Slightly better presented or narrated by Mark Dice than I did in my Transhumanism Corporate Global Surveillance, a guy who has been investigating this conspiracy for a lot longer than I have.
Slightly better presented or narrated by Mark Dice than I did in my Transhumanism Corporate Global Surveillance, a guy who has been investigating this conspiracy for a lot longer than I have.
Google said the sensors on the smart contact lens are so small they look like bits of glitter
Google has said it is testing a “smart contact lens” that can help measure glucose levels in tears.
It uses a “tiny” wireless chip and a “miniaturised” glucose sensor embedded between two layers of lens material.
The firm said it is also working on integrating tiny LED lights that could light up to indicate that glucose levels have crossed certain thresholds.
But it added that “a lot more work” needed to be done to get the technology ready for everyday use.
“It’s still early days for this technology, but we’ve completed multiple clinical research studies which are helping to refine our prototype,” the firm said in a blogpost.
“We hope this could someday lead to a new way for people with diabetes to manage their disease.”
It is likely to spur a range of other innovations towards miniaturizing technology and using it in wearable devices to help people monitor their bodies better”
Manoj Menon Frost & Sullivan
Many global firms have been looking to expand in the wearable technology sector – seen by many as a key growth area in the coming years.
Various estimates have said the sector is expected to grow by between $10bn and $50bn (£6bn and £31bn) in the next five years.
Within the sector, many firms have been looking specifically at technology targeted at healthcare.
Google’s latest foray with the smart contact lens is aimed at a sector where consumer demand for such devices is expected to grow.
According to the International Diabetes Federation, one in ten people across the world’s population are forecast to have diabetes by 2035.
People suffering from the condition need to monitor their glucose levels regularly as sudden spikes or drops are dangerous. At present, the majority of them do so by testing drops of blood.
Google said it was testing a prototype of the lens that could “generate a reading once per second”.
“This is an exciting development for preventive healthcare industry,” Manoj Menon, managing director of consulting firm Frost & Sullivan told the BBC.
“It is likely to spur a range of other innovations towards miniaturizing technology and using it in wearable devices to help people monitor their bodies better.”
Google said it was working with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring the product to mainstream use.
It added that it would look for partners “who are experts in bringing products like this to market”.
Google said it would work with these partners to develops apps aimed at making the measurements taken by the lens available to the wearer and their doctor.
Mr Menon said it was “commendable” that Google was willing to work with other partners even before the product was commercially ready.
“Their open innovation approach is going to help accelerate the development of this product and get it out to the market much faster,” he said.
Other firms have also been looking towards wearable products that help monitor the health of the wearer.
Earlier this month, a gadget called Sensible Baby was unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. It is a sensor put in an infant’s night clothes that tracks their temperature, orientation and movement.
It sounds a smartphone app alarm if it detects a problem.
Several smartwatches that can monitor data by studying key indicators such as the the wearer’s heart rate and temperature have also been launched.
Last year, Japanese firm Sony filed a patent for a ‘SmartWig’, with healthcare cited as one of its potential uses.
It said the wig could use a combination of sensors to help collect information such as temperature, pulse and blood pressure of the wearer.
The Rockefellers, one of the world’s wealthiest families, have been the largest financial backer of Eugenics and other population control measures.
Author Jurriaan Maessan stumbled upon some very compelling and important research back in 2010 while digging through annual reports for the Rockefeller Foundation that conclusively prove that it funded numerous research projects into the development “anti-fertility” vaccines, with its origins in scientific research dating back to at least 1968, and with successful research conducted by at least 1988. There now exists several methods to sterilize both men and women by injection, as well as to terminate pregnancies and/or induce spontaneous abortions.
This is highly significant research because the Rockefeller family, dating back to oil baron John D. Rockefeller, has been on the cutting edge of financing Eugenics policy and research. Rockefeller and other primarily Anglo elites based in the U.S. East Coast and England fostered /festered a whole paradigm of social policy centered around the quack science that asserted that the superiority of some gene stocks over others was provable, while seeking various ways to reduce the populations of the “lesser” genetic groups of the world.
EUGENICS SPECIAL: Global Extermination Database Exposed
This racist ideology manifest in Eugenics laws in 27 U.S. states, and later in Nazi Germany, also taking root in much of the Western world. The Rockefeller family, among others, financed Eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Nazi Germany, where some of the most horrifying “scientific” research was conducted – including the work of Josef Mengele.
