Abortifacient vaccines and WHO

So I guess I’ve been under a rock, but apparently there’s been research going on since the 1960s or 70s on an abortifacient that piggybacks on a vaccine and attacks the hCG produced by a woman’s body during pregnancy so that the woman miscarries. It’s been touted by its proponents as good for “family planning”.

2009 paper:

A 2011 paper on the results of human clinical trials of the abortifactient piggybacking on tetanus or diphtheria vaccines:

Back in 1993 the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya raised a stink accusing the WHO of secretly using such abortifacient vaccines in its program for free tetanus shots for women. WHO denied the allegations. Similar concerns were raised in Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines in the 90s, and the WHO denied accusations there too. This paper goes over the data and draws some conclusions:

…but I don’t have the training to evaluate the paper’s method or conclusions. Any scientists out there able to read and evaluate this paper, or anyone know if the claims against the WHO have ever been proven?


My take on the study is that there is little method to question. It’s all just reasoning to conclusions from claims that one has to read and evaluate for themselves. Basically, doctors involved in the WHO anti-tetanus program in Kenya tested the vaccine and found hCG. If true, it’s pretty much a slam dunk. Sure, you can still question who exactly was secretly doing this, but it came through the WHO vaccine, so they’re responsible one way or another. And given the other facts that this paper points out about the WHO’s population control goals, it’s reasonable to believe it was not a single bad actor, but the organization.

In other words, I believe the paper’s claim: It appears that the WHO has been engaged in secret attempts to sterilize women in developing nations around the world through vaccine programs claiming the goal of eliminating Tetanus.

Do you think this has potential implications for COVID vaccines, and does this change how you feel about them?


On the one hand, no, because these people know they could never get away with secretly sterilizing millions of American women. Is there a single political faction in the country that wouldn’t be calling for their literal heads on pikes?

On the other hand, I suddenly understand more clearly than ever the local Congolese resistance to Western standards of care for Ebola, for example. If you take the confluence of the harm done by the UN, UN peacekeepers, WHO, CIA, etc. it’s easy to see why there’s no trust left. If I was living in a developing nation, I’d be a lot more hesitant to take any western vaccine.

Does this distrust apply in the USA? To some extent, sure. We know politics is affecting the decision making processes for the CDC, for example. The lack of trust flows in part from the lack of shared morals. We don’t trust them to have our best interests at heart, because they believe terrible things are just fine. Nevertheless, big conspiracies are never actually secret. Margaret Sanger was clear about what she desired to accomplish. So were the Nazis. So is the WHO. Politics comes back in and helps us understand that there are certain things people can’t do, even if they are nakedly political, precisely because they are beholden to politics.

I’d rather not have further conversation about COVID or other vaccines on this thread. This topic is about vaccinating women against pregnancy, which whether it’s done secretly or in plain view is just one more horrible example of how we have abused the weak in weaker nations and attempted to keep them weak. It’s another place where the liberals won’t walk the talk. They marry before having children. They would never consider vaccinating themselves against pregnancy. But they have no problem pushing these things on the poor.


For decades, accusations of sterilization programs have plagued polio vaccination efforts in the few places in the world where polio remains endemic: Afghanistan/Pakistan and Nigeria. I had not previously considered that these objections might be founded in at least some facts.