s glaring departures from the usual tetanus vaccine protocols. Normally a single tetanus vaccine provides a decade of immunity. Since men and women are equally susceptible, both sexes routinely get the vaccine. But WHO instructed Kenyan doctors to give the vaccine in five administrations, six months apart, and only to girls of childbearing years.
“The defense that the WHO intended only to target ‘maternal and neonatal tetanus’ seems odd in view of the fact that males are about as likely as females to be exposed to the bacterium which is found in the soil everywhere there are animals,”103 observed a 2011 peer-reviewed study of the controversy. The Catholic doctors also noticed other unusual features of the campaign. For starters, WHO suspiciously initiated its jab campaign not from a hospital or medical center or any of the estimated 60 local vaccination facilities, but distributed shots from the luxurious New Stanley Hotel in Nairobi—an exclusive resort out of reach to most physicians or public health officials.104 At considerable cost, a police escort accompanied the shots to vaccination sites, where police officers strictly supervised their handling by nursing staff and required clinicians to return each empty vial to WHO officials at Nairobi’s only five-star hotel under the watchful eyes of armed officers.
Four years later, in October 2019, the Kenyan Catholic Doctors’ Association accused UNICEF, GAVI, and the WHO of rendering millions of women and girls barren.105 The doctors had by then produced chemical analyses of vaccines verifying their allegations. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples of the WHO tetanus vaccine, finding human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) where none should be present. In October 2014, Catholic doctors obtained six additional vials and tested them in six accredited laboratories, finding hCG in half of those samples.
In 2019, a group of independent researchers from Kenya and Great Britain led by University of British Columbia neurologist Dr. Christopher Shaw studied the charges and concluded that “the Kenya ‘anti-tetanus’ campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.” The medical researchers characterized the WHO program “an ethical breach of the obligation on the side of the WHO to obtain ‘informed consent’ from those Kenyan girls and women.”106
Catholic medical personnel made similar accusations about WHO’s tetanus projects in Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. Following indignant denials of all such accusations, and obligatory denunciations against its accusers, WHO grudgingly admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for decades. WHO nevertheless punished the Kenyan doctors and the community officials who reported the spiked vaccine by canceling contracts for future work.107
The Sordid History of Sterility Vaccines
It wasn’t the first time that Catholic medical authorities accused the WHO of a stealth sterilization campaign against African women. As early as November 1993, Catholic publications charged that the WHO was spiking tetanus vaccines to neuter dark-skinned women globally with potent abortifacients.108 WHO denied the explosive charges.
Shaw’s research team showed that WHO and Rockefeller Foundation scientists began research on “anti-fertility” vaccines for “birth-control” as early as 1972, by lacing hCG with tetanus toxoid, which acts as a carrier for the hormone. That year, WHO researchers at a meeting of the US National Academy of Sciences109, 110 reported their successful creation of a “birth-control” vaccine that diminishes the βhCG essential to a successful pregnancy and causes at least temporary “infertility.” Subsequent experiments proved that repeated doses could extend infertility indefinitely.111
By 1976, WHO scientists had successfully conjugated a functional “birth-control” vaccine. The WHO researchers reported triumphantly that their formula could induce “abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated.” They observed that “repeated inoculations prolong infertility.”112 More recently, in 2017, WHO researchers were working on more potent antifertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications explain that the agency’s long-range purpose is to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries.”113
The Kenyan tetanus campaign occurred shortly after Gates made his pledge of $10 billion to the WHO with the stated purpose of reducing population with “new vaccines.” Perhaps to emphasize his commitment to population control, Gates recruited his most influential vizier, Christopher Elias, as president of Global Development at the Gates Foundation the following year. Prior to that appointment, Dr. Elias was president/CEO of Gates’s nonprofit PATH, which partners with pharmaceutical companies to distribute vaccines to poor countries by persuading rich and poor governments to fork over moolah to multinational drugmakers in which Gates is invested. Elias ran PATH’s innovative “Sayana Press” injectable Depo-Provera project designed to end-run US safety regulations while reducing fertility of Black African women. That brainchild earned Elias the Klaus Schwab Foundation’s Social Entrepreneur of the Year award in 2005. The Gates Foundation provided numerous grants to PATH, including one in November 2020 (after Elias had moved over to BMGF) “to support clinical development of COVID-19 vaccines by Chinese manufacturers.”114
Before PATH, Elias had been senior associate in the international Programs Division of the Population Council, with the responsibility of dampening fecundity throughout Southeast Asia. John D. Rockefeller III founded The Population Council in 1952 at a conference he convened for the high priesthood of population control, including the director of the new Planned Parenthood Federation of America and several well-known eugenicists. Lamenting that modern civilization had reduced the operation of natural selection by saving more “weak” lives and enabling them to reproduce, resulting in “a downward trend in . . . genetic quality,” the group agreed to create an organization devoted to the “reduction of fertility.” While Rockefeller formally launched the Council with a grant of $100,000 and served as the first president, the next two Council presidents were Frederick Osborn and Frank Notestein, both members of the American Eugenics Society. The NIH and USAID were among the “start-up” funders, and US and foreign governments soon became the Council’s largest financial backers.115
The Council does research promoting the use of artificial birth control and abortion and biomedical research to discover and develop new contraceptive drugs and technologies. It collaborated with the Ford Foundation and International Planned Parenthood Foundation to develop large-scale IUD programs abroad, despite its own research doctors warning about acute adverse side effects. Later, the Council played a key role in developing the extremely dangerous hormonal contraceptive implant Norplant.116
Historian Donald T. Critchlow wrote that the Population Council “cultivated elite connections and avoided public controversy by identifying itself as a neutral, scientific organization.”117 The US Agency for International Development (USAID) conducted a decades-long partnership with the Population Council and cultivated long-term alliances with the Rockefeller Foundation and the WHO researching the use of fertility controls to reduce world population, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.118, 119 By 2014, Gates and Elias had a reliable collaborator at the federal program: USAID Director Rajiv Shah, who had, prior to winning that appointment, worked a decade for the Gates Foundation, running GAVI’s immunization program for African children.
