Developing World – The WHO’s Private Vaccine Laboratory

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


OMS - Vaccination planétaireIt is a rec­og­nized fact that the devel­op­ing world has been used by the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion as a vac­cine lab­o­ra­to­ry for decades. This has been proven in data and vac­cine stud­ies dat­ing back as far as the 1970s.

With this in mind, we must ask our­selves, is it right to use these vul­ner­a­ble chil­dren in vac­cine exper­i­ments? I urge you to read the fol­low­ing exam­ples before you come to any con­clu­sions.

Group A Streptococcus (GAS) Unlicensed Vaccine Tested In Africa and Asia

In a report writ­ten for the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion (WHO), titled Sta­tus of Vac­cine Research and Devel­op­ment of Vac­cines for Strep­to­coc­cus pyo­genes Pre­pared for WHO PD-VAC, the authors state:

Con­cerns regard­ing vac­cine safe­ty are based upon a the­o­ret­i­cal risk of autoim­mune reac­tions in vac­ci­nees lead­ing to the devel­op­ment of ARF. One small study of a crude M pro­tein vac­cine sug­gest­ed that there may be an increased risk of ARF in vac­cine recip­i­ents; how­ev­er, there are a num­ber of con­cerns about the design of this tri­al that make it dif­fi­cult to inter­pret, and autoim­mune reac­tions have not been observed in the oth­er human GAS vac­cine tri­als involv­ing thou­sands of study sub­jects.

Under­stand­ing of human GAS immu­ni­ty remains incom­plete. More infor­ma­tion is need­ed regard­ing immune pro­tec­tion against GAS skin infec­tion, the role of T-cell immu­ni­ty and the rel­a­tive con­tri­bu­tions of non-M type-spe­cif­ic anti­gens (com­mon anti­gens) in induc­ing pro­tec­tive immu­ni­ty. Bet­ter epi­demi­o­log­ic data are also required, for assess­ing bur­den of dis­ease to strength­en the case for GAS vac­cine devel­op­ment and for assess­ing vac­cine cov­er­age more sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly with high qual­i­ty, stan­dard­ized mol­e­c­u­lar typ­ing stud­ies in more coun­tries, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Africa and Asia.

They con­tin­ued:

A poten­tial strat­e­gy to improve under­stand­ing of GAS immunol­o­gy and also to cre­ate a path­way for rel­a­tive­ly rapid test­ing of new GAS vac­cine can­di­dates is through the devel­op­ment of human GAS (pha­ryn­geal) chal­lenge stud­ies. Pre­vi­ous stud­ies (in the 1970’s) in over 170 vol­un­teers have shown that this approach is fea­si­ble, and pro­pos­als are under con­sid­er­a­tion for fund­ing for a revival of this approach.

(Note: ARF = acute rheumat­ic fever)

(GAS Vac­cine = Vac­cine against Group A strep­to­coc­cus )

Group A strep­to­coc­cus is a bac­teri­um often found in the throat and on the skin. Peo­ple may car­ry group A strep­to­coc­ci in the throat or on the skin and have no symp­toms of ill­ness. Most GAS infec­tions are rel­a­tive­ly mild ill­ness­es such as “strep throat,” or impeti­go. On rare occa­sions, these bac­te­ria can cause oth­er severe and even life-threat­en­ing dis­eases. See

In sec­tion II, the report con­tin­ued by con­firm­ing that the vac­cines being used were unli­censed:

Although there are no cur­rent­ly licensed GAS vac­cines yet, the bio­log­i­cal fea­si­bil­i­ty for GAS vac­cine devel­op­ment is sup­port­ed by the fol­low­ing obser­va­tions…….

It is clear from read­ing this paper in full that the WHO has been respon­si­ble for test­ing these vac­cines for many years and we now know that this is not the only vac­cine test­ed on these vul­ner­a­ble indi­vid­u­als.

Tetanus Vaccines Laced With Hormones Known to Cause Miscarriage

In 1992, the WHO, the Unit­ed Nations Devel­op­ment Pro­gram (UNDP), the Unit­ed Nations Pop­u­la­tion Fund (UNFPA) and the World Bank met in Gene­va, Switzer­land, to dis­cuss the then-cur­rent sta­tus for the devel­op­ment of “fer­til­i­ty reg­u­lat­ing vac­ci­na­tions.” The min­utes to that meet­ing were doc­u­ment­ed in a paper enti­tled Fer­til­i­ty Reg­u­lat­ing Vac­cines.

At first glance, it appears that the WHO had been dis­cussing var­i­ous meth­ods of fam­i­ly plan­ning with a vari­ety of women’s health advo­cates and sci­en­tists from devel­op­ing coun­tries. On fur­ther read­ing, how­ev­er, some­thing far more wor­ry­ing emerged.

