It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by unityemissions
I defer to the decent members of ats to see the lies clearly displayed and called out.
There is no reason attempting to debate this further.
Originally posted by unityemissions
Actually, I'll adress your last point, because it's super easy.
An increased standard of living via increased health and productivity. That leads to a lower birthrate, naturally.
Do you honestly not comprehend that?
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. 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."
The GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)
The GAVI Alliance, founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, has the goal of vaccinating all of the third world. The member organizations of GAVI are listed on group’s the website, which include:
“…national governments of donor and developing countries, the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO).”
In December of 2000, David Rockefeller and William H. Gates Sr., among others, (pictured to the right) visited the Rockefeller University campus to take part in a meeting on “Philanthropy in a Global Century”. While there, Gates spoke glowingly about his inspiration from Rockefeller in founding GAVI,
“Gates said that ‘Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.’”
He also praised the Rockefeller family’s century of philanthropy, saying, ‘It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.’”
The fact that such a global mechanism like GAVI exists – in the hands of outspoken population control advocates – for delivering vaccines to millions of people across the world should be disconcerting to say the least; Especially when confronted with the mountains of documentation proving that anti-fertility vaccines have been researched and delivered by the World Health Organization with grant money from the Rockefeller Foundation.
As Jurriaan Maessen reports, the World Health Organization, one of GAVI’s partners, teamed up with the World Bank and UN Population Fund in the 1970′s under the “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. 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.”
In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India on the use of ‘carriers’ such as Tetanus Toxoid and Diphtheria to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The research paper was carried in the Oxford University Press in 1990 and was titled “Bypass by an alternate ‘carrier’ of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine.” The Rockefeller Foundation is listed in the document as giving grants for the research.
By delivering hCG within a Tetanus vaccine – which acts as the carrier – the human body treats hCG as an intruder and creates antibodies against it. This has the effect of sterilizing women who receive the vaccine, and in many cases miscarriage when given during pregnancy.
from: Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No 25, December 1995, pages 2-5
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-FERTILITY VACCINES
CHALLENGING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
© Ute Sprenger
===== Over recent decades, researchers have been exploiting new contraceptive methods to use in family planning programmes in the South. Within the scope of medical application of modern biotechnologies, the development of anti-fertility vaccines is a new approach. However, these new vaccines do not really benefit the user, says Ute Sprenger. =====
Modern biotechnologies in the health care sector not only serve as a basis for prevention, new diagnostic methods and cures for diseases. They also make intervention into the domain of human reproduction possible through the development of a variety of new methods and products to control fertility. While the significance of artificial insemination is negligible for the majority of people in the South, the possibility to prevent pregnancy is of major importance. Many advocates of population control policy envisage anti-fertility vaccines, once on the market, as a promising contraceptive. Unlike conventional methods, such as the intra-uterine device, the pill, hormone injections and implants, contraceptive vaccines use the immune system to induce antibodies against hormones or other molecules involved in human reproduction. Although these vaccines can be used by both men and women, most of the research is directed towards women, as scientists perceive the female cycle to be the easiest target.
Proponents of anti-fertility vaccines claim that they offer a wider choice of family planning methods. However, from a user s perspective two questions need to be answered: (1) does this new technology empower women to gain more autonomy over their fertility?; and (2) does it improve their health?
Over the last two decades world wide research on fertility regulating vaccines has been conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO). Some prototype vaccines have undergone or are currently undergoing clinical trials in several countries. The entirely new immunological approach is based on the idea that a long-term contraceptive method, intended for use in family planning programmes in countries with low levels of medical care, should require little motivation of the user, should be cheap, and should be simple to apply by the provider.
The approach is an integral part of the strategy of demographic control, which has provided a series of long-lasting, provider- dependent birth control methods since the 1960s. At a 1989 WHO symposium on the safety and efficacy of anti- fertility vaccines the chairman summarized the debate: "Foremost in my mind during these discussions was our difficulty in assessing the urgency of the demographic crisis. To the extent that the impact of that crisis increases, the need for more effective family planning technologies must increase. At the very least, failure to develop something that may provide a more effective technology would be to take a grave and unnecessary risk."
In the early 1970s a group of scientists came together at the WHO to discuss the impact of the advances in biosciences on birth control. In 1973 the WHO established the Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation, as part of the HRP. The HRP, today under the auspices of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the WHO and the World Bank, concentrates on research and development of contraceptive methods and services in developing countries and its social, ethical, legal and regulatory issues.
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.
Currently five large and a number of small institutions are conducting research on anti-fertility vaccines. The five large institutions involved are:
* WHO/HRP, Switzerland. Major supporters of the programme are the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.
* The Population Council, United States. Among the Council s financiers are the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the US Agency for International Development.
* National Institute of Immunology, India. Major financiers are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Centre and the Rockefeller Foundation.
* The Contraceptive Development Program (CONRAD), United States. Publicly funded.
* The Center for Population Research at the National Institute of Child Health and Development/the National Institutes of Health (NICHD/NIH), United States. Publicly funded.
Women around the world have many issues that they face and need to overcome. One of these issues is forced sterilization. Forced sterilization is the process of permanently ending someone's ability to reproduce without his or her consent. This has occurred around the world, including here in the United States. The reasons for this atrocity also varies, as does the procedure. Along with the human rights violation that forced sterilization infringes upon comes some health risks.
Peru's population control program, although it is not officially recognized by the government, uses some of these tactics (mcsnet.ab.ca...). Women are promised food and clothing for their children. When they show up to receive the food and clothes, they are told that in order to get the items they must be sterilized. If the refuse, sometimes they will get the items that month but are told that in the future they must be sterilized before getting the food and clothes. In these cases, the women feel as if they are being forced into making this decision in order to help care for the children she already has. In other cases, women are not even notified. Sometimes when women give birth, the doctors sterilize her without her consent and without her even knowing it. Another tactic that was used to trick the people was in Japan. There, some victims were told that they could have the procedure reversed at any time down the road (Yamaguchi, 1997).
Even with the health risks that are evident for the victims, countries still used forced sterilizations as a means to an end, whether it be a eugenics program or a population control program. Forced sterilizations are then just one more example of something that women must endure throughout the world.
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Who are these members, and are you paid?
UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India's poor
Money from the Department for International Development has helped pay for a controversial programme that has led to miscarriages and even deaths after botched operations
The Observer, Saturday 14 April 2012
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.
The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country's burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.
Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.
Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.
In July, the UK will host a family planning summit in London along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The “event will aim to generate unprecedented political commitment and resources from developing countries, donors, the private sector, civil society and other partners to meet the family planning needs of women in the world’s poorest countries by 2020,” stated the UK’s Department for International Development.
Originally posted by unityemissions
You've equally insulted me via u2u and in this thread
Let's call it even and play clean from here on out.
Almost back home. Be patient!
Originally posted by hammanderr
reply to post by daddio
Calma bebe, you're not gonna do anything or you'd be doing it, not writing about it on the internet. Yeah all these deadly vaccines that we're forcing onto these poor people. Some of you need to get out from behind your keyboards and go to some third world countries. I have been to some places where you can see the great effects of all our terrible vaccines first hand. Well, what you can see is that we're all tall, healthy and vibrant and they're dying of complicated disease processes malaria, yellow fever and various other conditions. Population control might be a positive first step for women in some of these places. Ever think that women in certain countries might enjoy the ability to control whether they get pregnant or not? Kinda like the way we have that ability here.
Hey man, remember what happened in Arizona when an angry dude decided to just start capping political figures in the head? Not such a nice result.edit on 11-7-2012 by hammanderr because: punctuation