United Nations Says Three Million Will Be Immunized in Africa

Polio can cause paralysis and death if left untreated

BBC


Aid agencies are planning to immunise three million people in central Africa after a polio outbreak, which has killed more than 100 people.

Hundreds more have been paralysed by the disease, authorities have said.

The disease broke out in Congo-Brazzaville, but has also affected parts of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola.

The government said the vast majority of deaths had occurred in the city of Pointe-Noire in Congo-Brazzaville.

Congo-Brazzaville had previously recorded its last case of indigenous polio in 2000.

The vaccination plan is being conducted by several aid agencies, including Unicef and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The C.D.C.'s Greatest Health Achievements

7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned

Blood on Their Hands: The World’s Slickest Con Job and a Stack of Deadly LIES...

Supreme Court Weighs Whether Vaccine Makers Can Be Sued

Enemy Of The State

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Obama Administration Financially Supports China’s Population Policies Through UN Population Fund

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com 
September 18, 2010

Steven Mosher, founder and president of the Population Research Institute put out a video recently, exposing the UN-endorsed depopulation policies in China that, as Mosher explains, “continue to this day.”

After the Bush administration in 2001 decided to cut US government funding for the United Nations Population Fund’s China program, the Obama administration is now planning to fill the pockets of the United Nations Population Fund with fresh federal funds once again. Even though recent investigations exposed the UNFPA’s intimate involvement in China’s coercive birth control policies, the new administration apparently cares not, as it allocated $50 million to the eugenicists.

Only days after his inauguration, President Barack Obama announced he would resume funding for the UNFPA and its ‘family planning’ activities in China and elsewhere around the globe. State Department spokesman Robert Wood explained the allocation with the following argumentation:

“The United States is a global leader in promoting voluntary family planning and the health of vulnerable women and children in the developing world.”

As it turns out, the concept of voluntarism is not easily reconcilable with the Chinese government’s aim of reducing its population. On July 7th, LifeSiteNews.Com reported that UNFPA’s claim that it “played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China” is patently false. Steven Mosher explained the policies of the Chinese government- partially funded by the UNFPA- as follows:

“Women continue to be arrested for the crime of being pregnant. They continue to be forcibly aborted. Minorities continue to be targeted. The handicapped are forbidden children. These violations of human rights are occurring right under the UNFPA‘s nose. It is ludicrous to suggest that the UN population controllers do not know about them.”

These facts are in stark contrast with the claims of the United Nations Population Fund, who back in 2001 maintained that reproductive health programs are “fully voluntary”. The Population Research Institute however traveled to China’s provinces and counties where the UN Population people are active. What they witnessed is heart rendering:

“In every village in one UNFPA county, billboard propaganda urges women to help the economy by complying with family planning policies. PRI interviewed dozens of other women and men, all of whom confirmed- without exception- that voluntarism is non-existent in this county where UNFPA operates.”

Even today, the website of the UNFPA uses the argument of the economic crisis to convince people to cut down on the number of children:

“In the context of the financial crisis, when resources are limited, investing in family planning is even more attractive – because it is a cost-effective intervention with both short term and long term impact.”

Based on firsthand observations by the Population Research Institute, to say that the situation is dire would be an understatement:

“Only about five miles from an UNFPA office- in a county where UNFPA claims that women are free to determine the timing and spacing of their pregnancies- PRI interviewed a young woman who reported that she came under severe pressure to have an abortion. (…) To avoid a forced abortion, this woman fled to a neighbouring town where she went into hiding (…). Unable to locate her, family planning officials attempted to force the woman out of hiding and into an abortion by arresting the woman’s mother, father, brother, sister, and mother- and brother-in-law. They were held in jail for four months. (…) While her relatives were being held in jail, to further increase the pressure on her to have an abortion, their homes were partly destroyed. The attack occurred on April 5, 2000, on the occasion of a major Chinese festival, Qingming. Family planning crews armed with jackhammers attacked this woman’s house, and her brother- and father-in-law’s homes, hammering great holes in the floors, walls, ceilings and roofs of these homes. In addition, they ransacked the homes.”

UNFPA’s response? In their ‘Draft country programme document for China’ in 2005, the organization states that “UNFPA will continue to use the results of the systematic monitoring, evaluation and research of its operational project sites to work with key partners to facilitate and advocate programme changes.”

Furthermore, the “draft” explains that: “UNFPA and the Government will build on previous experiences in the area of reproductive health in China, including those of partners such as the World Health Organization, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and The Ford Foundation.”

Who could these “family planning crews” be exactly, described by the Population Research Institute as thugs looking for pregnant women to intimidate? The UNFPA states that:

‘The UNFPA country office consists of a representative, two national programme officers, two junior professional officers, and national programme and support staff. National project personnel may be recruited to strengthen programme implementation.’

Reproductive health: the ultimate euphemism. Just like “family planning” (who will do the planning) and “cost-effective intervention”. These are cold words from cold organizations dedicated to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better.

Documenting these atrocities in great detail within a 2001 report by the Population Research Institute forced the Bush administration to withdraw their support and funding for the UNFPA indefinitely. Despite the alarming reports however, the current administration has shaken the money-tree once again, providing the UNFPA with the necessary funding to continue their dubious undertakings in the People’s Republic of China. PRI’s lead investigator Colin Mason:

“The Obama administration has demonstrated an alarming ideological bent in favor of groups like the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood, groups that have been repeatedly shown a laissez-faire attitude toward human rights and national and international laws.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

“We believe that the evidence is conclusive”, stated the PRI-spokesman. “The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China, and should therefore be ineligible for US funds.”

The Obama administration nevertheless has said and continues to say: ‘so what?’- while pouring American taxpayer money straight into China’s eugenics programs.

Source:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070709.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032712.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/oct/011005c.html

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 2, 2010

It’s the eugenicist in the Discover Channel building multiplied by a million. Not simply a lone eco-terrorist saying “parasitic human infants” must die, but one of the largest international financial institutions demanding it. To make the contrast even more remarkable, James J. Lee scared the living daylights out of some Discovery Channel employees, the IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

	The IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control:

“(…) economic policy and performance in the next decade will matter for population growth in the developing countries for several decades beyond; population policy and change in the rest of this century will set the terms for the whole of development strategy in the next.”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report does not shy away from outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Bizarrely, the report even goes so far as to suggest introducing “sterilization vans” and “camps”:

“Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.”

  Print this page.

FREE trial - Get out of Debt with DebtGoal Huge Coupon Savings! 

$15 off orders of $40 or more at Botanic Choice. Free Shipping on $50 or more. Coupon Code BC15. Expires 9/30/2010

Conclusive: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
August 27, 2010

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 on the development of birth control vaccines directed against thegametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By 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.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.