To find out what, I urge you to read my arti­cle on the sub­ject, titled WHO Caught Rec­om­mend­ing Vac­ci­na­tions Known to Ren­der Pri­mates Infer­tile.

In 1994, the WHO decid­ed to put these vac­ci­na­tions to the test and gave women from devel­op­ing coun­tries aged between 15 and 45 a tetanus vac­cine con­tain­ing the hCG hor­mone.

How­ev­er, an orga­ni­za­tion known as the Comité Pro Vida de Mex­i­co became sus­pi­cious of the pro­to­cols sur­round­ing the vac­cines and obtained sev­er­al vials for test­ing. It was dis­cov­ered that some of the vials con­tained human chori­on­ic gonadotropin (hCG), the exact same hor­mone that the WHO, the UNDP, the UNFPA and the World Bank had been dis­cussing just two years ear­li­er.

Determined to Continue Their Efforts, the WHO Did Not Stop There

Hav­ing been caught in their ear­li­er attempts, in 2014, the WHO teamed up with the orga­ni­za­tion UNICEF and decid­ed that they would attempt their antics yet again, only to have their efforts blight­ed a short time lat­er by the Kenya Catholic Doc­tors Asso­ci­a­tion.

Dr. Wahome Ngare

Dr. Wahome Ngare

Out­raged by their dis­re­gard for human life, Dr. Wahome Ngare spoke out on behalf of the asso­ci­a­tion, mak­ing his feel­ings abun­dant­ly clear. Speak­ing to the Huff­in­g­ton Post, he said:

What is immoral and evil is that the tetanus laced with HCG was giv­en as a fer­til­i­ty reg­u­lat­ing vac­cine with­out dis­clos­ing its con­tra­cep­tive effect to the girls and moth­ers.

Many peo­ple believe that he is absolute­ly cor­rect and are ask­ing whether or not the WHO has the right to play God and deter­mine who can and can­not have chil­dren.

Gates Foundation, PATH, WHO and UNICEF Test Meningitis A Vaccines in AfricaBill-gates-GAVI-Vaccines

In Decem­ber 2012, in the small vil­lage of Gouro, Chad, Africa, sit­u­at­ed on the edge of the Sahara Desert, five hun­dred chil­dren were locked into their school and threat­ened that if they did not agree to being force-vac­ci­nat­ed with a menin­gi­tis A vac­cine, they would receive no fur­ther edu­ca­tion.

These chil­dren were vac­ci­nat­ed with­out their par­ents’ knowl­edge. This vac­cine was an unli­censed prod­uct still going through the third and fourth phas­es of test­ing.

With­in hours, one hun­dred and six chil­dren began to suf­fer from headaches, vom­it­ing, severe, uncon­trol­lable con­vul­sions and paral­y­sis. Forty chil­dren were final­ly trans­ferred to a hos­pi­tal in Faya and lat­er tak­en to two hos­pi­tals in N’Djamena, the cap­i­tal city of Chad.

Child in Chad injured by the Meningitis A vaccine.

Child in Chad injured by the Menin­gi­tis A vac­cine.

Vac­Truth holds copies of all the orig­i­nal reports, along with med­ical and gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments. The groups involved with this project were PATH, WHO, UNICEF, and the Bill and Melin­da Gates Foun­da­tion.

And the atroc­i­ties con­tin­ue.

WHO and Gates Foundation are Taken to Court for Testing HPV Vaccines in IndiaIndia-Supreme-Cour

In a recent report writ­ten in August 2014, The Eco­nom­ic Times of India out­lined how, in 2009, the WHO teamed up with the Gates Foun­da­tion to test HPV vac­cines on thou­sands of trib­al women in India. The Eco­nom­ic Times wrote:

In 2009, sev­er­al schools for trib­al chil­dren in Kham­mam dis­trict in Telan­gana — then a part of undi­vid­ed Andhra Pradesh — became sites for obser­va­tion stud­ies for a cer­vi­cal can­cer vac­cine that was admin­is­tered to thou­sands of girls aged between nine and 15. The girls were admin­is­tered the Human Papil­lo­ma Virus (HPV) vac­cine in three rounds that year under the super­vi­sion of state health depart­ment offi­cials. The vac­cine used was Gar­dasil, man­u­fac­tured by Mer­ck. It was admin­is­tered to around 16,000 girls in the dis­trict, many of whom stayed in state gov­ern­ment-run hos­tels meant for trib­al stu­dents.

