The golden calf of public health was smashed in this recent flu season as many in the United States outright rejected the H1N1 vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are now holding the bag, as millions of doses of the vaccine are rotting on shelves or being discarded as hazardous waste. Or are they? The manufacturer may find it more cost effective to dump them into the arms of our public school systems.

Parents would revolt if they knew that the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control have allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in the public schools. Pumping children with experimental vaccines in public school is about to be pursued as a matter of policy.

Denver Public Schools the Target
Recently, a news article (http://www.denverpost.com/commented...) in the Denver Post highlighted two grants issued by the Centers for Disease Control totaling $1.6 million dollars to vaccinate students attending Denver Public Schools (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an...).

One grant (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an...) funds an effort to establish a sustainable school-based vaccination program utilizing the yearly influenza and experimental H1N1 vaccine. The hope is to create a partnership between public health (Denver Health), school personnel (Denver Public Schools), and an entity (Kaiser Permanente) that would bill third party payers.

The second grant (http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/I...) provides cash for vaccinating children with the newly approved diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), and human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV). The new vaccines for adolescents are among the most expensive vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program...) recommended today for any age group.

Lead investigator of Denver In-School Immunization Project, Dr. Judith Shlay, of Denver Health, readily admits that if all goes well, plans are in place to implement school-base vaccine clinics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHji... ) nation-wide (a high level overview of this plan (http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.jsJPKW...) was presented to the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care by Dr. Shlay).

School Based Health Clinics As the Conduit
The Denver In-School Immunization Project (http://denverhealth.org/portal/Serv...) has long been in the works. It was paved in the late 1970s and early 1980s by incrementally creating School-Based Health Clinics (SCHC). In 1978, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a non-profit organization funded by the Pharmaceutical Company, Johnson and Johnson (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...), contributed $2.3 million dollars to the state of Colorado, (http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/032...) making SBHCs a reality.

Illnesses such as ADD/ADHD, Cervical Cancer, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and learning disabilities were of little consequence in the '70s. However, these disabling syndromes and the medications aimed at treating them have all reached epidemic proportions and astronomically profitable sales.

In the past, parents have discovered challenging a school-based medical model can be extremely dangerous. In September, 2000, Ms. Patti Johnson, a former Colorado State education board member, testified before Federal Congress (http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/ps...) concerning Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). In the 1990s, the much-hyped drug, Ritalin, was maneuvered into public schools to address the growing epidemic of hyperactivity. Mrs. Johnson testimony was prophetic and foreshadowed a future scenario where parents could be charged with medical neglect if they refused to medicate their child per the school's request.

Vaccines for All School Children is the Goal
If School Based Health Clinics are being used as the conduit to vaccinate children, the federally-funded Vaccines For Children (VFC) (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program...) program and third party insurance coverage provide the finances. According to the grant approved by the CDC, the VFC program would provide "free" vaccines to an estimated forty percent of children in the United States who are not covered by third party insurance plans.

"The goal is for this (Denver In-School Immunization Project) to be a sustainable program that can immunize all children in the schools regardless of their insurance. And we need to see at the end of the day, when all the dust settles at the end of this school year, whether the amount that was reimbursed for all these different insurance companies, adds up to the amount of time and effort it took to actually have the clinic." (Emphasis added)

Dr. Matthew Daley
Evaluator of the Denver In-School Immunization Project
Kaiser Permanente
Colorado Public Radio Interview
February 17th, 2010
(http://www.kcfr.org/index.php?optio...)

Put into context, the implications of the Denver In-School Immunization Project are enormous. We are speaking of a captured market for vaccine manufacturers (guaranteed purchase of vaccines), insurance companies (guaranteed rise in premiums), and government funding (VFC) all footed by taxpayer dollars. The total price per vaccinated adolescent in the private sector is approximately $500 (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/au...). That's a lot of cash.

What Does Pharma Know?
Dr. Matthew Daley is very aware that a paltry 1/3rd of adolescents receive their yearly influenza vaccine, for example. In a semi-recent presentation, (http://www.preventinfluenza.org/NIV...) Dr. Daley shows obtaining parental consent is a barrier to mass vaccination in a school setting. Furthermore, the presentation suggests improved financial incentives for providing influenza vaccinations. Dr. Daley must be sharing his notes with RAND Corporation because it is almost the exact message RAND pitched to the pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi Pasteur.

