You are here: Welcome » Rockefeller Foundation

Rockefeller Foundation


Even a description of the mission of the Rockefeller Foundation is controversial given that many statements seem to imply a sort of general warfare against a large portion of humanity.

Social Control

Lily E. Kay's The Molecular Vision of Life describes how the Rockefeller Foundation shaped the “new biology” around eugenics, social control, and genetic engineering.1)

Social Engineering During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Expose reported that the Rockefeller Foundation spent $7.2 million on behavioral research focused on convincing more people to get a COVID-19 vaccine.2)

White House Covid Vaccine Misinformation Campaign

Today, the Rockefeller Foundation is announcing a $13.5 million commitment to counter health misinformation. The Digital Public Library of America is announcing that they will convene a set of librarians, scholars, journalists, and civic leaders to confront health misinformation together.   Fourth, we’re saying we expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We’re asking them to monitor misinformation more closely. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms. 3)


RF Site History

In the years since John D. Rockefeller inaugurated the first global US foundation, scientists, scholars, economists, and grassroots leaders supported by the Foundation have spearheaded the search for the solutions to some of the world’s most challenging problems.

Through their efforts, plagues such as hookworm and malaria have been brought under control; food production for the hungry in many parts of the world has been increased; and minds, hearts, and spirits have been lifted by the work of Foundation-assisted filmmakers, artists, writers, dancers, and composers. Rockefeller Foundation involvement has led to the development of the centrifuge, the electron microscope, and the computer.

The Foundation has always aspired to bold, global solutions.4)

Other RF History

The Rockefeller Foundation operates out of New York City and was first established by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in 1913. Official Foundation history at RF site

The Rockefellers are an American industrial, banking and political family dynasty. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, John D., Sr. (1839-1937) and his brother William Rockefeller (1841-1922) amassed the largest private fortune in history, primarily through Standard Oil.

The family is also known for its long association with and financial interest in the Chase Manhattan Bank, now JP Morgan Chase.

The Rockefeller Foundation built and endowed the world's first School of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and spent another 25 million on institutions in the U.S. and 21 other countries.

Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in international food production and funding for the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. RF helped in founding the Social Science Research Council. Other institutions RF funds are National Bureau of Economic Research, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Russian Institute at Columbia University. ~ 5)

These are genetically engineered, commodity food crops.The GMO seeds are patent protected in perpetuity. Nearly all these fee based, novel technology seeds are engineered to tolerate toxic applications of herbicides and pesticides (HT) and petrochemical and energy waste most agricultural chemicals are made from. Some produce pesticides in every fiber of the plant the PIPs or pesticide inducing plants largely target corn borers. The PIP variety corn target soft tissue and eat through the stomach lining of the corn boers to kill them.

Makes you wonder how much PIP-Bt corn it would take for a human to develop acid reflux disease or other gut borne illness from regular pesticide consumption. USDA Agricultural Research Service has an eye popping chart of the HT-Bt corn and soy and every seed with a healthy subsidy while most farmers and ranchers get chump change or nothing. ERS crop adoption6) EWG Database subsidy by crop 7) Subsidy by Congressional District over 25% of total dollars go to 10/435 Districts w MoC on HouseAg 8)

None of the biotech food products have ever had human health or safety study. The current state of public health is the closest thing to post market follow up in this population wide feeding study. 9)

History of Rockefeller Pharmaceuticals

In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research.

They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their “International Education Board”. Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a “Drug Trust” alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben (Bayer).

After World War Two, IG Farben was dismantled but later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble, Roche and Hoechst (Sanofi-Aventis). The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank now JP Morgan Chase, owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States.

Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben. On April 14, 1941, in Ludwigshafen, Otto Armbrust, the IG Farben board member responsible for the Auschwitz project, stated to board colleagues:

“our new friendship with the SS is a blessing. We have determined all measures integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company.” Sourcewatch - more 10)11)

NIH - 2009 February - The pharmaceutical industry and the German National Socialist Regime - I.G. Farben and pharmacological research 12)

Criminal Polio Fraud

Toxicology vs Virology: Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud

F. William Engdahl - July 12, 2022

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that.13)14)

Eustace Mullins - Extract From; Murder by Injection - The Rockefeller Syndicate

(treasure trove of toxic history and corp influence.. more on frauds, corruption, vaccines, food, nutrition)

Frederick T. Gates' first present to Rockefeller was a plan to dominate the entire medical education system in the United States. The initial step was taken by the organization of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. In 1907, the AMA “requested” the Carnegie Foundation to conduct a survey of all the medical schools of the nation. Even at this early date, the Rockefeller interests had already achieved substantial working control of the Carnegie Foundations which has been maintained ever since. It is well known in the foundation world that the Carnegie Foundations (there are several), are merely feeble adjuncts of the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Carnegie Foundation named one Abraham Flexner to head up its study of medical schools. Coincidentally, his brother Simon was the head of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. The Flexner Report was completed in 1910, after many months of travel and study. It was heavily influenced by the German-trained allopathic representation in the American medical profession. It was later revealed that the primary influence on Flexner had been his trip to Baltimore. He had been a graduate of Johns Hopkins University.

This school had been established by Daniel Coit Gilman (1831-1908). Gilman had been one of the three original incorporators of the Russell Trust at Yale University (now known as the Brotherhood of Death or Skull and Bones). Its Yale headquarters had a letter in German authorizing Gilman to set up this branch of the Illuminati in the United States.

