The Midwestern doctor.com, has another challenging post on the dark, or is it darker side of vaccination, how there has been an historical link between vaccination campaigns, especially in the Third World, and a decline in fertility? Of course, at present there is a debate among Covid vax critics about exactly what effects the spike proteins are having on fertility of women right across the world, with many jurisdictions reporting significant drops in fertility. As well, there has been a rise in miscarriage rates in many regions. Abnormal menstruation has become common, and that too affects fertility. While in the past there was a principle to spare pregnant women from any medication with these sorts of risks, during Covid there was a frantic drive to vaccinate all pregnant women, which is highly suspicious. Surely Big Pharma could forgo that tiny bit of profit, or was there more to it, as Dr Naomi Wolf contends, a clear depopulation agenda?

While that may sound paranoid to normies, the history of vaccination, as summarised below indicates that there were numerous cases of vaccines being deliberately used as fertility control. If this was done in the past, there is no reason to suppose, given the existence of the same anti-population philosophies, that it would not be tried again today, but on a bigger scale.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-forgotten-history-of-sterilizing

“During the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, the unprecedented nature of the vaccination campaign caused many to suspect it might adversely affect global fertility. These concerns grew as more and more evidence emerged suggesting the vaccines were adversely affecting fertility, but nonetheless were disregarded and instead the vaccines were mandated on pregnant women.

Now that the dust has cleared, it is clear that something had a profound impact on global fertility which is so large it cannot be explained by anything except something being introduced to the population at the exact same times the spike protein vaccines were. Simultaneously, numerous datasets have been uncovered (e.g., through FOIA requests) that all suggest vaccinated women have an increased risk of miscarrying during their pregnancy.

In parallel, numerous mechanisms have emerged to explain why this is happening (e.g., blood clots are well known for adversely affecting pregnancy, abnormal menstruation is observed in approximately half of vaccine recipients, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine was shown to concentrate in the ovaries and the vaccine was shown to have a homology to a vital protein needed for sustaining pregnancy). Many of these (along with other red flags and major gaps existing in fertility safety data) were known prior to the vaccine roll-out, which has left many wondering why the sacred rule of medical ethics, never giving an experimental pharmaceutical to pregnant women, was so flagrantly violated.

Note: Early on Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer scientist and executive, recognized that an overlap between the vaccine spike protein and a protein necessary for maintaining a pregnancy (Syncytin-1) created a clear fertility risk .  At great personal risk, he filed a formal petition to the drug regulators to exclude women of childbearing age in the initial vaccine trials. His warning was ignored and Yeadon is now essentially blacklisted from working in pharmaceutical industry.

In my eyes, there are two possible explanations for how all of this could have happened (which may not be mutually exclusive):

The first, and more likely one, was that there was such a panic to get the vaccines to market and end COVID-19 that a mass-formation (collective hypnosis) formed which caused vaccination proponents to become easily manipulated by Big Pharma and be blind to anything which threatened worldwide adoption of the mRNA vaccines.

The second possibility was that the vaccination program was seeking to advance a longstanding objective of the ruling class—global population reduction.

 

Malthus’s Legacy

Prior to the mass production of fertilizer, a recurring challenge for the ruling class was preventing catastrophic famines (which in many cases toppled the existing government). In 1798, Rev. Thomas R Malthus, drawing upon this fear, published the influential work An Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that human populations tend to increase at a geometrical (exponential) rate, but the means of subsistence (food) grows at only an arithmetic (linear) rate—which meant unchecked population growth would be catastrophic.

Malthus’s ideas were rapidly adopted by the European aristocracy who came to believe they held a sacred duty to keep their populations in check so a resource collapse could not happen. Before long, this philosophy merged with the concept of Social Darwinism, an ideology which argued that certain individuals (e.g., due to race or social class) were more fit to survive, while other human beings were not.

All of this gave way to the philosophy that many human beings should not be having children, and numerous campaigns to advance this agenda (e.g., mass forced sterilizations, aggressive deployment of birth control methods, and endless social initiatives to discourage individuals from having having children).

