William Gates, the founder of Microsoft, is related to several famous and powerful families. Gates is related to members of the Bush (both President Bush’s), Rockefeller, the Roosevelts (Theodore and FDR), and Morgan (as in JP).
Back in the Progressive Era of the United States, eugenics was all the rage among wealthy elitists and politicians alike.
The Captains of Eugenics and Genocide
“Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.
Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.
In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz...
During the ’20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany’s fascist eugenicists. In “Mein Kampf,” published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. “There is today one state,” wrote Hitler, “in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “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.…
During the Reich’s early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler’s plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.…
At the time of Rockefeller’s endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer’s early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenics press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenics doctor’s journal he edited, that Germany’s war would yield a “total solution to the Jewish problem.”
Verschuer had a longtime assistant. His name was Josef Mengele.
On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, “My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer (Himmler).
Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer’s institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin’s eugenic institutes.
Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenics studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the great institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.
After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity — an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense — to no avail. They were found guilty.
However, Mengele’s boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re- established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade “human genetics.”
The Link between the Rockefeller Foundation and Racial Hygiene in Nazi Germany shares the following:
“The robust support for eugenics among American elite makes it no surprise that the Rockefeller Foundation involved itself in funding research in the field. The Carnegie Foundation had already established a eugenics research center in the United States at Cold Spring Harbor. It was time for the Rockefeller Foundation to bring eugenics abroad.
John D. Rockefeller Jr., head of the Rockefeller Foundation since 1897, had a strong interest in eugenics – specifically population control. He had learned population control theory from his professors at Brown University, many of whom viewed rapid population growth and immigration as serious threats. Rockefeller would later join the American Eugenics Society and become a trustee of the Bureau of Social Hygiene.
Some would describe him as “shy and intensely private,” but records show that John D. Rockefeller Jr. enjoyed sharing his ideas regarding eugenics.16 He corresponded with Charles Davenport, the Director of the Carnegie-funded Eugenics Records Office, regarding his personal ideas for incarcerating weak-minded women for longer than their jail sentence so they “would…be kept from perpetuating their kind…until after the period
of child bearing had passed.”
A Study of the United States Influence on German Eugenics describes how “Germany would not have been able to achieve the goals it had set forth in its pursuit of racial hygiene had it not been for the groundwork established by the United States nor without the funding given during the early days of eugenics in Germany:”
“America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions as well as providing the framework and guidance for the development of their eugenics research. By 1926, the Rockefeller Foundation had donated some $410,000, almost $4 million in today’s money, to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, the Rockefeller Foundation awarded $250,000 toward creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.
Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s complex of eugenics institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915 it had only operated out of a single room, and in 1926 everything changed when the Rockefeller money began to arrive. A grant of $317,000 allowed the institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the institute, once again, was Hitler’s future medical henchman Ernst Rüdin.”
The Rockefeller Institute, a Failed Vaccine, and the 1918 Spanish Flu
The origin of the 1918 Spanish Flu in the United States was Fort Perry, a military base in Kansas. The Spanish Flu is believed to be the deadliest pandemic in human history, with a death toll ranging from a low of 21 million to a high of 100 million people. And the Rockefeller Institute was connected to several major aspects of the pandemic.
Frederick Taylor Gates served as an advisor to John D. Rockefeller and oversaw Rockefeller’s charitable donations. Gates wrote a paper entitled A Report on the Antimeningitis Vaccination and Observations On Agglutinins in the Blood of Chronic Meningococcus Carriers. The paper was published on July 20, 1918.
The paper discussed the Rockefeller Institutes work with military doctors at Camp Funston, Kansas to develop a meningitis vaccination:
“Following an outbreak of epidemic meningitis at Camp Funston, Kansas, in October and November, 1917, a series of antimeningitis vaccinations was undertaken on volunteer subjects from the camp.
Major E. H. Schorer, Chief of the Laboratory Section at the adjacent Base Hospital at Fort Riley, offered every facility at his command and cooperated in the laboratory work connected with the vaccinations. In the camp, under the direction of the Division Surgeon, Lieutenant Colonel J. L. Shepard, a preliminary series of vaccinations on a relatively small number of volunteers served to determine the appropriate doses and the resultant local and general reactions. Following this series, the vaccine was offered by the Division Surgeon to the camp at large, and “given by the regimental surgeons to all who wished to take it.”