Gilman incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, which later became the Rockefeller Foundation. Gilman also became an original incorporator of Rockefeller's General Education Board, which was to take over the United States system of medical education; the Carnegie Foundation and the Russell Sage Foundation. At Johns Hopkins University Gilman also taught Richard Ely, who became the evil genius of Woodrow Wilson's education.

Gil man's final achievement in the last year of his life was to advise Herbert Hoover on the advisability of setting up a think tank. Hoover later followed Gilman's plan in setting up the Hoover Institution after the First World War. This institution furnished the movers and shakers of the “Reagan Revolution” in Washington. Not surprisingly, the American people found themselves saddled with even more debt and an even more oppressive federal bureaucracy, all the result of Daniel Coit Gilman's Illuminati prospectus.

Flexner spent much of his time at Johns Hopkins University finalizing his report. The medical school, which had only been established in 1893, was considered to be very up-to-date. It was also the headquarters of the German allopathic school of medicine in the United States. Flexner, born in Louisville, Ky., had studied at the University of Berlin. The president of the [:[Zionist Organization of America]], Louis Brandies, also from Louisville, was an old friend of the Flexner family. After Woodrow Wilson appointed Brandeis to the Supreme Court, Brandeis appointed himself a delegate to Paris to attend the Versailles Peace Conference in 1918. His purpose was to advance the goals of the Zionist movement at this conference. Bernard Flexner, who was then an attorney in New York, was asked to accompany Brandeis as the official legal counsel to the Zionist delegation in Paris. Bernard Flexner later became a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation with his brother Simon.

Simon Flexner had been appointed the first director of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research at its organization in 1903. Abraham Flexner joined the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1908, serving there until his retirement in 1928. He also served for years as a member of Rockefeller's General Education Board. He was awarded a Rhodes Memorial lectureship at Oxford University.

Fishbein found a home at the AMA; he did not leave until 1949, when he was literally kicked out.

With the advent of Fishbein, the American Medical Association was now firmly in the hands of the nation's two most aggressive quacks, Simmons, who had practised medicine for years, unembarrassed by the fact that he had no medical degree which would hold up under the light of day, and Morris Fishbein, who admitted under oath in 1938 that he had never practised medicine a day in his life. Because “Doc” Simmons, as he was genially known, had never shown any motivation in his career except greed, he soon realized that the enormous power of which the AMA was capable had in effect launched him into a gold mine. He was not slow to request certain considerations in return for the favor or the goodwill of the AMA.

First and foremost was its “Seal of Approval” for new products. Since the AMA early on had virtually no laboratory, testing equipment or research staff, the Seal of Approval was obtained by “green research,” that is, the laborious determination of how much the supplicant could afford to pay, and how much it might be worth to him. At first, some pharmaceutical manufacturers resented this arrangement, and refused to pay. The leader of this opposition was one Dr. Wallace C. Abbott, who had founded Abbott Laboratories in 1900.

Through the years, various versions of the Abbott-Simmons conflict were repeated. A whitewashed version appears in Tom Mahoney's Merchants of Life, which claims that Simmons objected to Dr. Abbott's “commercialization” of the medical profession, and wished to teach him a lesson. The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry not only refused to approve any of Abbott's drugs, but also turned down his requests to advertise in the journal of the American Medical Association, and later refused to print his letters of protest. Simmons then launched personal attacks on Dr. Abbott in the Journal in the issues of December 1907 and March 1908. Simmons' pious claim that he did not wish to see Dr. Abbott commercializing the medical profession rings hollow;

Abbott was manufacturing pharmaceutical products for sale. The rub was that he refused to pay the usual shakedown to Simmons. After the imbroglio was settled, S. DeWitt Clough, Abbott's advertising manager, became a bridge playing crony of Morris Fishbein.

A spirited critic of the AMA during its Simmons-Fishbein period, Dr. Emanuel Josephson of New York, wrote,

“The methods which Simmons and his crew used in their battle for a monopoly of medical publications and of advertisements to the profession were often crude and illegitimate . . . The AMA has openly threatened firms that advertise in media other than their own journals with withdrawal of 'acceptance' of their products.”

Dr. Josephson described Simmons' practices as “conspiracy in restraint of trade, and extortion.” He further charged, again correctly, that “almost every branch of the Federal Government active in the field of medicine was completely dominated by the Association.” This was borne out by the present writer, who cites many instances later of government agencies actively implementing the most horrendous cases of racketeering by the Drug Trust.

So exhaustive were the controls set in place by Simmons that the President of the AMA, [:[Dr. Nathan B. van Etten]], later filed a sworn affidavit in the New York District Court that he, as President of the American Medical Association, had no authority to accept any moneys or enter into any contracts. All such deals were the province of the Chicago headquarters staff. It was later noted that AMA “focuses on protecting physicians' incomes against government intrusion in the practice of medicine.” This was a case of having their cake and eating it too. While steadfastly opposing any government supervision of the Medical Monopoly, the monopolists frequently forced various government agencies to act against anyone who posed a threat to their monopoly, having them arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison.

“Doc” Simmons' lucrative dominance of the American Medical Association led him into numerous sidelines. In 1921, he established the Institute of Medicine in Chicago. This apparently was nothing more than a holding company for his bribes.

A highly publicized trial in 1924 ended in his wife's testimony that he had given her heavy doses of narcotics, prescribed on the strength of his “medical experience,” and then began proceedings to have her declared insane. This was not such an unusual procedure during that period; it had happened to literally hundreds of wives. However, his wife proved to be tougher than most victims. She testified in court that he had tried to have her framed on a charge of insanity.