Although the history of these campaigns (and their victims) is well documented, most are unaware of them. For that reason, one of the first series I wrote on Substack sought to provide evidence showing that these campaigns really happened, some of which were even conducted by the same players (e.g., Bill Gates) that are currently directing global public health.

Recently, I published a revised version of the first half of this series which provides the clear documentation to show population control has been a focus of the ruling class for decades and possibly centuries.

Note: In full disclosure, I opted to revise this series because my writing was not the best when I first started here, and since I was not as strict with references, I cited a few bad sources that could not substantiate their claims (which I no longer believe to be true).

In the first article, I sought to establish three key points.

•The first is that while the extent of it can be debated, the depopulation agenda is very much a real thing and at least was the national policy of the US government.

•The second is that when unscrupulous things are done, they are typically first tested out on marginalized group whom the rest of the society will turn a blind eye toward the suffering of. I argue those initial injustices must be opposed because otherwise, the injustice becomes normalized and before long is done to the un-marginalized groups (e.g., much of what Fauci did to America throughout COVID-19 was identical to what he did to the gay community during the AIDS crisis).

Throughout COVID-19, I repeatedly saw things happen that many had difficultly believing could ever happen in America, yet I understood exactly what was happening because I had already seen smaller versions of it happen throughout the country (or the world). Similarly, I believe the reason why the population control agenda has been able to advance so far is because its victims have been largely forgotten—and it is my hope they will at last be remembered since everyone has now become a target of the global predators.

•The third is that with all these programs (as discussed in the previous article) the primary obstacle to them was not a question of ethics (outside of the Catholic Church, no outside groups opposed most of those campaigns). Rather, it was the technological feasibility of those programs.
Note: one well known example of this was no one in the German medical profession speaking out against the gross violations of medical ethics and human rights committed by the Nazi Eugenicists.

Technological Feasibility

Note: many of the points in this section are referenced and expanded upon in the previous article.

The consistent problem encountered by those seeking to reduce the population is that the more effective the approach is, the more likely people are to resist its implementation.

For example, mass sterilizations (with forced male vasectomies or female tubal ligations) were attempted in India, had to be terminated because males fought back against the initiative. Conversely, while a target population is often willing to initially take birth control pills, it is extremely unlikely they will use them for a prolonged period.

Initially, the most effective option was surgical sterilization of women (e.g., by tying their tubes), which was both conducted covertly (while the woman was receiving a surgery for something else) or overtly with the government forcing it to happen. Many battles broke out against this, and disturbingly enough, an infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling decided that the same principle that allowed mandatory vaccination (for smallpox) also allowed compulsory sterilization.

Much later, a better balance was found between efficacy and practicality, Depo-Provera, a long acting injectable birth control method—which represented the ideal way to mass administer a sterilizing agent. Once Depo-Provera became available, decades of campaigns were conducted in the third world where it was forcefully deployed on the women there.

Note: I have long disliked Depo-Provera because it has a variety of overt side effects and can cause much longer losses of fertility than initially expected.

Nonetheless, Depo-Provera had two major shortcomings for the ruling class. The first was that it did not guarantee permanent sterility. The second was that people gradually became more and more skeptical of this approach and did not fully comply with the Depo-Provera campaigns.

Given those constraints, I could only see two potential ways to address meet these population control goals.

One option is to administer an agent which could spread throughout the population.

As far as I know, this has only been done for animals. For example, Oxitec has become notorious for releasing mosquitos (e.g., in Florida, Texas and California) which carry a gene that only allows male mosquitos they father to survive…which rapidly creates a decline in the existing mosquito populations because far fewer females are born. This approach has been met with public protest and currently citizen activists are trying to prevent another mosquito sterilizing biotechnology from being deployed in Hawaii.

More recently, Robert Malone brought attention to an adenovirus being genetically engineered so that it could sterilize cats and more importantly transmit between them, thereby significantly reducing the feral cat population.
Note: Both the J&J and Astrazeneca (along with Russia’s COVID vaccine) were adenoviruses modified to carry the spike protein and then reproduce within the body. Oddly enough, the developers of the Astrazenca’s vaccine—which was promoted as the vaccine of choice for the third world—have extensive ties to major eugenics organizations.