Following World War II, Eugenics was re-branded to cast of its associations with the Nazis, and emerged, as it were, in the form of such social policy topics as “population control,” “family planning,” abortion/Planned Parenthood, health care, various types of genetics, even laced in between such screeds as global warming/climate change – which leads to arguments about reducing the burden of over-population upon the earth.
Today, figures like Bill Gates have been quite open about connecting the use of vaccines, GMOs, health care and reducing the population through a (mostly covert) Eugenics – even in the name of reducing the impact of climate change.
The powerful Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation formally tied its agenda to aims of the Rockefeller Foundation, including in its funding for vaccinations and population reduction.
Bill Gates and David Rockefeller were the leading members of a billionaires’ club that met in secret to discuss how to strengthen measures for population control, particularly in the developing world, through the guise of “philanthropy.” Other notable members include Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Bloomberg
Worse, there is evidence that these anti-fertility vaccines – developed through Rockefeller-funded research – may have been used covertly used in several developing nations (for instance, in the Philippines), where women experienced loss of pregnancy after receiving tetanus shots – one of the main carriers for the Rockefeller-funded HcG anti-fertility vaccine.
Below is Jurriaan Maessan’s original and groundbreaking report. Please visit his site at Explosive Reports.com:
Rockefeller Anti-Fertility Vaccines Exposed
In the course of August and September 2010, I wrote several articles for Infowars on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” As the soft-kill depopulation agenda accelerates it seems all the more relevant to re-post these articles as one.
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.”
“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.”
The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:
“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”
Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:
“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”
To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission.
2- Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO
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”.
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 the gametes 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 extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between 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.”
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 1970s 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.
3- On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”
It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.
The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.
Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.
“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”
In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:
“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”
In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):
“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”
The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.
(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”
Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”
The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”
It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.
Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.
In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:
“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”
A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:
“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”
“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”
I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:
“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive.”
In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”
Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”
Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:
“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”
He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:
“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”
The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the populous into oblivion comes into view.
4- Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal
Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.
Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the way.
By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The Foundation’s 1934 annual report states:
“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology, general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”
“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”
In the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates serves to experiment on man in the future:
“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”
In the book Discipling Reproduction by Adele E. Clarke, the roots of Rockefeller-funded “anti-hormones” is being described in some detail, pointing out that the family’s ambitions to control man’s fertility date back even further than the 1930s. Clarke writes:
“On a cold morning in 1921, George Washington Corner, a physician and fledgling reproductive scientist, awoke in Baltimore to discover that it was snowing.”
“By 1929”, Clarke writes a bit further on, “Corner had mapped out the hormonal action of progesterone, an essential actor in the menstrual cycle and subsequently an actor in birth control pills.”
The 1935 Rockefeller Foundation annual report acknowledges funding Dr. Corner’s research:
“To the University of Rochester, for research on the physiology of reproduction under the direction of Dr. G. W. Corner during the threeyear period beginning July 1, 1935, and ending June 30, 1938, there has been appropriated the sum of $9,900. Dr. Corner’s activities are concentrated on a study of the oestrus cycle, using monkeys as the experimental animals. A colony of about thirty monkeys has been maintained, and experiments have furnished information on the normal histology of the reproductive cycle, the time of ovulation, the relation of ovulation to menstruation and other anatomically detectable correlations of the oestrus cycle. Work is continuing on two main lines: normal sex reproduction in the monkey, including the histology of ovary and uterus, and, secondly, the effects of the ovarian hormone.”
Again, never forget that the Foundation in 1933 stated outright that “It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”
Another essential problem which arises, of course, is how exactly the funding-mechanism worked by which Corner’s research could be made ready for mass-consumption. Clarke mentions that officially the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was the institute responsible for the task of doing so. More specific: the Committee for Research in Problems of Sex (CRPS):
“The NRC itself was founded in 1916 as an agency to inventory research toward enhanced military preparedness.”
“The NRC”, states the author, “was a prestigious organization from its inception, thanks to its early association with the NAS, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Kohler (1991:109) has argued that the NRC essentially served as an intermediary between the foundations and scientists in the interwar years.(…). The NRC/CRPS itself was funded almost exclusively by Rockefeller monies, initially through the Bureau of Social Hygiene and, after 1931, through the Rockefeller Foundation.”