This trial inspired more than a dozen subsequent books, plays, and movies based on the story of a physician who tries to drive his wife insane through a campaign of ministration of drugs and psychological terrorism. The most famous was “Gaslight,” in which Charles Boyer played the role of “Doc” Simmons to perfection, the luckless wife being played by Ingrid Bergman.

During his twenty-five years of power at the AMA, he never lost an opportunity to advertise and enrich himself. Despite the fact that he had never practiced medicine a day in his life, he persuaded King Features Syndicate to sign him on as daily columnist writing a “medical” commentary which appeared in over two hundred newspapers. A full page ad appeared in Editor and Publisher to celebrate his new venture on March 23, 1940, stating “An authority of medicine, Dr. Fishbein's name is synonymous with the 'sterling' stamp on a piece of silver.” Whether this was an oblique reference to Judas is not clear.

Fishbein garnered additional income by having himself named medical adviser to Look Magazine, the second largest publication in the United States. In 1935, he had ventured into what was probably his greatest financial coup, the annual publication of a massive volume, “the Modern Home Medical Adviser.”

He also maintained absolute control over the selection of the personnel of the various committees of the AMA, so that no one was ever in a position to attack him. The Committee on Food and the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry were his particular preserves, because of the great power they had over manufacturers and advertisers. The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry had been set up in 1905, at the same time that the Food and Drug Act had been passed by congress; the two groups always worked together very closely. As advertising revenues increased each year, Fishbein steadfastly denied that any profits were being made by the AMA.

He was quoted in Review of Reviews, 1926, “Far from being the 'corporation not for profit' which the statutes list it, the American Medical Association has been exceedingly profitable to the public, both in dollars and in lives.”

In 1937, the AMA approved an extremely poisonous preparation of sulfanilamide in a solution of diethylene glucol; this mixture caused a number of fatalities. It caused white blood cell loss, even though it was advertised that it would “help” heart disease. Long after Fishbein's departure, the AMA continued to endorse potentially dangerous products. The Winter issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association featured advertisements for Suprol in 200 mg capsules (suprofen), an analgesic which had been approved by the FDA in December of 1985. It was produced by McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. By February 13, 1986, the firm had received the first reports of acute kidney damage, yet on December 2nd the FDA Arthritis Advisory Board recommended that Suprol remain on sale as an “alternative analgesic.” It had already been banned in Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Great Britain.

Under the leadership of the nation's two most notorious quacks, Simmons and Fishbein, a gigantic nationwide drug operation was perfected which today poses a serious threat to the health of every American citizen. The fixed prices of these drugs has been a contributing factor to the meteroric rise in the cost of health care. In 1976, the national bill was 95 billion dollars, which was 8.4% of the Gross National Product, a figure which had risen from 4.5% in 1962. From 1955-1975, the price index rose 74%, while the cost of medical care rose 300%. Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, an independent health practitioner, estimates that 30% of Xrays taken in the United States, some 300 million a year, are ordered when there is no valid medical need.

FDA Approvals

In September of 1980, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would remove from the market more than three thousand drugs whose effectiveness had not been proven. During the previous year, Americans had spent more than one billion dollars on these same “unproven” drugs, many of which had been “accepted” by the AMA. In 1962, Congress had passed amendments to the Food and Drug Act which implemented drug effectiveness requirements by 1964. The drug manufacturers resisted all attempts to force them to comply with these amendments, forcing the FDA to remove them from the market some sixteen years later. The average life of an effective drug is about fifteen years; this meant that the delaying tactics of the drug manufacturers had allowed them to milk these unproven drugs for their entire effective market life!

We now come to the most amazing record of criminal syndicalism in our history. After Congress had passed stringent requirements in 1962 to force the drug manufacturers to prove that their drugs were effective (a requirement which in many cases was impossible to observe, since they were worthless), the drug manufacturers were advised by their cohorts in the AMA and the advertising industry that it would be wise to start a brushfire, a diversionary tactic which would draw attention from the fact that they had failed to comply with the new Congressional requirements.

This diversionary tactic was to be called “the War Against Quackery.” A few months after the new regulations went into effect, the AMA Board of Trustees met to create a new committee, the Committee on Quackery, which was formally incorporated on November 2, 1963. It was originally intended to destroy the entire profession of chiropractic in the United States, the nation's second largest health care group. It soon branched out in search of further victims, as the “Coordinating Conference on Health Information.” This subsidiary was the brainchild of a New York letterhead outfit called the Grey Medical Advertising Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the prestigious Grey Advertising Company in New York.

Although it was ostensibly merely an advisory group, the Coordinating Conference on Health Information soon launched an all-out war on independent health practitioners all over the United States.

The Coordinating Conference on Health Information ran amuck for some ten years, sending hundreds of victims to prison on what were in most instances flimsy or trumped up charges. The desired effect, to terrorize everyone who had become active in the alternative health care field, was achieved. Most health practitioners went underground, or closed up their businesses; others left the country.

An inevitable reaction against these terrorists operations set in; by 1974, there were public demands for a Congressional investigation of the SWAT tactics used by the Post Office and the U.S. Public Health Service against elderly housewives. Such an investigation would inevitably have revealed that these conscientious and dedicated public servants were actually faceless tools of the sinister behind the scenes figures who manipulated the government of the United States for their own power and profit.