Although these technologies offer the potential to eliminate an invasive organism (e.g., I love cats but in many places the number of feral cats threatens the native wildlife), many have nonetheless been extremely concerned about these technologies. There are two primary reasons for these concerns:

First, attempts to disrupt ecosystems by introducing a biological agent (e.g., another predator to deal with an invasive species) frequently backfire due to the unintended consequences they create. There are numerous examples of this around the world, with Hawaii, due to the isolated nature of its ecosystems being one of the best examples in America.

To some extent, we have also seen this with the depopulation efforts, as the same Western Governments which pushed for reducing their birthrates are now facing a demographic crisis where they no longer have enough young workers to support the economy.
Note: As Ed Dowd’s team has shown, this issue has recently become much worse due to radically increasing disability rates within the workforce from the vaccine mandates that disabled a significant portion of the American workforce.

Second, the possibility always exists that self-spreading approaches will come to affect humans too. For example with the cat virus, a lengthy ethical review (which in this climate is unlikely to ever happen) must be conducted before anyone ever considers releasing it. Likewise, can you imagine a world where you had to fear a mosquito bite might make you infertile?
Note: to some extent this was the fear that was used to promote the mass spraying of toxic pesticides to contain mosquitos carrying the Zika virus.

My best guess is that the global elites are fully aware of this issue, and are unlikely to release any sterilizing agent which can self-spread throughout the population because they would not be safe from it either. However, at the same time, I also believe there are too few checks on science at this point (e.g., the gain of function research at the Wuhan lab should not have been conducted, but nonetheless was by a few individuals who prioritized their own benefit over the potential risks they were bringing to the world), so its still possible we may face an issue like this in the future.

Note: this is somewhat analogous to the AI situation, which many such as Elon Musk have labeled as an existential threat to the human race, since if AI becomes sentient and has access to the tools it needs to exterminate the human race, there’s no reason why that might not happen. Nonetheless, since there is a lot of money to be made with AI, people keep on pushing the envelope with it, irrespective of the massive risks they are creating through doing so.

Sterilizing Vaccines

Since anything which can self-spread throughout the population carries the inherent risk that it will spread too far, the alternative option is to be able to conduct targeted sterilizations. The best candidate for this role has been vaccinations. This is because:

•Vaccines are very easy for untrained personnel to rapidly administer to large numbers of people.

•The vaccine brand has such a halo around it (due to the mythology they rescued us from the dark age of disease) that people will trust an injection solely on the basis of it being a vaccine, even if a large number of adverse effects are reported from recipients of the injection.

Note: I believe this is why the experimental mRNA gene therapies the population was injected with were labeled as vaccines, as had they been accurately labeled as a gene therapy, it is unlikely most of the population would have ever taken them. Conversely, the reason why I refer to the mRNA injections as vaccines is because I believe the vaccine brand should be subject to the same skepticism the disastrous mRNA injections now are beginning to face.

• All vaccines work by disturbing the immune system. Since a disturbed immune system is something which can permanently impair fertility, accomplishing this through vaccination thus represents an irresistible target for the population control fanatics.

As a result, methods of making fertility-impairing vaccines have been researched over and over again. Each of the candidate vaccines I was able to identify worked in a similar manner: they carried an antigen that was similar to a protein necessary for fertilization or to maintain a pregnancy, and thus created an autoimmune response that impaired fertility.

There are basically two ways this can be done.  The first is to produce the needed antigen and mix it with an immunostimulatory adjuvant.  The second is to genetically engineer an infectious organism that has the antigen within it, and as with rheumatic fever, the damage to fertility will occur because of the immune system being programmed to fight the pathogen and anything similar to it (e.g., the cat virus discussed above is one such example). Since mRNA technology did not exist until recently, it does not exist within this schema, but were it to be designed to impair fertility, it would essentially fall into the second category.