On the subject of so-called “current immunological contraceptive research”, Clarke channels Rockefeller-president Max Mason:
“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”
In a February 1934 “progress report” written by Warren Weaver (director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation) once again underlined the endgame:
“Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control?”
The same Warren Weaver wrote a “biographical Memoir” in honor of his friend Max Mason, revealing some more interesting facts. Weaver, who describes himself as a great personal friend of Mason, gives a general description of him as Rockefeller-minion:
“He had by that time developed a consuming interest in behavioral research, and particularly in the possibility that the physical sciences, working with and through the biological sciences, could shed new and revealing light on the normal and abnormal behavior of individuals, and ultimately on the social behavior of groups of men.”
Here we have it. The blueprint for sterilizing vaccines has been first conceptualized way back in the 1920s and 1930s by social scientists of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although later the eugenic language (“anti-fertility vaccine”) was polished up with the help of some linguistic plastic surgery producing the term “immunological contraceptive”, the ultimate goal remains the same.
Visit the blog site for more news, information and articles.
The People’s Voice
Outcry as sex education chief warns forcing children to kiss relatives could be harmful
Young people ‘feel they have nothing to live for’
(Comments found on the same page)
Two guilty over abusive tweets to Caroline Criado-Perez
IBM commits $1bn to new Watson supercomputer division
(UK) Army launches £3m recruitment drive
Kevin Ashton, a British technology pioneer who co-founded the Auto-ID Center at MIT, which created a global standard system for RFID and other sensors, coined the phrase “Internet of Things” back in 1999. His Internet of Things (IoT) is a system where the Internet is connected to the physical world via ubiquitous sensors. And sensors can be any device that gathers data and reports that data to a data collection facility such as a data warehouse, a database, or log server.
IoT isn’t just a fancy buzzword that describes how your refrigerator can let you know when you need to replace your spoiling milk or your rotting vegetables (although it can), it is so much more. How much more is only left to your imagination and to your budget. You can do as little or as much with IoT as you want. For example, if you operate food distribution business, you could install sensors in your trucks that send temperature, humidity, and dock-to-dock travel times back to your home office for analysis. You can also more accurately track the exact expense required to deliver each food product or container to the customer.
The Internet of Things is not just about gathering of data but also about the analysis and use of data.
My best example of gathering and analysis of IoT data is the first instance of such a system: The Coke Machine at Carnegie-Mellon University’s Computer Science department, also known as the Internet Coke Machine.
One of the computer science students in 1982, David Nichols, had the original idea to poll the Coke machine so that he didn’t waste a trip to the machine to find it empty. He and a group of fellow students (Mike Kazar (Server Software), David Nichols (Documentation and User Software), John Zsarnay (Hardware), Ivor Durham (Finger interface) together to create this now famous connected vending machine.
From their labs, they could check the status of the sodas in the vending machine. I’m pretty sure they didn’t realize the international effect this would someday have when they devised their plan. Nor did they realize that anyone beyond themselves would care*.
It doesn’t matter that they were trying to save steps or that they were only trying to monitor the status of their favorite bubbly beverages**. But what really matters is that they did it. And they used the data. Their little experiment changed the way we look at “things” and the data that they can produce.
But serious IoT is coming to the world in a big way and has far reaching implications for big data, security, and cloud computing.
So called “big” data is a buzzword that seems to eminate from the most unusual places these days. Mostly from the mouths and fingertips of people who haven’t a clue of what it means. What IoT means for big data is that the data from all these “things” has to be stored and analyzed. That is big data. If you look at some of the projections for the next few years, you’ll have an idea of what I mean.
Internet-connected cars, sensors on raw food products, sensors on packages of all kinds, data streaming in from the unlikeliest of places: restrooms, kitchens, televisions, personal mobile devices, cars, gasoline pumps, car washes, refigerators, vending machines, and SCADA systems for example will generate a lot of data (big data).
Lots of devices chattering away to centralized databases also means that someone needs to watch the machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. Security is a major issue with IoT. However, several companies including Wind River have made great advances in IoT and M2M security.
Unfortunately, security for IoT is multilayered and expensive to implement. Strong security must exist in the three vulnerable layers: physical, network, and data. By physical, I mean the device itself must be secured with locks, tamper-proof housings, alarms, or out-of-reach placement. Physical security is a primary problem with IoT. Devices that are easily stolen or broken into pose the biggest threats.