In 2007, a study performed by RAND Corporation, funded by Sanofi Pasteur, investigated the most efficient way to vaccinate (http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented...) low-income adolescents. Nicole Lurie,(http://www.opensecrets.org/revolvin...) one authors of the white paper, is now an adviser to Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Human Health Services (HHS). Mrs. Lurie has a long history of traversing the revolving door between private industry, government duties, and academic appointments (there is no difference from the former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, (http://vactruth.com/2010/01/04/juli...) becoming President of Merck Pharmaceuticals Vaccine Division).

RAND's report identifies barriers that would obstruct "alternative vaccination campaigns," otherwise known as "in-school vaccination programs." The list of legal issues includes parental consent laws, absence of a reliable medical home (where an adolescent receives medical treatment such as a doctor's office), and access to vaccine registration information.

That's right, mom and dad. Your current ability to refuse vaccines, which is protected by most state laws, is considered a barrier to Pharmaceutical Interests!

*As a side note, many states are taking steps to move parents out of the way and allow public officials the right to vaccinate children, without parental consent. By example, legislation is being considered in New York that would give absolute authority to health professionals to vaccinate children under 18 years old without the parental consent. Another bill in New York (http://vactruth.com/2010/02/12/new-...) seeks to mandate the controversial HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for school entry.

With Public Relations at the foreground, The RAND paper further recommends that Sanofi Pasteur create "Vaccine Champions" or "Registration Champions." Vaccine champions are "ardent supporters of a cause … They can bring about change by educating those around them and spurring others into action through local events, meetings, or publications." Coincidentally, non-profit organizations such as The Immunization Partnership are following lockstep with the RAND Corporation's group-think. It also has "Immunization Champions." (http://www.immunizeusa.org/iz-champ...)

If vaccines are mandated for public school attendance, and most likely they will be, you can bet that it won't matter whether the vaccine is experimental or not. With rising awareness of the chronic effects of mass vaccination, public skepticism and outcries will likely be countered with fear mongering (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/...) by fanatical vaccine advocates and lobbying groups funded by Big Pharma interests. The only real way to protect the safety of our children is to fiercely safeguard state exemption laws that uphold parents' freedom to choose whether to vaccinate or not.

Yet, by blending society's Federal Educational Framework with a superficial medical model, vaccine proponents have a road map to overcome any damaging future resistance to experimental vaccines. Could it be any clearer that if left unchecked, the pharmaceutical industrial complex soon will be calling the shots instead of parents?

About the author: Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of the website http://www.vactruth.com he promotes well-educated pediatricians, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

by Douglas DeGroot

[PDF version of this article]

June 4—Prince Philip's World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is going on the offensive against South Africa, dictating that the WWF's depopulation policies be implemented in South Africa. The anti-South African offensive was signaled by the June 1 announcement of a campaign against industry by the South African branch of the WWF, using the fraudulent pretext of the danger of a carbon dioxide buildup.

The goal of the WWF and the British Imperial financial cartel, is to use the anti-scientific CO2 ruse to force South Africa to dump its goal of developing advanced-technology power generation as a means of industrialization. The alternative being offered, is to reduce energy consumption, and use inadequate "renewable energies." Prince Philip and his cohorts in the London-based imperial financial cartel are the top culprits who are pushing these racist, Nazi-style policies to depopulate the globe.

The implicit target of the WWF is the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, which is a world leader in developing a fourth-generation, high-temperature, gas-cooled, pebble bed reactor. Successful development of the PBMR project would defeat Philip and his like-minded Neanderthals who are intent on preserving their old order by imposing a policy of technological apartheid on Africa and the rest of the yet-to-be developed nations of the world. The defeat of these fanatics would destroy all the scenarios now being cooked up to eliminate South Africa as the continent's leading industrial nation.

Crucial to that defeat is a shift of policy in the United States. The British population-reduction policy was brought to the United States by Henry A. Kissinger in 1974, when he initiated the process that made genocidal population reduction a required tenet of U.S. policymaking.[1] The U.S. thus joined the British in seeking to prevent the ex-colonial sectors from using their resources, considered "strategic" by the policy's promoters, to encourage population growth by modernization and industrialization. The time is more than ripe for the U.S. to break from British imperial policy.
WWF Calls for War

The call for green fascism in South Africa was announced in a June 1 interview with Saliem Fakir, the head of WWF's Living Planet unit. He called for lowering carbon dioxide emissions, and developing solar power technology in South Africa, and said that the WWF will target ten companies over the next five years to be involved in the Fund's "Climate Savers' " initiative. (See the fraudulent carbon dioxide argument against development exposed as a hoax in the interview with Lord Christopher Monckton.)