Note: In a previous article on the military’s anthrax vaccination program, I discussed Gary Matsumoto’s discovery that a class of bioweapons were originally developed by Russia which worked by splicing necessary human tissue onto infectious organisms to create a delayed and thus harder to detect autoimmunity to vital human tissues, something which over time can be devastating where it is deployed.  One of the curious aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (which was noticed by concerned scientists early on) is that has an almost impossibly high number of similarities with normal human tissue and I’ve long wondered if it that was deliberate.

Ultimately, while it is possible this was done with COVID-19 (e.g., to some extent male fertility issues have been observed after COVID-19), due to the inherent risks with any self-spreading vector, I suspect it is unlikely the virus was designed for this purpose. However at the same time, due to their ease of modification coronaviruses have always been one of the most popular viruses for virologists to experiment with and countless research papers exist showing how this was done with the SARS virus in the years preceding the COVID-19.

Given the recurring interest in sterilizing vaccines, I believe it is worth looking at exactly what has already happened so we can better understand what might be happening now.

hCG Vaccines:

One of the most studied methods of sterilization through vaccination (now euphemistically termed “immunocontraception”) is to produce an immune response to hCG, a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy.  This acquired autoimmunity results in the immune system lowering hCG levels enough to prevent a pregnancy’s viablity.

After the realization that hCG was the best available candidate for “immunocontraception,” various administration methods were explored and it was discovered hCG elicited the strongest immune response when it was combined with the tetanus toxoid (as the body is typically reluctant to develop autoimmunity to its own vital proteins). As such, “hCG vaccine” refers to a tetanus vaccine that is laced with hCG.
Note: the diphtheria toxoid (the commonly administered DPT vaccine contains both the tetanus and diphtheria toxoids) was also found to work, but as far as I know only tetanus toxoid was utilized in the hCG vaccines that were deployed.

The chronology of the hCG vaccine follows a general pattern I have seen with objectionable technologies being introduced to the marketplace.

1. A significant need was present that had no viable technological solution (e.g., an effective means of sterilization through vaccination).

2. A workable but problematic solution was identified (e.g., hCG being added to a vaccine).

3. A large, secret, and most importantly, forced campaign was conducted to experimentally refine the approach.

4. Public outcry and suspicion arose towards what they could see was happening.

5. The responsible authorities (in this case the WHO) initially vehemently denied on all grounds that this could possibly be happening.

6. Despite great difficult in doing so, independent tests were conducted and suggested the substance in question was indeed present (e.g., hCG in the vaccines).

7. The responsible authorities back-peddled to a softer denial (the positive results were due to lab error, we have do have vaccines with this additive but we’d never use it on people, etc.).

8. Further testing proved without ambiguity that the agents were indeed present.

9. The debate ended while unethical experimentation continued over the decades and the technology was gradually improved.

10. Use of the technology went from being categorically denied to becoming normalized.

Note: much of the chronology that follows was sourced from this article.:

In 1972 the WHO initiated their "Special Programme" in Human Reproduction (approximately $400 million was invested in the first 20 years of the program).  Later that year WHO and Rockefeller scientists were able to present a successful prototype to the National Academy of Sciences.  A few years later, to quote The Real Anthony Fauci:

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.”

Experimental campaigns soon followed.  They tended to have a few commonalities that suggested something bad was being done. Those tells were as follows:

• A new “special” version of an existing vaccine is introduced (the tetanus vaccine is one of the most commonly administered vaccines across the world).

•The vaccinations are only administered to women of childbearing age.

•Requiring additional doses that were not needed for the regular vaccine (each campaign followed the published protocol for the WHO birth-control conjugate of tetanus toxoid linked to βhCG: five spaced doses of “TT” vaccine at six-month intervals).
Note: I was unable to find a copy of the published five dose protocol the above article referenced, as the link to it no longer exists.