In the late 1960s, the AMA Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals imposed new requirements on hospitals; the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics barred its members from all forms of exchange with chiropractors. A JCAH letter August 13, 1973 to a hospital administrator declared that “Any arrangement you would make with chiropractors and your hospital would be unacceptable to the Joint Committee. This would be in violation of the Principles of Medical Ethics published by the AMA that is also a requirement of the JCAH.” On January 9, 1973 the JCAH wrote to a hospital in Silver City, New Mexico, “This is in answer to your letter of December 18 referring to a bill which may be passed in New Mexico that hospitals must accept chiropractors as members of the medical staff. You are absolutely correct—the unfortunate results of this most ill-advised legislation mean that the Joint Committee could withdraw and refuse accreditation of the hospital that had chiropractors on its staff.”

The AMA then forced the Veterans Administration to refuse payments to veterans for chiropractic services. These tactics had been reported to the AMA as positive results. A confidential memorandum dated September 21, 1967 by the Committee on Quackery boasted to the trustees that

“Basically the committee's short range objectives for containing the cult of chiropractic, and any additional recognition it might achieve, revolves around four points: 1) Doing everything within our power to see that chiropractic coverage under Title #18 of the Medicare law is NOT obtained. 2) Doing everything within our power to see that registration, or a listing with the U.S. Office of Education, or the establishment of a Chiropractic Accrediting Agency, is NOT achieved. 3) To encourage continued separation of the two National Chiropractic Associations. 4) Encourage state medical societies to take the initiative in their state legislature with regard to legislation that might affect the practice of chiropractic.”

Because of the flagrant activities of the AMA, several chiropractors finally sued, charging conspiracy. The case dragged on for years, and on August 27, 1987, after eleven years of continuous litigation, Federal Judge Susan Getzendammer of the U.S. District Court found the AMA, the American College of Surgeons, and the American College of Radiologists, guilty of conspiring to destroy the profession of chiropractic. During the proceedings, the AMA freely acknowledged that they never had, nor have, any knowledge of the content or quality of the courses taught in chiropractic college. Judge Getzendammer wrote a 101-page opinion, and issued an Order of Permanent Injunction requiring the AMA to cease and desist from…

Study Fraud

The National Bureau of Standards reports that half or more of the numerical data published by scientists in articles in the Journal is unusable because there is no evidence that the researchers accurately measured what they thought they were measuring. Alarmed by these statistics, officials instituted a survey; 31 authors of scientific reports were sent questionnaires asking for their raw data. The 21 who replied said that their data had been “lost” or “accidentally destroyed.” What a loss to the research profession!

The reliability of the nation's researchers wilted under a blistering expose on “Sixty Minutes” on January 17, 1988, under the title, “The Facts Were Fiction” The subject of the expose was “one of the leading scientific scholars” in the nation. He had claimed to have done extensive research on the mentally retarded at a state institution, where the records clearly showed that he had only worked on goldfish. The “Sixty Minutes” report estimated that from ten to thirty percent of all research projects carried out in the United States is totally faked, because of the requirements to win the “grantsmanship” race. “Startling” results must be claimed before serious consideration is given to requests for funding, which themselves are hardly niggardly amounts; they often amount to grants of millions of dollars. One scientific scholar who was interviewed on “Sixty Minutes” declared that “I would think twice before I believe what I read in the medical journals . . . it is dishonest, fraudulent information.”

The moving spirit behind all this fakery is the unwillingness of the Big Rich to see their profits imperiled by any genuine advances in medicine. Therefore, the more fake research that is done, the less chance that a drug now on the market which is bringing in $100,000,000 a year or more will be knocked off the market. The wholesale fakery in American research is almost entirely due to the pressures of the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly and the drug firms under their control, who routinely present elaborately faked “tests” to the Food and Drug Administration to obtain approval for new products, concealing harmful side effects, which often include liver and kidney damage, or death. The control of the universities by the Medical Monopoly creates a breeding ground for more robotic minions, willing to abase themselves in any manner for a grant or a job which requires little or no performance.

A lengthy history of faked research is an ideal “Panama” or control to keep these minions in line.

Dr. Muriel Shimkin of the National Institute of Health, wrote in the Institute's official primer on cancer in 1973 that “Treatment of cancer by diet alone is in the realm of quackery.” Yet the American Cancer Society, faced with a growing amount of evidence to the contrary, issued a Special Report in 1984 advising the following program:

“1. Avoid obesity. 2. Cut down total fat intake to 30% of total calories. 3. Eat more high fiber foods. 4. Eat foods rich in vitamins A and C. 5. Include cruciferous vegetables in the diet, greens, etc. 6. Be moderate in the consumption of alcohol. 7. Moderate consumption of salt-cured, smoked and nitrite cured foods.”

This is a very sensible regimen; however, it has not been emphasized by the ACS or the NIH, nor do many doctors include this advice in their recommendations to their patients.

War on Cancer

Because Elmer Bobst had played the crucial role in making it possible for Nixon to become president, he had little trouble in persuading Nixon to authorize a new and expensive “war on cancer.” At Bobst's instigation, Nixon signed the National Cancer Act in 1971, which transformed the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda into a new monolithic government bureaucracy. During the next fifteen years, NCA was to spend more than ten billion dollars funding various cancer programs, none of which had any effect in curing or preventing cancer. In 1955, NCI had established a Chemotherapy National Service Center with a $25 million grant, to promote the use of chemotherapy.