Network communications must be secured by VPN or other form of encryption. Man-in-the-middle attacks are common for such devices and manufacturers need to make it difficult for would be attackers.
Data security poses a problem as well. First, there’s “data at rest” that’s stored locally on the device. Compromise of this information could proved detrimental to the rest of the network because it could reveal other device locations, network topology, server names, and even usernames and passwords. All data at rest should be encrypted to prevent this type of breach.
Second, there’s “data on the move” or “data in motion” which is covered in part by encrypted communications but what happens to the data after it lands on a target device, such as a data center server is also important. And the transfer of that data across a network should also be encrypted.
Encrypted devices, encrypted communications over the entire data path, and hardened physical devices make it very difficult to extract value from any recovered information. In fact, the purpose of this multilayered security is to make it far more expensive to glean usable data than the data itself would yield to the criminal or malicious hacker.
You might wonder how cloud computing fits into the IoT world because in the years before cloud computing we did just fine by having our devices report directly to a home server. Nowadays there’s so much more data to deal with from disparate sources that cloud computing can play a significant role in IoT scenarios.
For example, if you have a chain of restaurants spread out over a wide geographic area or worldwide, then your data streams in on a continuous basis. There’s never a good time for taking your services offline for maintenance. This is where cloud computing comes to the rescue.
Your ‘things’ can collect data 100 percent of the time with no breaks in service. If you purchase cloud storage, you can filter the data for extracted offload at your convenience. To me, IoT and cloud computing are the perfect technology marriage.
Watch the video
You won’t have to keep your ear too close to the ground in 2014 to hear about IoT. If you do, you’re just not listening. IoT isn’t a marketing term or tech buzzword, it’s a real thing. You should learn about it and how it can help your company learn more about itself. Seriously.
If you’re losing money on a particular part of your business, then IoT might resolve it for you with better controls, better tracking, and better reporting. Should security, big data, and the cloud computing connection prove to be too overwhelming for you, connect up with a company that knows something about IoT. And if you still don’t know where to start, just ask me by using the Author Contact Form.
What do you think about IoT and what it can do for your company? Talk back and let me know.
*If you care, you can read the recollected story from David Nichols and others.
**Admittedly, it would have been cool to do this with a Coke machine but it would have been far more enticing to me, if they’d also hooked up the snack machine to check the availability of Rice Krispies treats or gum. I love gum. I’m a gum freak. You’ve never seen anyone chew gum like I chew gum. I hope no one ever places gum on the list of endangered things. I might go unhappily extinct.
We wrote about the 7 must-have filmmaking tools we discovered at CES 2014, but over the past few days at CES 2014, we’ve seen countless other cool gizmos intended to entertain and/or make your life easier, including smart watches, wireless speakers and lots of snazzy cell phone cases. Some of these gadgets probably won’t ever rise above the level of curiosities or conversation pieces, but a few could become household items in the next few years — or not. Decide for yourself.
Here are the craziest, coolest gadgets from CES:
1. RoboThespian: This interactive robot can communicate in various languages. He’s mostly used in science musics and public places, but we envision a “Her”-like world in which we all have RoboThespians of our own. Find out more about RoboThespian here.
2. iRobot Scooba 450: A friendly robot is great, but If you like your robotics hardworking and useful, look no further than the iRobot Scooba 450, which can scrub your floors. Find out more about iRobot Scooba Floor Scrubbing Robot here.
3. Mother: Mother is watching and tracking your every move. This little tracking device, which uses small sensors called “cookies,” can monitor up to 24 tasks at once — the company said it could monitor how much coffee is left in the jar, whether the kids got got home from school in time and whether they’ve brushed their teeth before bed. Creepy, cool or both? Find out more about Mother here and decide for yourself.
4. June: Wearable tech is all the craze here at CES, but June is the first wearable tech that we’ve seen that is something you might actually want to wear. Produced by Netatmo, the June, which the company calls a “personalized sun protection coach,” is a beautiful bracelet with classy credits: it’s designed by French jewelry designer Camille Toupet and is available in gold, platinum, and gunmetal. Not only does it look nice, but it’s also handy: it’s got a photolvotaic cell which syncs to your iPhone via Bluetooth and can make sure you’re not getting too much sun exposure. But do you really need a smart bracelet to tell you to wear sunscreen or put on a hat? Mashable thinks so. It was included in Mashable’s Best Tech of CES 2014.