Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=140545 March 26, 2012
1: Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For "Mass-Scale" Fertility Reduction
In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called "anti-fertility vaccines" and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:
"(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity.Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here."
The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:
"We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two "modern" methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale."
The possibility of administrating hormone preparations to reduce fertility was also mentioned, although- states the report- they have been known to "cause bleeding problems, which may limit their usefulness."
"A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined."
Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:
"The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:
1- "Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;"
2- "Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;"
3- "Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;"
4- "Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry."
The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?
"There are an estimated five million women among America's poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas."
It wasn't long before all the Foundation's efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation's Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:
"India's National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule."
In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn't forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:
"The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…)."
In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.
Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and "someone who believes strongly in women's right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion", is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order:
"Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as 'safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible'. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false - for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine's long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the
vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use."
http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/26/rockefeller-soft-kill-depopulation-plans-exposed/ MORE:
http://www.infowars.com/for-the-record-rockefeller-soft-kill-depopulation-plans-exposed/ 
Dr. Sarah's back with a brand new episode of Pet Talk to discuss one of nature's nasty little creatures, ticks, revealing how you and your companion animals can deal with these blood-sucking menaces. Unfortunately, tick populations have blossomed in recent years, a bane to almost anyone who enjoys the great outdoors. And, with tick season about to begin, you need to know how to protect – and defend – against these disease-carrying critters. Dr. Sarah shares her best tips and dispels common myths about how to handle one of nature's nuisances. Watch this informative video now …
Everyone knows "doggie breath" can be quite unpleasant. But few realize its presence can indicate an actual disease … sadly, it's one that affects the vast majority of dogs over the age of three. While it may prove offensive to you, it might actually be painful for your pup, and could lead to other more dangerous health issues, too. Fortunately, there is something you can do to help your furry companion! In her latest veterinary-health post, Dr. Jane provides pet parents a brief, three-point review of doggie dental health. Be sure to read this post now …