A full page advertisement in the New York Times, December 9, 1969, proclaimed that “Cancer Cure is Near at Hand.” The story promised that a cancer cure by 1976 was a “distinct possibility.” The chairman of the President's National Cancer panel submitted a report admitting that the first five years of the National Cancer Program was a failure; the cancer toll had risen during each year of its operation. By 1985, the annual toll was 485,000 victims.

Apart from being uninvolved in cancer prevention, other than, to a limited extent, tobacco, senior (ACS) officials have developed for the society a reputation of being indifferent, if not actively hostile, to regulatory needs for the prevention of exposure to carcinogenic chemicals in the general environment and in the workplace.“

Epstein reported that the ACS opposed regulation of such potential carcinogens as Red Dye #2, TRIS, and DES. ACS refused to support the Clean Water Act, and blamed victims for cancer. EPA had reported that indoor pollutants cause six thousand cancer deaths a year and that 38 million Americans drink water with unsafe levels of lead and other toxic matter, including chlorine by-products. DES, diethylstilbestrol, was widely used from the 1940s to the early 1970s as a synthetic female hormone which was routinely prescribed by doctors to prevent miscarriage; it was not tested for possible side effects, nor did anyone know what they were. Finally, a student at the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that not only was it ineffective in preventing miscarriage, but it might have side effects. This finding failed to halt its use. In 1972, its long term effects began to appear, cancer of the breast, with vaginal cancer in daughters of those patients treated with DES, as well as other genital malformations and abnormalities. It was also linked to liver damage.

Lee Edson, in “The Cancer Ripoff” notes that 74 private companies near the National Institute of Health in Bethesda were charging the government 144% overhead plus 9% profit to perform virus research. Nixon had placed his protege, Dr. Frank Rauscher, in charge of NCI; he was a virologist who began to promote chemotherapy as the answer to cancer.

t is notable that only four percent of the nation's medical schools offer a course in nutrition. This reflects the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly's obsession with drugs and its commitment to the allopathic school of medicine, as opposed to homeopathic or holistic medicine.

Nobel Prize winner James Watson declared at a cancer symposium at MIT that “the American public has been sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer . . . a soporific orgy,” as reported in the New York Times March 9, 1975. In January of 1975, Dr. Charles C. Edwards, a researcher, wrote to the Secretary of HEW that the war on cancer was politically motivated and was based on spending money. The prominent French oncologist, Dr. Lucien Israel, said, “Radium is an unproven method in many cases . . . indeed, there have been no conclusive trials” on radiation therapy. Israel terms it “a palliative for relief of pain, etc., temporary in nature.” He also points out that “the medical community has been thrown into confusion by recent studies which have shown that metastases may be more frequent in cases that have received radiation.” In short, the radiation increases the spread of cancer. It has long been known that cutting into a tumor causes it to spread throughout the body. The exploratory operation to see if you have cancer usually guarantees that it will be fatal.

Nevertheless, the American Cancer Society continues to back all of the losing methods of treating cancer. For twenty years, it has patently repeated its famous Cancer's Seven Warning Signals, which ignore chemicals in the environment and discounts FDA warnings about coal tar and hair dyes. In 1976, the ACS released a press communication, “Urgent Message; Mammography; Benefits and Risks.” Dr. John Bailar of the Harvard School of Public Health, and editor of the prestigious NCI Cancer Journal, was horrified. He wrote a letter to the acting director of the NCI, Dr. Guy Newell,

“I have just become aware of a problem that has the seeds of a major disaster…

The vaccination practice, pushed to the front on all occasions by the medical profession through political connivance made compulsory by the state, has not only become the chief menace and the greatest danger to the health of the rising generation, but likewise the crowning outrage upon the personal liberties of the American citizen; compulsory vaccination, poisoning the crimson currents of the human system with brute-extracted lymph under the strange infatuation that it would prevent smallpox, was one of the darkest blots that disfigured the last century.”

Dr. Peebles refers to the fact that cowpox vaccine was one of the more peculiar “inventions or discoveries of the Age of Enlightenment.” However, as I have pointed out in “The Curse of Canaan,” the Age of Enlightenment was merely the latest program of the Cult of Baal and its rituals of child sacrifice, which, in one guise or another, has now been with us for some five thousand years. Because of this goal, the Medical Monopoly is also known as “The Society for Crippling Children.”

Fluoride Project F

The second item on Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's list of the Four Holy Waters of the modem Church of Medicine is the fluoridation of the nation's drinking water. Although Dr. Mendelsohn dismisses it too, as of “questionable value,” few dare to question it. We are told that it confers untold benefits to the rising generation, guaranteeing them perpetual freedom from tooth decay and no need for any dental work. Surprisingly enough, the national fluoridation campaign is enthusiastically supported by the nation's dental profession, even though it might be expected that it would put them out of business. Here again, those in the know are well aware that the fluoridation program, far from threatening to put the dentists out of business, actually will offer them plenty of work in the future.

The principal source of the fluoridation is a poisonous chemical, sodium fluoride, which has long been the principal ingredient of rat poison. Whether the adding of this compound to our drinking water is also part of a rat control program has never been publicly discussed. The EPA released its latest estimate, that 38 million Americans are now drinking unsafe water, which contains unsafe levels of chlorine, lead and other toxic substances. Fluoride is not listed as one of the toxic substances. EPA, like other government agencies, has carefully refrained from either testing public drinking water for the effects of fluoridation, or from poaching on the preserves of the Rockefeller Monopoly, which launched the national fluoridation campaign.