“Since several influenza pandemics in preceding centuries were already well-known and had come from the orient, Jordan first considered Asia as the source. But he found no evidence. Influenza did surface in early 1918 in China, but the outbreaks were minor, did not spread, and contemporary Chinese scientists, trained by Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University) investigators, stated they believed these outbreaks were endemic disease unrelated to the pandemic…
Jordan considered other possible origins of the pandemic in early 1918 in France and India. He concluded that it was highly unlikely that the pandemic began in any of them…
That left the United States. Jordan looked at a series of spring outbreaks there. The evidence seemed far stronger. One could see influenza jumping from Army camp to camp, then into cities, and traveling with troops to Europe. His conclusion: the United States was the site of origin.
A later equally comprehensive, multi-volume British study of the pandemic agreed with Jordan. It too found no evidence for the influenza’s origin in the Orient, it too rejected the 1916 outbreak among British troops, and it too concluded, “The disease was probably carried from the United States to Europe….
The Rockefeller Institute, whose investigators were intimately involved in the problem, alone included extraordinary people..
Both contemporary epidemiological studies and lay histories of the pandemic have identified the first known outbreak of epidemic influenza as occurring at Camp Funston, now Ft. Riley, in Kansas. But there was one place where a previously unknown – and remarkable – epidemic of influenza occurred...
On March 4 the first soldier at the camp reported ill with influenza at sick call. The camp held an average of 56,222 troops…Soldiers moved uninterrupted between Funston and the outside world, especially to other Army bases and France.”
The same military base where the Rockefeller Institute was performing trials involving an experimental vaccination in 1917 also became the epicenter for the 1918 Spanish Flu.
The Rockefeller Foundation extracted and kept 16 strains of meningococci, hoping to utilize the strains to create an effective vaccine:
“The inclusion of any considerable number of strains in a vaccine for human use might defeat the purpose of the vaccination by the introduction of toxic amounts of bacterial protein without a sufficient quantity of any one specific antigen to give rise to protection against its given strain. But since 70 to 85 per cent of the cases of epidemic meningitis are caused by meningococci of the two main types, the limitation of the strains in a vaccine to representatives of these types would seem to be the rational procedure, holding out hope of protection against a large proportion of disease-producing strains.
Therefore, for the vaccine used at Camp Funston only three organisms were chosen from the stock of The Rockefeller Institute, but the vaccine may be regarded as having represented the two main types of the meningococcus. It was also anticipated that the epidemic at Camp Funston might furnish some strain or strains of meningococci not closely related to the main types and which ought therefore to be included in the vaccine, but a type study at Fort Riley showed that the sixteen strains recovered from active cases in December and January would be covered by a vaccine containing normal and parastrains.”
L.T., a second Lieutenant with the 314th Engineers, was one of the study subjects who experienced side effects from the experimental vaccine. A lumbar puncture showed that L.T. had a moderate amount of Gram-positive Diplococci. Diplococci is a bacteria that can cause bacterial pneumoniae (Streptococcus pneumoniae). Diplococci was discovered in 1881. Streptococcus pneumonia is also the bacteria that causes meningitis. Meaning that the bacteria used in the vaccine for meningitis could result in bacterial pneumonia. The Diplococci was found in L.T. on February 2nd, 1918. The first reported case of the Spanish Flu at Fort Perry? March 4th, 1918.
By 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (part of the National Institute of Health) concluded that most deaths associated with the 1918 Spanish Flu were actually caused by bacterial Pneumonia. The study was co-authored by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the President of the NIAID the current head of the CDC.
Dr. Fauci stated the following:
“The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths. In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch.”
Dr. Fauci outlined how “a similar pattern of viral damage by bacterial invasion,” could emerge during the next pandemic threat.
James Morris, a retired Pathologist, performed thousands of post-mortem examinations on patients who died from viral respiratory causes. Morris shared that:
“It is most unusual for the virus to act alone. In most cases there is a secondary contribution to inflammation from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal bacterial pathogens. This can be overt as in bacterial pneumonia or bacterial sepsis; or it can be covert when bacterial induced inflammation triggers myocardial infarction or stroke.