As a result of the bankruptcy of the globalized monetarist system, South Africa is in the throes of its worst economic crisis since 1992. The WWF picked this moment of vulnerability to launch its offensive, less than a month after Jacob Zuma was inaugurated as President of South Africa, on May 9.

Zuma, as the African National Congress (ANC) candidate, ran a populist campaign, promising to reduce poverty, and he continues to pledge more jobs. However, in the first quarter of this year, mining production has dropped by 32.8%, and manufacturing output plunged 22.1%, the biggest fall in these two sectors since records began to be kept in 1960. Zuma is now trapped. He cannot deliver on his promises.
British Fabian Society Assets

The core of Zuma's support is the Cosatu trade union federation and its close ally, the South African Communist Party (SACP), an alliance going back to the fight against apartheid. The leaders of this alliance are assets of the British Fabian Society. Cosatu has 21 affiliated unions, and a combined membership of over 1.9 million. The SACP has 37 of the 400 seats in the National Assembly.

Cosatu is demanding protection from the economic crisis by means of more social spending and protectionism, but the globalized business sector isn't going to see South Africa as "business friendly" if it turns to protectionism. South Africa risks being destroyed by the conflict between these two opposing forces.

Trying to buy some maneuvering room, Zuma said in his inaugural State of the Nation speech yesterday, that job creation and fighting poverty will be his main focus. He announced that the South African Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) has developed a program to fund South African companies that are in trouble because of the global collapse, to protect jobs. He vowed to create 500,000 job opportunities by the end of the year, and 4 million jobs by 2014. South Africa's unemployment rate has climbed to 23.5% in the first quarter this year, from 21.9% in the last quarter of 2008.

But, indicative of the trap he is caught in, Zuma also sought to dampen expectations of what his government could do to alleviate poverty and create more jobs: he said that the economic crisis calls for prudent spending.

On June 1, two days before Zuma's State of the Nation speech, Irvin Jim, the general-secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers, one of the three biggest trade unions, threatened mass strikes to force interest rate cuts by the Reserve Bank (the central bank): "If matters are not resolved, we will have mass rolling action." In response, Jessie Stuart, spokesperson for the ANC, urged caution: "What will have to happen," she said, "is an understanding that during a recessionary time there is a slight difference, that we might as a ruling party have to mediate and talk about all of us taking responsibility that the recession doesn't deepen."

Cosatu leaders approved of Zuma's speech yesterday, but the honeymoon didn't last long. Today, Cosatu backed the metalworkers' call for strikes to demand deeper interest rate cuts, as a way of fostering economic growth, and thus save jobs. Cosatu general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said: "We fully endorse that we must engage in mass action." Cosatu also said today that it would not support the renewal of Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni's contract, which expires in August.

The Cosatu-SACP alliance played a key role in dumping former South African President Thabo Mbeki, who was forced to resign last Sept. 20. This opened the way for the election of Zuma. It was the legwork carried out by Cosatu which ousted Mbeki and gave Zuma his April electoral victory, setting him up for his no-win trap. Now, the Cosatu-SACP alliance, not comprehending the nature of the crisis, is being played against Zuma. It is telling the Cosatu membership that it is payback time for them, for having ousted Mbeki and his backers. The Fabian Society-manipulated Cosatu-SACP alliance is now is a position to destroy the nationalist institutions of the ANC.

The British imperial Fabian Society will use its assets to pressure the South African government to dump the PBMR project, or cut it way back, and instead use the financial resources for programs to alleviate the immediate effects of the economic crisis.
The WWF and South Africa

There is a long, deep, and intimate connection between the WWF and South Africa. The British imperial elites and like-minded elements amongst the South African elites of British and Afrikaaner extraction were, and still are, intent on stopping human development and progress, and greatly reducing the world's population. If they don't succeed, they will not be able to maintain their control in the world.

The WWF was founded in 1961, at the time many former European colonies in Africa were gaining nominal independence; it was an initiative of Julian Huxley and Edward Nicholson, and was dedicated to preserving a "natural order" undisturbed by humans. Huxley approvingly reported, for example, his discovery on a trip to British colonial Tanganyika, that the wildlife on the Serengeti plain was almost undisturbed, because the tsetse fly (the vector for the trypanosome parasite which causes sleeping sickness in humans) prevented human settlement there.