The by-product of the manufacture of aluminum, sodium fluoride, had long posed a problem. Except for its limited use as a rat poison, other popular uses were limited by its extremely poisonous nature. It also was very expensive for the aluminum companies to dispose of, because of its persistence (it does not degrade—it is also cumulative in the body, so that each day you add a little more to your sodium fluoride reserves each time you drink a glass of water). It is puzzling, then, to find that the historical record shows that the principal sponsor and promoter of the fluoridation of the nation's drinking water was the U.S. Public Health Service. And thereby hangs a tale.

When Congressman Miller reported on the floor of Congress that Oscar Ewing was promoting fluoridation because he had been the lawyer for the Aluminum Company of America, ALCOA, and that he had accepted a $750,000 “fee” to persuade him to undertake this program of “government service,” one would have thought that this public exposure of Ewing's motives would have shamed him, and perhaps influence him to step aside and let someone else take over the U.S. Public Health Service campaign to force fluoridation on the American people. This would underestimate the arrogance and the self-assurance of the twentieth century bureaucrat. He ignored Congressman's Miller's remarks, and redoubled the pressure of the U.S. Public Health Service to put over fluoridation. He had the willing support of his underlings, because the U.S. Public Health Service has never been in the service of the public.

After overseeing the installation of sodium fluoride equipment in most of the nation's large cities, an interest in which Chase Manhattan Bank showed a crucial concern, Oscar Ewing retired to Chapel Hill, N.C. in 1953. Here he busied himself with building a 7,800 acre complex of office buildings under the name of the Research Triangle Corporation (triangle being a key Masonic symbol). These offices were promptly leased to a melange of federal and state agencies, many of which, not surprisingly, he had previously done business with when he was their boss in Washington. A former head of the Democratic National Committee usually has no difficulty in renting space to government agencies.

Ewing's former law partner, Charles Evans Hughes Jr., became Solicitor General of the United States, while his father was still Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He later became a director of New York Life Insurance Co., a J. P. Morgan controlled firm, whose office was at One Wall Street. This had also been Oscar Ewing's former business address.

Fluorides have long been a source of contamination in the United States. Large quantities of this chemical are also produced by the giant chemical firms, American Agricultural Products Corporation, and Hooker Chemical. Hooker Chemical became part of the Rockefeller network when Blanchette Hooker married into the Rockefeller family by marrying John D. Rockefeller III.

The Florida plant of American Agricultural produces enormous waste quantities of fluorides in preparing fertilizer from phosphate rock. Some of the fluoride wastes had been used in pesticides, until the Department of Agriculture banned their use as being too dangerous to the public. The wastes were then dumped into the ocean, despite specific Department of Agriculture rulings prohibiting it. Hooker Chemical is known to most Americans for the life-threatening chemical wastes found at Love Canal.

Fluoridation remains one of the Four Holy Waters of the Church of Modem Medicine.

Ewing and his minions were also aware of Soviet studies showing that fluorides were extremely important in introducing a docile, sheep-like obedience in the general population. It was well known that for years, breeders of purebred bulls had used doses of fluorides to calm their more intractable bulls, making them much safer to handle. The Soviet Union maintained its concentration camps since 1940 by administering increasing dosages of fluorides to the prison population in its vast empire, the Gulag Archipelago, the largest network of concentration camps in the world, and the envy of every bureaucrat in Washington.

In 1987, the eighteen largest drug firms were ranked as follows;

  • Merck (U.S.) $4.2 billion in sales.
  • Glaxo Holdings (United Kingdom) $3.4 billion.
  • Hoffman LaRoche (Switzerland) $3.1 billion.
  • Smith Kline Beckman (U.S.) $2.8 billion.
  • Ciba-Geigy (Switzerland) $2.7 billion.
  • Pfizer (U.S.) $2.5 billion (Standard & Poor's gives its sales as $4 billion).
  • Hoechst A. G. (Germany) $2.5 billion (Standard & Poor's lists its sales as $38 billion Deutschmarks).
  • American Home Products (U.S.) $2.4 billion ($4.93 billion according to Standard & Poor's).
  • Lilly (U.S.) $2.3 billion ($3.72 billion Standard & Poor's).
  • Upjohn (U.S.) $2 billion.
  • Squibb (U.S.) $2 billion.
  • Johnson & Johnson (U.S.) $1.9 billion.
  • Sandoz (Switzerland) $1.8 billion.
  • Bristol Myers (U.S.) $1.6 billion.
  • Beecham Group (United Kingdom) $1.4 billion (Standard & Poor's gives $1.4 billion in sales of the U.S. subsidiary—$2.6 billion pounds sterling as overall income).
  • Bayer A. G. (Germany) $1.4 billion (Standard & Poor's gives the figure as $45.9 billion Deutschmarks).
  • Syntex (U.S.) $1.1 billion.
  • Warner Lambert (U.S.) $1.1 billion (Standard & Poor's gives the figure as $3.1 billion).

Thus we find that the United States still maintains an overwhelming lead in the production and sale of drugs. In the United States, the sale of prescription drugs rose in 1987 by 12.5% to $27 billion. Eleven of the eighteen leading firms are located in the United States; three in Switzerland; two in Germany; and two in the United Kingdom. Nutritionist T. J. Frye notes that the Drug Trust in the United States is controlled by the Rockefeller group in a cartel relationship with I. G. Farben of Germany. 15)

Medical Systems Abroad


China Medical Board (CMB), an independent American foundation, aims to advance health in China and neighboring Asian countries through strengthening medical, nursing and public health research and education. CMB is a highly focused foundation targeting its grant and support activities to carefully selected Asian grantees.

