Rockefeller Foundation

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.¹⁾

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. ~ ²⁾

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 adoption³⁾ EWG Database subsidy by crop ⁴⁾ Subsidy by Congressional District over 25% of total dollars go to 10/435 Districts w MoC on HouseAg ⁵⁾

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. ⁶⁾

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 ⁷⁾⁸⁾

NIH - 2009 February - The pharmaceutical industry and the German National Socialist Regime - I.G. Farben and pharmacological research ⁹⁾

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 ¹⁰⁾

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. ¹¹⁾

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*

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) ¹²⁾

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. ¹³⁾

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
• CHOOSING THE CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES p 14
• GLOBAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT p 15
• THE SCENARIO NARRATIVES p 17
• Lock Step p 18
• Clever Together 26
• Hack Attack p 34
• Smart Scramble p 42

Institutions and people involved p 53 ¹⁴⁾

Data platform data.org 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, data.org 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 data.org 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. ¹⁵⁾

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. ¹⁶⁾

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 ¹⁷⁾

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. ¹⁸⁾

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, ¹⁹⁾