I strongly suspect that the same applies to Covid 19. The disease can be asymptomatic, mild or moderate, or severe and potentially fatal. Viral load will be a variable but there are also likely to be bacterial co-factors. The reports from China record indirect evidence of secondary bacterial infection in the form of raised neutrophil counts and raised procalcitonin levels. Most severely affected patients have evidence of sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome and nearly all have received high dose parenteral antibiotic therapy . Staphylococcus aureus is a common nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal bacterial pathogen . Many strains produce pyrogenic toxins and these could cause the cytokine cascade seen in severe cases of Covid 19.
If the public are advised to wear face masks, we must be certain that this will not adversely affect the bacterial flora of the upper respiratory tract. I am not aware of research in adults relevant to this question but there is quite extensive evidence from another field of study in which viral infection interacts with bacterial pathogens to cause sudden death…This is directly relevant to the question of home-made cloth face masks. There is a potential for bacterial pathogens to grow in moist mucus soaked within the material, this could adversely alter the upper respiratory tract flora. Inhalation of bacteria and viruses directly into the lung in patients incubating Covid 19 could then risk synergistic interaction and a rapid deterioration in the patient’s condition.“
Clothe masks are not recommended for health-care workers, as “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.” Full-time mask wearing can lead to accumulation of bacteria in the mouth.
A group of Professors and experts wrote an article entitled “Face Masks for the Public During the COVID-19 Crisis,” which stated the following:
“A 2010 systematic review of face masks in influenza epidemics, which included standard surgical masks and respirator masks and found some efficacy of masks if worn by those with respiratory symptoms but not if worn by asymptomatic individuals.”
“Two further systematic reviews have since been released as preprints. Xiao and colleagues reviewed non-pharmaceutical measures for prevention of influenza. They identified 10 randomised controlled trials published between 1946 and 2018 that tested the efficacy of face masks (including standard surgical masks and commercially produced paper face masks designed for the public) for preventing laboratory confirmed influenza. A pooled meta-analysis found no significant reduction in influenza transmission (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.20; I2=30%, P=0.25). They also identified seven studies conducted in households; four provided masks for all household members, one for the sick member only, and two for household contacts only. None showed a significant reduction in laboratory confirmed influenza in the face mask arm. The authors concluded: “randomized controlled trials of [face masks] did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
So not only do masks fail to prevent transmission of asymptomatic COVID-19, they can increase the risk of bacteria and fungi exposure. Dr. Fauci is well-aware of the bacterial infections being the primary cause of death attributed to the Spanish Flu in 1918.
Another consideration is whether the Rockefeller Foundation’s meningitis vaccine experiment, which involved the use of bacteria known to cause bacterial pneumonia, played a role in the Spanish Flu outbreak in March 1918 at Fort Perry, Kansas.
The Rockefeller Foundation, the China Board of Medicine, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology
In 1914, Gates oversaw the creation of the Chinese Medical Board, which was funded by the Rockefeller Institute.
The Rockefeller Foundation provided a $12 million endowment to the CMB and sought to create medical schools in Peking (Peking Union Medical College) and Shanghai that would be accessible to an elite group of Chinese students. By 1933, the Rockefeller contributed a total of $37 million ($736,615,923.08 when adjusted for inflation in 2020) to the CMB project.
“PUMC resumed limited operations in 1947, but RF staff debated the Foundation’s role as nationalist and Communists factions fought for supremacy. Could they stay above the fray and continue their work? What was the Foundation’s role likely to be as a new political order took shape? Alan Gregg saw that Communism, which in the U.S. represented a challenge to capitalism, meant something else to the Chinese. Communism in China battled a feudal order. He concluded that this “puts American aid in combating Chinese Communism into some odd attitudes and curious commitments.”
In 1947, amid the uncertainty about PUMC’s future, the Foundation made a terminal grant of $10 million to the CMB. But in 1951 the People’s Republic of China nationalized PUMC and severed ties with the RF and CMB, Inc.
Between 1915 and 1951, the RF and CMB, Inc. spent well over $50 million on medical initiatives in China, nearly $45 million of it to establish PUMC.“
The total investments until 1933 equaled $37 million, with contributions between 1933 and 1951 equating to $13 million. Adjusted for inflation, the Rockefeller Foundation spend $866,021,423.08 on the CMB and PUMC projects.
