Astra-Zeneca & the Eugenics Society…

Should it be of concern to the general public that the makers of the Oxford-AstroZeneca vaccine have significant ties to what was the British Eugenics Society?

Should that information in fact have been made public knowledge? And why hasn’t it been picked up on by any mainstream media sources?

Whitney Webb and Jeremy Lofreddo, writing at Unlimited Hangout have done thorough work in demonstrating the links between the vaccine developers to what used to be called the British Eugenics Society, as well as related eugenics organisations such as the Wellcome Trust.

The vaccine’s development, it appears, is linked to both the Wellcome Trust and – via Adrian Hill – to the Galton Institute: two organisations that it appears have long been tied to the British eugenics movement. It’s the Galton Institute, ‘named to honour “the father of eugenics” Francis Galton’, that previously went under the name British Eugenics Society.

As Webb and Lofreddo explain, the UK Eugenics Society was ‘notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century.’

Shouldn’t it be of concern that organisations such as this should be involved in the development of a mass-produced vaccine intended to be injected into millions of people? As the article notes, the Oxford-AstroZeneca vaccine seems to be the one most likely to be pushed on the developing countries, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

As it also notes, members of the Galton Institute have in the past called for a reduction in population growth in those parts of the world. Which is hardly a comforting precedent.

Extraordinarily, the Wellcome Trust’s website even speaks in language that would seem more appropriate for many decades ago, at a time when the idea of eugenics was more openly espoused in Britain (and, for that matter, in Nazi Germany): it even talks about the “aim of biological improvement of the nation and mitigation of the burdens deemed to be imposed on society by the genetically ‘unfit’.”

It shouldn’t escape our attention that ‘the genetically unfit’ sounds like something the Nazis would’ve been saying in regard to their quest to cleanse their nation of the impure and create the genetically superior master race.

Certainly, in those same times, it was not politically-incorrect or culturally insensitive for such language and terms to be openly used in Britain: indeed, recent documentaries on the BBC explored some of that eugenics-related thinking in Britain in those years, particularly in regard to dealing with the disabled or with people born with any kind of perceived defects.

So the Nazis certainly weren’t the only ones thinking in those terms – they were just the ones who took such philosophies to their most extreme (and inhumane) conclusion.

But hearing such language espoused in the modern day is unsettling: all the more so if we’re talking about organisations connected to the development of this vaccine – a vaccine that is intended to be administered into the bodies of potentially millions of people.

Depending on the reach of this vaccine, these groups and people have the potential power to alter the very genetics of large amounts of people across different parts of the world. Which should certainly warrant their philosophies and outlooks being closely scrutinised: but no one in either the political realm or the mainstream media realm seems to be interested.

Even amid the recent backlash against AstraZeneca, I don’t think any attention has been drawn to these eugenics associations.

Let’s look at some of the most prominent people previously connected with the British Eugenics Society.

Among them is Margaret Sanger, the “pioneer of the American birth control movement” and the principle figure in the ‘Negro Project’: which Harriet Washington’s book Medical Apartheid argues was a programme to ‘reduce the black population by promoting eugenics principals’.

The propaganda image shown here is from the Galton Institute’s own library.

And, as Webb highlights, an early member of the the Galton Institute was John Harvey Kellogg, who founded the Race Betterment Foundation. And yet another was Charles Davenport, a scientist who collaborated with Nazi German eugenics researchers and can be said to have had some involvement or influence on the Nazis inhuman racial policies. Davenport was Vice President of the Galton Institute in the early 1930s.

David J. Galton, an Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute, happened to write ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century‘. He enthused that the Human Genome Mapping Project had massively increased the ‘scope for eugenics’ via the development of powerful technologies for ‘manipulation of DNA’.

The “wider definition of eugenics” espoused by Galton would involve, among other things, “regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality” by methods including gene therapy or gene manipulation. As Webb and Lofreddo point out, Galton is ambivalent about whether such methods “should be made compulsory by the state or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.”

It’s curious that the same conversation is being had about the COVID vaccines – whether the state should at some point make vaccination mandatory or leave individuals to make their own choice.

Now of course the point could be made that all of these unsavory philosophies and statements are from the past: and perhaps attitudes in these organisations have moved on with the times.

But renaming organisations or trying at surface-level to distance themselves from the language or thinking of older times appears to be mere public-relations strategy. The talk of the ‘genetically unfit’ on the Wellcome Trust’s website seems to imply that the same underlying philosophy or thinking – or at the very least, the same language – is still very much present.