In 1993, a peculiar paper was published that many would have difficulty believing actually made it to print. I’ll quote some of it:

Vaccines for control of fertility are likely to have an important impact on family planning methods. They are designed to act by mobilization of an internal physiological process and do not require external medication on a continuous basis. A number of birth control vaccines are at different stages of development, the most advanced being a vaccine inducing antibodies against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

This vaccine consists of a heterospecles dimer (HSD, PhCG associated with asubunit of ovine lutelnizing hormone, PhCG:aoLH) linked to tetanus toxoid m) or diphtheria toxoid (DT) as carriers. The vaccine has recently passed an important milestone; it has completed the first leg of phase II efficacy trials.

Women of proven fertility leading active sexual life were protected from becoming pregnant at antibody titres 250 ng of hCG bioneutralization capacity per ml. This vaccine has previously been demonstrated to be reversible in its effect. It is free from any notable side-effects on endocrlne, cardiovascular and other body functions [keep this is mind as you read today’s article].

Ovulation was not disturbed and menstrual regularity was maintained. A logistic disadvantage of the present vaccine is the requirement for multiple injections. This is expected to be overcome by encapsulation of the requisite doses of the vaccine in biodegradable microspheres, which could be given at a single contact point for sustained antibody titres lasting over a year. A live recombinant vaccine [this is how J&J and Astrazeneca work] has also been made that elicits high anti-hCG titres in monkeys for nearly 2 years following primary immunization and a booster at 8-9 months.

We have been inspired to develop new methods for family planning because of the conviction that the presently available methods do not suit everyone and are not accepted in all countries, especially in those where the population problem is pressing.

In India, the current net population growth is 2.1% and about 17 million people are added annually to an already massive figure of 876 million. The Government of India was one of the first to introduce Family Planning as an official policy. An array of currently available contraceptive methods are provided at highly subsidized rates or even free of charge. Incentives are offered to undergo tubal and vas ligations [these are surgical sterilizations].

These methods are, however, perceived largely as terminal, and people accept them fairly late in reproductive life after engendering a number of children. Condoms and pills require constant motivation, and their use is limited, especially in rural areas, where 80% of the people reside. IUDs entail extra blood loss, which women who are already anaemic (average haemoglobin is about 9 g/dl) can hardly support NORPLANT has not as yet entered the scene, though it is under large-scale evaluation. There is thus a need for new methods which do not disturb menstrual regularity or increase bleeding, which are reversible and which do not demand daily intake. We have been working on vaccines that can regulate fertility.

Research is underway to make more than one birth control vaccine. These are directed against:
1. gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) as a postpartum vaccine for extending lactational amenorrhoea, for control of male fertility with supplementation of androgens, and for control of hormone-dependent carcinoma of the prostate
2. follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) for control of male fertility
3. sperm antigens - a number of target antigens have been identified
4. zona pellucida
5. hCG. The vaccines which have reached the clinical trials stage are against GnRH and hCG; others are currently at the experimental stage.

While our group is working on both these and other vaccines, we will confine this presentation to the hCG vaccine for two reasons. This is the vaccine which is at present at the most advanced stage; it is undergoing phase II efficacy trials [at three hospitals in India].

The rest of the paper discusses the specifics of each generation of the hCG vaccines. It also noted that a virus modified to carry hCG was highly effective in preventing fertility, but it was never deployed, which I suspected was due to a fear it would spread to undesired targets.

Many things within the paper suggests there was a great deal of interest in this technology. Consider for example the funding sources:

Research and clinical trials discussed here were supported by S&T Project of the Department of Biotechnology, India, the International Development Research Centre of Canada and the Rockefeller Foundation. The work benefited from cooperative interaction with the International Committee for Contraception Research of the Population Council, New York.

Later that year, Catholic publications began to appear saying a tetanus vaccine was being used as means to reduce fertility. Before long, Human Life International (HLI), a Catholic pro-life organization, raised questions about the vaccines and the apparent activity of the WHO, where millions of unsuspecting women in Mexico, the Philippines, Tanzania and Nicaragua were allegedly being used as human guinea pigs in which they were injected with an anti-fertility vaccine but told it was nothing more than a tetanus vaccine.