Started in 1914 as the second major program of the Rockefeller Foundation, CMB was endowed in 1928 as an independent foundation incorporated in New York with the initial commitment to establish and operate the Peking Union Medical College in Beijing which it carried out from 1914 through 1950.

After withdrawal from China in 1950, the CMB extended its capacity building work across Asia—Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan. Since returning to China in 1980, CMB has expanded support in medical education and research to more than a dozen medical universities in China and another dozen medical universities in Southeast Asia—Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.

In nearly a century of philanthropy, CMB has gifted hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and technical support to medical universities across Far East and Southeast Asia. With an endowment of over $200 million, the CMB grants more than $10 million annually. With its headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, and a new office in Beijing, China, CMB has developed a team-based approach to its grants and support activities. Led by the President, CMB has about a dozen staff, half of whom are based in Asia. A 12-member Board of Trustees governs CMB organizational policies.

In 2008 CMB announced the launching of a fresh initiative to strengthen scientific excellence in “critical capacities” among Chinese and Asian institutions to address the premier health challenges of the 21st century—equitable access to primary and preventive health services in market-driven economies so that all can benefit from the advancement of knowledge. This work entails capacity strengthening in the fields of health policy and health systems and associated educational activities to advance health equity 16)

Lancet - 2014 China Medical Board (CMB) Centennial

Energised by these passionate words of adviser Frederick Gates at the inaugural Board meeting in 1913, John D Rockefeller launched the Rockefeller Foundation (RF), which would see health eventually command more than half of its budget in the first half of the 20th century. 1 A year later, the China Medical Board (CMB) was launched as RF's second major project, and endowed in 1928 as an independent foundation. CMB would eventually become RF's largest-ever financed project, and China the largest beneficiary country outside of the USA. CMB's centennial in 2014 seems timely and appropriate for both celebration and reflection. 17)

Medical Technology Transfers

Survey of Sources at the Rockefeller Archive Center for the Study of the Transfer of Western Science, Medicine, and Technology to China - Compiled by Thomas Rosenbaum, 1989; Revised by David Luesink, Ph.D., 2012 The records of the China Medical Board of the Rockefeller Foundation (FA114, formerly China Medical Board, Rockefeller Foundation Archives, R.G. 4) and of the separately incorporated China Medical Board of New York, Inc. (FA065), offer the administrative history of an effort to introduce modern Western scientific medicine of the early and middle twentieth century into the society of Republican China.

These records focus on the establishment of a world-class medical science undergraduate and graduate training institute in Beijing—the Peking Union Medical College —and support for feeder institutions throughout China. The China Medical Board (CMB) records are complemented by the archives of the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Board/Division records (FA115, formerly Rockefeller Foundation Archives, R.G. 5), which focus on public health issues.

The China Medical Board inaugurated Rockefeller Foundation involvement in China in 1914 with a program of grant assistance to medical schools and hospitals, and schools and colleges teaching science, most of which were operated by Protestant missions from Great Britain, the United States and Canada. In 1917, the Board, which had bought and expanded the physical plant of the Union Medical College, opened the Pre-medical program of the new Peking Union Medical College (PUMC).

In 1919, the first medical school class entered the PUMC. As the CMB sought to develop the PUMC into a first-rate medical school, the Board continued its program of aid for general science instruction, medical schools, and hospitals. In 1928, The Rockefeller Foundation transferred responsibility for the PUMC to the China Medical Board of New York, Inc.(CMB, Inc.), whose program would mainly involve running the PUMC. After 1928, the PUMC and the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Board/Division constituted the chief vehicles for Rockefeller philanthropic assistance to medicine in China.

The Rockefeller Foundation established The International Health Commission in 1913 and its name was changed to the International Health Board in 1916. The purpose of the Board was to extend the work of the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease. In addition to hookworm, the Board's early public health activities included control of yellow fever, malaria, tuberculosis, public health education, virus studies and related research. In 1927, the Board was disbanded. Its work was continued by the new International Health Division of the Foundation. *In 1951, the International Health Division was merged with the medical sciences program and public health activity was de-emphasized*

Rockefeller Foundation and PUMC activity in China involved, in programmatic terms, scientific and medical education, including clinical education in a hospital setting, and public health education and demonstration projects. This program entailed the transfer of Western science and medicine to China.

This transfer, as discussed here, embodied 1) funding for the purchase of specialized technology-instruments, machines, furniture, and other supplies characteristic of Western science and medicine and 2) support for training in the methods and the intellectual foundations of Western science and medicine - the concepts that informed the use of the specialized technology. An integral part of the transfer of technology such as occurred through these Rockefeller programs was the infusion of large sums of money, which financed construction, salaries, equipment, i.e., *the infrastructure of a new medical elite*

Archival Collection

Rockefeller Foundation Annual Reports China Medical Board records Rockefeller Foundation records, China Medical Board records (FA114) China Medical Board, Inc. records (FA065) Rockefeller Foundation records, International Health Board/Division records (FA115) 18)

Maximizing Philanthropy Impact

March 15, 2019 - A new report from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors offers an analysis and planning tool to help emerging and established philanthropies better align their resources for impact in a rapidly changing world.