Months lat­er, many girls start­ed falling ill and by 2010 five of them died. Two more deaths were report­ed from Vado­dara, Gujarat, where an esti­mat­ed 14,000 chil­dren study­ing in schools meant for trib­al chil­dren were also vac­ci­nat­ed with anoth­er brand of HPV vac­cine, Cer­var­ix, man­u­fac­tured by GSK. Ear­li­er in the week, the Asso­ci­at­ed Press report­ed that scores of teenaged girls were hos­pi­talised in a small town in north­ern Colom­bia with symp­toms that par­ents sus­pect could be an adverse reac­tion to Gar­dasil.

A stand­ing com­mit­tee on health and fam­i­ly wel­fare that inves­ti­gat­ed the irreg­u­lar­i­ties per­tain­ing to the obser­va­tion stud­ies in India tabled its report a year ago, on August 30.

The com­mit­tee found that con­sent for con­duct­ing these stud­ies, in many cas­es, was tak­en from the hos­tel war­dens, which was a fla­grant vio­la­tion of norms. In many oth­er cas­es, thumbprint impres­sions of their poor and illit­er­ate par­ents were duly affixed onto the con­sent form. The chil­dren also had no idea about the nature of the dis­ease or the vac­cine. The author­i­ties con­cerned could not fur­nish req­ui­site con­sent forms for the vac­ci­nat­ed chil­dren in a huge num­ber of cas­es.

Dr. Lucia Toml­jen­ovic and Pro­fes­sor Christo­pher Shaw, two pro­fes­sion­als sup­port­ed by the Children’s Med­ical Safe­ty Research Insti­tute, an orga­ni­za­tion pro­vid­ing grants for an inves­ti­ga­tion into HPV vac­cine safe­ty, dis­cussed how India’s med­ical author­i­ties were con­demned for their actions after Kalpana Mehta, Nali­ni Bhan­ot and Dr. Ruk­mi­ni Rao filed a writ peti­tion with the Supreme Court of India. In their paper titled Human papil­lo­mavirus (HPV) vac­cine pol­i­cy and evi­dence-based med­i­cine: Are they at odds? Dr. Toml­jen­ovic and Pro­fes­sor Shaw wrote:

India’s med­ical author­i­ties have also been pub­licly con­demned after a civ­il soci­ety-led inves­ti­ga­tion revealed that tri­als for HPV vac­cines in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat vio­lat­ed estab­lished nation­al and inter­na­tion­al eth­i­cal guide­lines on clin­i­cal research as well as children’s rights. ! These events appar­ent­ly occurred as a result of ‘aggres­sive ’ pro­mo­tion­al prac­tices of the drug com­pa­nies and their uncrit­i­cal endorse­ment by India’s med­ical asso­ci­a­tions.

Although pro­claimed as a post-licen­sure obser­va­tion­al study of HPV vac­ci­na­tion against cer­vi­cal can­cer, the project was in fact a clin­i­cal tri­al and, as such, should have adhered to pro­to­cols man­dat­ed by the Drugs and Cos­met­ics Act (DCA) and the Indi­an Coun­cil for Med­ical Research (ICMR). Instead, the tri­al was found in seri­ous breach of both the DCA’s and the ICMR’s guide­lines for informed con­sent and was ter­mi­nat­ed in April 2010, fol­low­ing six post-HPV vac­ci­na­tion deaths.

Now, let’s move on to my final exam­ple.

High Titre Measles Vaccines Tested on Vulnerable Babies in the 1980’s

In June 2014, Osman Sankoh et al pub­lished a paper in the Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Epi­demi­ol­o­gy, titled: The non-spe­cif­ic effects of vac­cines and oth­er child­hood inter­ven­tions: the con­tri­bu­tion of INDEPTH Health and Demo­graph­ic Sur­veil­lance Sys­tems.

The researchers explained that the major­i­ty of vac­ci­na­tion stud­ies being pub­lished today attempt to jus­ti­fy whether or not the vac­ci­na­tion in ques­tion has an over­all pos­i­tive effect on the pop­u­la­tion being vac­ci­nat­ed. How­ev­er, the researchers pub­lish­ing this par­tic­u­lar study decid­ed to inves­ti­gate whether or not the vac­ci­na­tions being giv­en to chil­dren in high mor­tal­i­ty regions were caus­ing the chil­dren to die from unre­lat­ed dis­eases being caused by the vac­cines.