Dr. Shah joined the Gates Foundation in 2001 and oversaw its alliance with the Rockefeller Foundation in launching the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. He directed the International Finance Facility for Immunization. The IFFI is a shady agency that finances Bill Gates’s global vaccine enterprises in developing nations through a diabolically innovative bond issuance scheme that runs up huge debts in poor countries to finance Gates’s self-serving vaccines. Using sleight of hand, IFFI enriches Gates’s pharma partners with Western financial bonds by passing the costs to future generations in poor countries. Shah raised $5 billion through this swindle for GAVI. At USAID, his primary responsibility was reorganizing the agency to reflect its new biosecurity direction under Obama’s 2009 executive order. Shah left USAID to become president of the Rockefeller Foundation in 2017. Shah has deep links to the intelligence agencies and the oil and chemical cartels. Shah serves on both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two globalist organizations that the Rockefeller/Kissinger alliance largely defined. Shah is a board member of the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit with long-standing CIA ties. In his 1991 book, Covert Network: Progressives, the International Rescue Committee and the CIA, University of Massachusetts economics professor Eric Thomas Chester exposes IRC as a CIA front. Bill Casey, a lifelong spy, who as Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director helped manage the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, chaired IRC from 1970 to 1971. IRC operates in forty countries doing “humanitarian aid.” According to its current CEO, David Miliband, the former UK foreign secretary, Shah’s role on the high-level council is to “monitor political and non-health issues related to prevention and preparedness imperatives for a potential epidemic of global proportions.”120
In 1974, USAID and WHO collaborated on the creation of a top-secret “Kissinger Report.” Henry Kissinger—whose patron was Nelson Rockefeller and whose career was deeply enmeshed with the Rockefeller Foundation—drafted the classified White Paper, which became official US policy under President Gerald Ford in 1975. That report, known as the US National Security Study Memorandum 200, outlined the geopolitical incentives for reducing population growth in “less developed countries” (LDCs) to near zero by “reducing fertility” so as to safeguard the economic interests of the United States and other industrialized nations in imported mineral resources.124, 125
Kissinger observed that the industrialized West was already having to import significant quantities of aluminum, copper, iron, lead, nickel, tin, uranium, zinc, chromium, vanadium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, sulphur, nitrogen, petroleum, and natural gas at high cost. The Kissinger Report anticipated rising prices as population growth triggered instability in African nations.128
The high-level US government commitment explains the WHO’s monumental commitment to sterility vaccines. Shaw et al. found 150 research publications emanating from WHO on various infertility formulations between 1976 and 2016 with many thousands of citations.
In the years 1993 and 1994, WHO launched antifertility vaccination campaigns in Nicaragua, Mexico, the Philippines, and Kenya in 1995. In each country, WHO and local government clinicians vaccinated women of childbearing age, telling them that the purpose of the WHO immunizations were to “eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus.”132
A subsequent WHO study of birth control policy, Bryant et al., acknowledged that WHO’s family planning “services” had involved routinely deceiving the persons “served” with “sterilization procedures being applied without full consent of the patient.”134 Similarly, a 1992 study titled “Fertility Regulating Vaccines” published by the UN and WHO Program of Research Training in Human Reproduction, reported “cases of abuse in family planning programs” dating from the 1970s including:
incentives . . . [Such as] women being sterilized without their knowledge . . . being enrolled in trials of oral contraceptives or injectables without . . . consent . . . [and] not [being] informed of possible side-effects of . . . the intrauterine device (IUD).135
The authors of that WHO report advised their partners against characterizing their work as “anti-fertility measures for population control,” observing that milder descriptions like “family planning” and “planned parenthood” were more palatable for public appetites. Speaking on behalf of the WHO, Bryant et al. admitted, “It is perhaps more conducive to a rights-based approach to implement family planning programs in response to the welfare needs of people and communities rather than in response to international concern for global overpopulation.”136
The targeted regions for the WHO tetanus campaigns are principally the same developing nations that the Kissinger Report targeted. For example, a 2015 news release by Associated Press announced “[tetanus] immunization campaigns to take place in Chad, Kenya, and South Sudan by the end of 2015 and contribute toward eliminating [maternal natal tetanus] in Pakistan and Sudan in 2016, saving the lives of countless mothers and their newborn babies.”137
The Kenya schedule was identical to the one published for the WHO birth-control conjugate of tetanus toxoid linked to βhCG: five spaced doses of “TT” vaccine at six-month intervals, which, of course, strongly contrasts with the published schedule for authentic tetanus immunization schedules.
139. BILL GATES SLAUGHTERED FETUSES USING TETANUS VACCINE SPIKED WITH PREGNANCY HORMONE