Created with input from the leaders of more than fifty foundations, the Philanthropy Framework (56 pages, PDF) finds that, in the context of generational shifts in attitudes, massive wealth creation, diversification of capital, and new operating environments, philanthropies are broadening their activities from grantmaking to impact investing, knowledge building, advocacy, and coalition building — and need to change how they assess and allocate non-financial resources.

To that end, the report lays out three core elements for a foundation to consider in determining how to maximize its impact- the charter, defined as the organization's scope, form of governance, and decision-making protocol; its social compact, entailing its implicit or explicit agreement with society about the value it hopes to create; and its operating model, including the approach to the resources, structures, and systems needed to implement strategy.

The framework prompts leaders to examine how their organization's decision-making processes, culture, guidelines or rules, breadth of mandate, and time horizon connect to its founding ideals. From there, leaders are encouraged to investigate six dimensions that affect an organization's social compact — accountability, legitimacy, transparency, influence on society, independence and interdependence, and approach to risk. Highlighting examples from contributors such as the Wellcome Trust, the California Endowment, and the Ford Foundation, S.D. [[Bechtel Foundation, Jr., Kresge, Lumina, and Episcopal Health foundations, the report outlines six key operating approaches, which exist on a spectrum — resourcing (buy vs. build), decision making (centralized vs. decentralized), initiative (proactive vs. responsive), flexibility (creative vs. disciplined), programming (broad vs. deep), and relationships (networked vs. independent) — and six key operating capabilities- talent, financial tools (impact investing, PRIs, grants, etc.), knowledge and strategic insights, reputation and influence, networks and relationships, and project management.

“Emerging models of philanthropy in the last twenty years have transformed the traditional ways in which funders — whether they're individuals, families, corporations, or foundations — accomplish their goals, approach organizational design, and manage key resources,” said Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors CEO Melissa A. Berman. 19)

2010 Scenario Planning Report

This report was produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. - May 2010

*(Note - These 2010 prediction timelines look clairvoyant- nice graphic for each scenatio pp 17- 42)*

  • The Scenario Framework p 13
  • Lock Step p 18
  • Clever Together 26
  • Hack Attack p 34
  • Smart Scramble p 42

Institutions and people involved p 53 20)

Pandemic Data Management

Data platform has announced the launch of Epiverse, an initiative aimed at enabling distributed data analysis to power pandemic response, with funding from Wellcome and the Rockefeller Foundation's Pandemic Prevention Institute.

Founded in 2020 by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, will create an open digital infrastructure and software tools that enable privacy-preserving analysis of data, including health data, privately available health systems data, and commercial data for pandemic response. Analysis of non-traditional data will create new actionable insights into the emergence and spread of pandemics — insights that can also be applied to other social challenges.

The UK government, under its G7 presidency, invited to lead the effort earlier this month, in response to calls from the Science Academies of G7 nations to ensure safe access to and use of data for health emergencies and to the 100 Days Mission to respond to Future Pandemic Threats the G7 launched in June. While the initial focus will be on mitigating COVID-19 and the detection and prevention of future pandemics, the consortium will serve as a public good with the broader aim of transforming the distributed analytics commons. 21)

Food and Aggriculture Projects

The Golden Rice Project

The WHO details for Golden Rice are a collection of Bill Gates alliance talking points and spin that are similar to the current campaigns for COVID vaccines. Both are expensive, scientifically experimental solutions that have low cost, safe and effective, time honored remedies to actually reduce the problem. 22)

Golden Rice Scientific Reality

GMWatch and GM-Free Cymru, 13 January 2014

Golden Rice (GR) is genetically engineered to contain increased levels of beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A (also known as provitamin A). The rice is claimed to help cure blindness and other illnesses caused by vitamin A deficiency in the Third World. It is also claimed that opposition to GR by environmentalists and anti-GMO activists has caused millions to die or go blind in the developing world.

However, the claims made for and about GR are factually incorrect and unscientific 23)

GM golden rice: A silver bullet that misses the target

Colin Todhunter - Counterpunch, 29 Oct 2019

Promoters of genetic modification (GM) in agriculture have long argued that genetically engineered Golden Rice is a practical way to provide poor farmers in remote areas with a subsistence crop capable of adding much-needed vitamin A to local diets. Vitamin A deficiency is a problem in many poor countries in the Global South and leaves millions at high risk for infection, diseases and other maladies, such as blindness.

Some scientists believe that Golden Rice, which has been developed with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, could help save the lives of around 670,000 children who die each year from Vitamin A deficiency and another 350,000 who go blind. 24)

New study fails to show golden rice can help solve vitamin A deficiency

GMWatch - 21 June 2019

The well known GMO promoter C.S. Prakash is in ecstasies over a new study on golden rice, the genetically engineered grain that has been hyped for the last two decades as a lifesaver for millions suffering from vitamin A deficiency (VAD).

In other words, “Approve golden rice for consumption first and then we will be able to study its impact.” This constitutes a form of blackmail.

But why should we put the cart before the horse? Pharmaceutical companies don’t ask governments and regulators to approve their products first so that they can be tested for safety and efficacy after they have entered the market. They have to provide the test data on safety and efficacy first, including the results of human trials. And human trials are only performed after tests in laboratory animals have found no toxicity risk.

What makes the emotional blackmail practised by golden rice proponents particularly absurd is that there are already simpler, safer, and cheaper measures that have already proven effective in reducing vitamin A deficiency – in the Philippines, for instance. That’s something that the likes of C.S. Prakash never seem to mention or acknowledge, as they endlessly promote GM’s golden “lifesaving” grains, 25)

Back to top