Gates’ goal for the CMB was “to make Chinese medical care the finest in the world, and in the process close the chasm that he saw between denominational Christianity and the needs of the modern world. Although the story of the China Medical Board is the story of a failed vision, it also affords a glimpse of the cracks at the base of modern American philanthropy.”
The Rockefeller Foundation also provided funding for Wuhan University and provided grants for the Population Council.
The Director and Deputy Director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology received degrees at Wuhan University (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation). Deputy Director General Gengfu Xiao of the Wuhan Institute of Virology is also the Director of the State Key Laboratory of Virology.
That places the Rockefeller Foundation as the center of the two worst pandemics in the last 103 years.
Dr. Fauci’s role is equally troubling.
In 2018, “the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million…
A decade ago, during a controversy over gain-of-function research on bird-flu viruses, Dr. Fauci played an important role in promoting the work. He argued that the research was worth the risk it entailed because it enables scientists to make preparations, such as investigating possible anti-viral medications, that could be useful if and when a pandemic occurred.
The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn’t been deliberately infected contracted the disease.“
The Rockefeller Foundation, Population Council, and Population Control Through IUDs, Birth Control, and Contraceptives Under the Guise of Women and Family Planning Rights
The Rockefeller Foundation is also dedicated to population control, supporting the creation of the Population Council. Rockefeller Foundation provides funding and grants for researchers. In The Population Council and Population Control in Postwar East Asia By Yu-ling Huang, which is featured on the Rockefeller Foundation website, the author discusses how rapid population growth has diminished the quality of life for citizens in certain countries. The paper reviews family planning and other population control measures taken by countries such as Japan:
“The ongoing Nuremburg trials on the abuse of sterilization and the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control first made General MacArthur concerned, as early as 1945, that U.S. interventions in Japan’s population policies were both unworkable and undesirable. Later, in 1949, General MacArthur adjusted his stance on Japan’s birth control movement and noted that “[t]he movement for birth control in Japan, as in the West, was something that could not be stopped” (Oakley 1978: 625). SCAP, influenced by MacArthur’s changing attitudes and its American technical experts, began to protect the Japanese population control movement from external intervening forces such as Soviet harassment and the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the American officials and experts “worked behind the scenes to assist the Japanese in developing policy and program.
Hubert G. Schenck, who had served as Chief of the Natural Resources Section for SCAP in Japan, already was aware of Taiwan’s population density when he met with the Rockefeller Foundation’s (RF) survey team in Japan in 1948. In 1951, the State Department borrowed him from the Army and set him up as Chief of the Economic Cooperation Administration, Mutual Security Agency (MSA) in Formosa (Taiwan). Soon after his arrival, he wrote to Evans of the RF to express his interest in the 1948 survey and to request that the RF send a team of demographers to continue their population studies of Taiwan. Evans exchanged ideas about possible assistance with Taeuber of the OPR and replied to Schenck that the RF believed that encouraging a study of population and relevant problems by the Chinese or by a joint project of both Chinese and Americans would be less controversial than a “staff study” directed and financed by MSA. They also passed along the names of several indigenous individuals and agencies that the American experts considered capable of handling such research. Schenck zealously pursued this, and in February 1952, Evans, as a RF representative, met with Premier CHEN Cheng and other highranking officials such as Secretary General Wang Shih-chieh, the Chief of the Joint Committee of Rural Reconstruction (JCRR) Chiang Mon-lin, and Foreign Minister George Yeh. The Premier acknowledged that population control was one of many important issues that the postwar Kuomingtang (KMT) regime was facing in Taiwan. In order to avoid tensions, both sides agreed from the start that any project should have “as indigenous, objective, [and] autonomous [a] research character as possible.” Evans and Schenck soon contacted the OPR at Princeton and the JCRR. Notestein, then the director of the OPR, sent a grant proposal drafted by the OPR to Chiang Mon-lin, who later submitted it to the RF on behalf of the JCRR. With financial support from the RF, Princeton demographer George Barclay, whose dissertation focused on colonial Taiwan’s population from 1905 to 1945, was sent by the OPR to Taiwan in 1952 as a consultant to Dr. S.C. Hsu, Director of the JCRR’s Rural Medical Division…
After their investigation in the Far East, the RF team suggested that a new population division within the foundation was needed. RF staff, however, were concerned that birth control was such a sensitive and controversial issue that setting up a division explicitly concerned with population might encounter opposition from the Catholic leaders that they worked with,
especially in Latin America. In fact, the US federal government had a similar attitude toward the issues of population control and birth control at that time. The RF‟s reluctance to confront the issue of population control directly resulted partly from the lack of effective contraceptive methods in the early 1950s. In addition, many staff at the RF believed that American agricultural technology would be able to increase the food supply enough to meet the demands of the world’s increasing population. These factors kept the RF from going beyond medical and demographic research…
As a central agency focusing on conducting scientific research and finding solutions to the world’s population problems, the PC’s (Population Council) objectives and missions included: studying the increasing population of the world and its pertinent problems, disseminating the knowledge resulting from such study, serving as a center for the collection and exchange of facts and information on population issues, coordinating individual and collective efforts in the development of population programs.”