As detailed in the June 1995 HLI Reports newsletter, when the first reports surfaced in the Phillipines that an anti-fertility vaccine had been deployed, health officials at The WHO and Phillipine health agencies categorically denied that their vaccine contained hCG. When confronted with lab test evidence showing the vaccine vials contained hCG as well as laboratory evidence that there were high levels of hCG antibodies in 27 out of 30 women who had been vaccinated, WHO officials started to make excuses:

First they said there was no hCG in the vaccine, then they said there was, but it was in tiny amounts. Then they said that hCG is part of the vaccine manufacturing process. Now they are saying the tests to detect hCG are flawed and produce 'a lot of false positives'. But, there is one fact that cannot be disputed. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies.

After the widespread outcry against the hCG vaccinations, the WHO backed off and planned “tetanus” vaccination campaigns were cancelled.  In the following years, Bill Gates initiated his campaign to buy out the WHO, and with a 10-billion-dollar investment in 2010 shifted the WHO’s focus much further towards vaccination and fertility control (doing so at the expense of the traditional approaches that had previously greatly improved global public health).

In 2013, the previously postponed tetanus vaccination campaign was finally initiated in Kenya.  This campaign only targeted women of childbearing age and the vaccines were not administered in a normal dosing schedule (five doses were required with six months between each booster). 

The distribution was also suspicious as the sites that would typically be utilized to distribute a vaccine across the country did not receive them.  Instead, a centralized location received the vaccines, and they were continually guarded by police (including their empty vials).  The only other instance I can identify of a heavily guarded vaccine where samples could not be obtained for independent testing was during the early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout (because of an alleged critically limited supply).

Nonetheless, a small team of Kenyan Catholic Doctors were eventually able to obtain samples of the vaccines which when tested clearly showed the presence of hCG.  After repeated denials by all involved, the program was eventually terminated by Kenya’s government. 

After I published this article, one reader left the following commentary that highlights the long term effects on fertility this sterilizing vaccine was able to produce:

My wife is Kenyan and sometime around 15 years ago, when she was still a teenager, she was forced to take one of those “tetanus” vaccines. She and another student who had refused were cornered in a room and forcibly administered the shot. Nearly every one of her school mates whom she is still in touch with have developed some sort of fertility-related problem, and difficulty bringing a baby to full term. My wife herself has had multiple miscarriages. horribly painful and several weeks-long menstrual cycles, sudden death of the baby in the womb, and more. We have one baby who lived. The doctor who delivered her via emergency C-section said he had never seen anything like it....everything was going wrong, the baby stopped developing early on.....our daughter is now 5 and is normal in every way, but it is a miracle.

The girls from her village who were too poor for school fees were spared the vaccine, and they haven’t had any problem conceiving or giving birth.

This horror is still going on in Kenya, now with the Covid shots.

Note: compare these stories to the 1993 researcher’s claim their hCG vaccine was safe and did not affect menstruation.

Let’s now look forward a few years and see what happened with this technology. To quote a 2011 paper:

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is synthesized soon after fertilization and is essential for embryonic implantation. A vaccine targeting hCG would be an ideal choice for immuno-contraception; an anti-hCG vaccine developed by Talwar et al., has previously undergone Phase II efficacy trials, providing proof of principle. These trials established the threshold levels of bio-neutralizing anti-hCG antibody titers required to prevent pregnancy; however, these titers (>50 ng/ml) were achieved in only 80% of immunized women.

In this communication, we report a novel recombinant anti-hCG vaccine which demonstrates improved immunogenecity. hCGβ was genetically fused at C-terminal to the B-subunit of E. coli heat-labile enterotoxin. The recombinant fusion protein (hCGβ-LTB) was expressed in Pichia pastoris and, upon adsorption on Alhydrogel along with Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MIP) as an immuno-modulator, evoked a very high anti-hCG immune response in 100% of immunized BALB/c mice. This recombinant vaccine is expected to reduce cost as well as facilitate production of a molecularly consistent conjugate on a large scale.

This paper again shows that despite widespread protest against this approach, there is serious interest in it from the ruling class.”