Also, like with Pfizer’s corporate rap-sheet, some of these institutions linked with the Astro-Zeneca development have a shady track record. In 2019, it was being reported that the Wellcome Trust was being accused by both a whistleblower and the University of Cape Town of ‘illegally exploiting hundreds of Africans by “commercializing a gene chip without proper legal agreements and without the consent of the hundreds of African people whose donated DNA was used to develop the chip”…’

In the wake of this, citizens and institutions in several other African nations began to demand that the Wellcome Trust return the DNA it had illegally harvested.

It should also come as little surprise that the same organisation also frequently collaborates in both its vaccine and birth-control research with the Gates Foundation.

Which brings us to the present day COVID crisis, in which the Gates Foundation has certainly been a significant presence: in all regards, from ‘ID2020’ to ‘Event 201’ and beyond (I covered ID2020 and Event 201 in the PDF from last April here: I won’t go over the details again here).

Webb’s article also informs us that Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, is ‘enmeshed with the Gates Foundation. His employer, the University of Oxford, has received $11 million for vaccine development research from the foundation over the past three years and $208 million in grants over the past decade. In 2016, the Gates Foundation gave $36 million to a team of researchers that was headed by Pollard for vaccine development. In addition, Pollard’s private laboratory is funded by the Gates Foundation. Given this, it should come as no surprise that the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), a public-private partnership founded and currently funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, plans to distribute the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to low-income, predominantly African and Asian, countries once it’s approved…’

I also already talked about both Gates and GAVI in the PDF from last year: in relation to ‘ID2020’ – the plan, pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic, to use immunisation and vaccination as the pretext for ‘digital identity’.

Which, one has to presume, would lead directly into micro-chipping (or ‘quantum dot’ tattooing) via vaccination – all of which was openly stated and laid out in official spiel.

And, as pointed out then, the COVID pandemic of 2020 provides the perfect pretext for ‘ID2020’: a plan, as laid out in the official spiel, to register every human being (from birth) into a digital system of identity and control – with vaccination merely as the pretext. Gates’s ‘quantum dot’ tattoo technology (essentially described as a bar-code for human beings) doesn’t seem to have any discernible benevolent purpose: it merely indicates that a man who was once obsessed with computer-based software has since moved on to human or genetic software.

None of this is intended as scaremongering: only as observation of certain facts and connections that more people should be aware of.

In the case of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine, it should be of concern that a vaccine whose development is linked to eugenics organisations, was given the green-light – and this much power – to lead the response to the supposed pandemic. Particularly given that most discussion of the various vaccines acknowledges the underlying process of DNA or RNA manipulation involved.

And especially as we’re in new and unprecedented territory.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are in fact the first RNA vaccines ever to be approved for use. Huge swathes of our populations have essentially volunteered to be guinea pigs in a mass experiment.

I speculated last April that the entire pandemic and lockdown might’ve been a vast psychological and social experiment in itself: but the question also emerges of whether this mass vaccination programme is also a genetic – or eugenics – experiment.

mRNA, or messenger RNA, is the the molecule that essentially puts DNA instructions into action.

That these vaccines are manipulating mRNA is not in dispute: it is openly acknowledged, even boasted about. This in itself might not be a bad thing: it could be used for generally positive purposes and outcomes.

Hell, even eugenics advocates might be onto something: maybe this line of research or development could genuinely strengthen or improve the gene pool over time, leading to a healthier, fitter population in the future.

It’s just that… you know, when you look at the spiel and the history of eugenics advocates and fanatics, it doesn’t exactly put you at ease, does it?

Granted, not all the vaccines are exactly the same: and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, etc, aren’t necessarily programmed to do the exact same things as the Astra-Zeneca vaccine.

But, as a Jerusalem Post article from a few months ago noted, ‘when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long term effects‘.

Certainly, the sheer scale of vaccinations apparently ‘needed’ to combat the supposed COVID crisis worldwide means that the organisations behind the vaccines now have a huge reach in terms of widespread manipulation of human DNA: the potential, in an extreme scenario, to conduct a substantial terra-forming of human genetics.

It’s also interesting that it was the Oxford group that won the ‘vaccine race’, being the first in the world to declare an effective COVID vaccine.

Certainly, you could attribute that to great expertise and dedicated man-hours to find a way to combat the pandemic. But, given some of these connections touched on here (as well as the links to Bill Gates: whose pandemic-linked agendas all pre-date the COVID-19 outbreak), you also have to wonder if it was a case of pre-existing programmes and research being in place to surface as precisely the right time to fit the timeline of a fast-moving agenda.

And then, as usual, you have to ask if the solution in fact preceded the crisis: and whether or not that in itself is something to be suspicious about.

Read all Covid-19 articles here.

COVID: Vaccine Data is Telling an Interesting Story…