The Population Council makes it clear that birth control and abortion are methods to reduce, ie “control,” populations. Birth control and abortion were framed as family and women’s rights issues instead of their actual intent as population control measures:
“In accordance with the differing national situations, the PC began its work in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan with different emphases. Japan’s total fertility rate (TFR) declined from 4.3 in 1949, to 2.0, around replacement level, in 1957, and remained stable into the 1970s (Atoh 2004: 42-43). The decrease in the birth rate was attributable to the availability of various birth control methods and the legalization of abortion. The 1948 National Eugenics Law and its later amendments in 1949 and 1952 liberalized provisions for abortion and made abortion legal for economic reasons and expanded provisions for practical instruction about contraception. The revised harmaceutical regulations also lifted the ban on manufacturing and selling contraceptives in 1949 (Norgren 2001).
It is noteworthy that the government framed its support for contraception as a measure supporting maternal health instead of as a solution to population problems. Not until 1953 did the Cabinet establish a permanent Council for Population Problems to deal with Japan’s overpopulation and its consequences—lack of sufficient jobs, difficulty in establishing a selfsupporting economy, confusion of social order, and hindrance of international peace. The population policies were adopted, although not through the Cabinet’s direct support for birth control per se, but by its relying on public health programs, such as family planning programs and local health centers, to disseminate contraceptive information and tools.“
The Population Council applied the same strategy to Taiwan:
“Under the supervision of American experts in the fields of demography and public health, the Taichung Studies collected data on Taiwanese women’s reproductive behaviors, educated them about contraceptives, and monitored their fertility by mobilizing public health nurses and staff to carry on detailed surveys and home visits. Lippes Loops—an intrauterine device (IUD) recently developed by the PC—was introduced into Taiwan in the first large-scale experiment in the world involving the cooperation of midwives and obstetricians and gynecologists. As mentioned above, for reasons of political sensitivity, the early stage of the Taichung Studies was framed as pre-pregnancy counseling, instead of family planning, but its remarkable accomplishment of gathering fertility data, organizing medical providers, and achieving impressive IUD insertion rates soon made the Taichung Studies a model of family planning in the developing world from the standpoint of the American experts and international agencies who were eager to disseminate effective contraceptive ideas and practices.“
The Population Council also implemented these same methods of population control in Korea, which included funding for Planned Parenthood:
“Subsequently the PC granted funds to several Korean universities, voluntary organizations and governmental agencies for cooperative projects on population studies and family planning. The recipients of these grants included: Yonsei University for FP research (1962, 1964, 1965); Seoul National University for vasectomy experiments in animals (1963), for the establishment of a demography library (1963), for a field survey of fertility trends (1964), and for a population research center (1965); Planned Parenthood Federation of Korea (PPFK) for several FP and IUD studies (1963, 1964, 1965); and the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs for a consultant on the manufacture of contraceptives (1963) and for a demographic and medical advisor (1965).
The government‟s determination to carry out FP programs with rigorous efforts impressed the American consultants (Connelly 2008). On the other hand, the launch of nationwide family planning programs did not provoke serious social debates in the 1960s, due in part to the military regime’s firm stance. Nevertheless, the literature of science studies suggests that Korean society viewed Western biomedicine, including reproductive technology such as IUD and sterilization, as a symbol of modernization, and that this explains why medical interventions prompted virtually no social resistance but were quickly accepted by the Korean people.”