Nicholson was a longtime intimate of the British imperial order. He accompanied Winston Churchill to the Yalta summit, before the end of World War II, and also accompanied him to the post-war meeting with Josef Stalin and Harry Truman in Potsdam, among his other services to the British imperialist cartel.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was WWF president from 1962 to 1976, when his involvement in the Lockheed scandal became public. Prince Philip was president 1981-96. Both princes were from not very distinguished European royal families, and only acquired their more elevated status when they married their respective spouses, both of whom later became queens.

Although the WWF was set up to raise money to preserve the old order in South Africa by pushing population-reduction policies, it reportedly was not very successful until South African businessman Anton Rupert joined the board. Rupert was one of the richest men in South Africa, rivaled only by Harry Oppenheimer, the gold and diamond magnate. Rupert made his initial fortune in tobacco and alcohol. According to reports, Rupert came to the rescue of the WWF by coming up with the idea of the 1001 Club, which gathered together wealthy individuals who were expected to give substantive contributions.

An inordinately large proportion of the 1001 were South Africans. The percentage of South Africans, relative to its total white population, was higher than the percentage of any other country in the WWF. Of course, black Africans were not counted. The imperial cabal only counted them as an indicator for determining where populations were getting too large.

Rupert appointed an employee of his, Charles de Haes, as a personal assistant to Prince Bernhard, for WWF fundraising. After two years, de Haes was put in charge of the WWF, paid by Rupert.

The South African group in the WWF saw eye-to-eye with Princes Bernhard and Philip, agreeing that the "natives" should not be allowed to disturb the natural order by becoming "uppity" and thinking that they should have the right to industrialize their countries to provide for, and benefit from the growing population. Hence, the fixation of Prince Philip et al, on depopulation (see "In Their Own Words," p. 27).
PBMR Is the Only Option for a Future

South Africa is at the forefront of developing fourth-generation nuclear power plants for the 21st Century. With a 700-member team, PBMR has one of the largest nuclear reactor design teams in the world. This is a notable accomplishment, because the ability to design civil nuclear power reactors is not widespread.

Successful development of this technology has enormous implications for Africa and the rest of the world. Africa has about 15% of the world's population, but only generates 4% of the world's electricty. South Africa is about 75% electrified, but only 10% of the 700 million people on the continent have access to regular electricity. Presently, 90% of South Africa's power is produced in coal burning plants.

The high energy flux-density of power that would be produced by the direct cycle gas-cooled PBMR reactors could provide the cheap power needed to develop South Africa and the rest of Africa.

It is critical to keep this project going. South Africa's electrical power generation parastatal, Eskom, owns 41% of the project, the IDC owns 14%, and the South African government holds a 30% direct interest in the project. U.S.-based Westinghouse also has a 15% stake.

The PBMR project will run out of money next March. Therefore, PBMR is currently shifting the reactor design from a direct cycle, helium gas-turbine concept for direct production of electricity, to the more quickly marketable indirect, steam-turbine concept that can generate electricity or be used for process-heat applications. This application would involve using the helium coolant gas that becomes super-heated, to create high temperature steam.

Because of rapidly growing interest from petrochemical groups and tar sands companies in applying the PBMR to activities requiring process heat, the pebble bed project is now busy modifying the PBMR design. PBMR's Tom Ferreira said that "given the limited funding available, we are considering whether we could build a more versatile reactor that could do both electricity and process heat. The same basic machine for both applications."

In this variation of the project, the gas is used to generate steam, which can be used for heavy oil recovery in oil sands; for reforming methane to produce hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol; water splitting; coal to liquids and coal to methane; and desalination. As a result, there are more commercial applications with this approach, rather than limiting it to direct production of electrical power. The PBMR project team hopes this will keep the project alive, despite the global financial collapse.

[1] On Dec. 10, 1974, National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger issued National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which linked what it termed "overpopulation" to U.S. national security interests. After Kissinger became Secretary of State, his NSC successor, Brent Scowcroft, issued National Security Decision Memorandum 314, which adopted NSSM 200 as official (covert) U.S. policy on population matters. See EIR April 18, 2008, for excerpts of NSSM 200. [Full text of NSSM 200]