In oth­er words, the researchers stud­ied not only whether the vac­cine pro­tect­ed chil­dren from the dis­eases that they were being vac­ci­nat­ed against, but also whether or not the vac­cines were caus­ing non-spe­cif­ic effects (NSEs) that were beneficial/detrimental to children’s health, depend­ing upon:

  1. The age of the child when vac­ci­nat­ed
  2. The com­bi­na­tion of the vac­cines giv­en at the time.

The researchers stat­ed that:

In many sit­u­a­tions, the pop­u­la­tion-based effects have been very dif­fer­ent from the antic­i­pat­ed effects; for exam­ple, the measles-pre­ven­tive high-titre measles vac­cine was asso­ci­at­ed with 2-fold increased female mor­tal­i­ty; BCG reduces neona­tal mor­tal­i­ty although chil­dren do not die of tuber­cu­lo­sis in the neona­tal peri­od; vit­a­min A may be asso­ci­at­ed with increased or reduced child mor­tal­i­ty in dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions; effects of inter­ven­tions may dif­fer for boys and girls.

They also stat­ed:

Each year, immu­niza­tion averts an esti­mat­ed 2–3 mil­lion deaths from diph­the­ria, tetanus, per­tus­sis (whoop­ing cough) and measles. How­ev­er, there is now strong evi­dence that vac­cines have sub­stan­tial non-spe­cif­ic (het­erol­o­gous) effects in chil­dren in high-mor­tal­i­ty regions, i.e. by chang­ing mor­tal­i­ty from infec­tions unre­lat­ed to the vac­cine-tar­get­ed infec­tions. As a con­se­quence. the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Strate­gic Advi­so­ry Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immu­niza­tion has recent­ly ini­ti­at­ed a review of the non­spe­cif­ic effects (NSEs) of BCG, diph­the­ria-tetanus-per­tus­sis (DTP) and measles (MV) vac­cines. (Note: High titer/titre vac­cine: A mod­i­fied live vac­cine that con­tains a high­er num­ber of virus par­ti­cles than the ‘aver­age’ vac­cine.)

By research­ing the var­i­ous vac­ci­na­tions, age that the vac­ci­na­tions were admin­is­tered and the var­i­ous com­bi­na­tions of vac­cines admin­is­tered, researchers dis­cov­ered a range of wor­ry­ing out­comes. See Table 1.

Results Are Extremely Worrying

If we study these results in detail, many are extreme­ly wor­ry­ing. It is clear that a vari­ety of vac­ci­na­tions were being giv­en to extreme­ly vul­ner­a­ble babies, in mul­ti­ple com­bi­na­tions, from birth.

The results of their study clear­ly high­light­ed areas of con­cern. One of the most alarm­ing was the fact that the study revealed a high­er mor­tal­i­ty rate in those females vac­ci­nat­ed with the high titre measles vac­cine. The researchers stat­ed:

HTMV was test­ed in RCTs in the late 1980s, com­par­ing HTMV at 4–5 months of age with stan­dard MV at 9 months of age. The HTMV was pro­tec­tive against measles infec­tion and was rec­om­mend­ed by WHO in 1989 for gen­er­al use in low-income coun­tries with a high inci­dence of measles infection.A meta-analy­sis of stud­ies from Bis­sau, Gam­bia and Sene­gal showed that this vac­cine was asso­ci­at­ed with 33% increased mor­tal­i­ty rate between 4 and 60 months of age. The excess mor­tal­i­ty was among girls, where­as the new vac­cine com­pared with the tra­di­tion­al MV had no dif­fer­en­tial effect on sur­vival for boys. These results were sub­se­quent­ly con­firmed in RCTs from Sudan and Haiti, and WHO with­drew the 1989 rec­om­men­da­tion for HTMV in 1992. These RCTs showed:

  • first, that a ful­ly pro­tec­tive vac­cine can have neg­a­tive NSE
  • sec­ond, that these effects can be sex-dif­fer­en­tial and
  • third, that NSE can have major effects on child mor­tal­i­ty pat­terns; had the vac­cine not been with­drawn, a 33% excess mor­tal­i­ty rate between ages 4 and 60 months would at the time have meant at least an addi­tion­al half-mil­lion female deaths annu­al­ly, in Africa alone.

How­ev­er, despite the WHO remov­ing the vac­ci­na­tion from the sched­ule in 1992, the high titre Edmon­ston-Zagreb measles vac­cine was once again used to test infants from low income coun­tries in 2004–2007. See a study pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Infec­tious Dis­eases.

Conclusion: WHO Needs to be Investigated for Unethical Research

The WHO has engaged in activ­i­ties that fall far below the stan­dards of eth­i­cal, research and med­ical con­duct that have been estab­lished by our health orga­ni­za­tions to pro­tect human rights. They should there­fore be inves­ti­gat­ed and pre­vent­ed from these unchecked activ­i­ties in the future. If not, each and every one of us will be put at risk when this type of evil is done in the name of med­i­cine.