The Population Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The Population Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are allies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has provided 38 grants to the Population Council.
Since April 1998, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have provided $92,040,315 in grants to the Population Council. Remember, the Population Council has advocated IUDs, contraceptives, and abortion as methods of population control. The programs are portrayed as women and productive rights issues, given that the Catholic Church has opposed many policies pushed by the Population Council.
Wuhan University and Peking Union Medical College are both connected with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has provided 47 grants to benefit China in 2020 alone, including grants to the Chinese CDC:
Another powerful connection Bill Gates has is through his father, who was a founding partner of K&L Gates law firm. K&L Gates alums include Dick Thornburgh (former PA Governor and Attorney General for the Western District of PA), Rick Santorum (an anti-Trumper), Eric Schneiderman, and Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. Judge Ranjan denied an injunction Trump’s legal team filed.
Eric Schneiderman is the former New York Attorney General who opened a criminal investigation against the Trump family. Four women accused Schneiderman of sexual misconduct.
Bill Gates has criticized Trump’ handling of the pandemic.
While Trump has openly criticized Dr. Fauci, the Gates Foundation has collaborated with Fauci through global health projects. Fauci sat on the leadership board for the Decade of Vaccines collaboration:
Regardless of the reasons, Trump and the Gates’ seem to be at odds.
What Does This Mean?
Plenty of conspiracy theories have circulated the internet involving Gates, vaccinations, and COVID-19.
The truth is Gates, Rockefeller, and other billionaires have endorsed eugenic policies for over a century. The Population Council is open and direct with its objectives to push countries to embrace contraceptives and abortions to reduce populations. While that may benefit the overall quality of life, manipulating the public and governments across the world by claiming the goal of abortions and contraceptives involves reproductive rights is dishonest to its core.
If population control is truly in the best interest of all humans, organizations like the Population Council don’t have the moral or ethical right to make decisions on behalf of humanity.
The Rockefeller Foundation has focused on virology and vaccines for over a century, funding medical colleges in China which now are connected to a global pandemic. The Rockefeller Foundation embraced eugenics and funded Nazi scientists.
Facts aren’t conspiracy theories. The truth is billionaire elitists have controlled public health objectives for decades while lying to the public about their intent. The idea to manipulate population control as a personal right has had a detrimental impact on society. Partisan behavior has led to activists demanding policies such as unrestricted abortions and cheap/free contraceptives. These activists are unaware that they are being used as pawns to make it easier for billionaires like Bill Gates to succeed in population control measures.
It takes a particular lack of conscience and absolute disregard for human life to manipulate global populations to limit reproduction. The eugenics concepts at the root of the Rockefeller Foundation and its ties to the Population Council makes it unsurprising that the proliferation of Planned Parenthood facilities, which connect individuals to abortion services and provide contraceptives, are largely based in low income and high minority areas in the United States. The push to provide contraceptives in third-world countries demonstrates the implicit racist eugenic ideals at the root of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Population Council. The connections to Nazi research heightens the concern that a group of billionaires has systemically engaged in human rights violations.
The auspicious coincidence that the Spanish Flu happened to break out at Fort Perry months after experiments involving vaccines that contained bacteria that can cause pneumonia demonstrates that the Wuhan Institute snafu with COVID-19 may not be an anomaly. When billionaires treat soldiers and other groups as test dummies with experimental vaccines, perhaps, as a society, we should question whether they should be allowed to have a controlling interest in public health and policy.
Morally, the basis for medical treatment is consent. If groups like the Population Council are intentionally lying to citizens and governments alike about their actual intent, than all services they render or ultimately assist with providing are involuntary.
But, more importantly, we each have an obligation to conduct our own research. Reading headlines from articles or relying on the press to deliver the answers is a path to ignorance and poor decision making. The facts are not always delivered in a Tweet or a Facebook post.
As free people, it is our obligation to ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens to ensure those with the most power don’t abuse it. Freedom is only maintained when a populace is able to make informed decisions.
The dangers we face are beyond politics. The dignity of human life is under attack by outdated and racist eugenics belief that permeates among the elite. If equality is the goal, technocrats and oligarchs are the true threat free people must overcome.