A few days ago, I wrote that feminism’s agenda is satanic in origin. A woman asked me if I could provide Scripture to back this claim up.
Let’s look at God’s agenda for women from Titus 2:3-5:
“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Have you ever heard feminists teaching women to remain sober? Sober doesn’t only refer to not drinking much alcohol, but also being sober minded. “Not mad or insane; not wild, visionary or heated with passion; having the regular exercise of cool dispassionate reason.” Feminists are NOT sober minded. They are fueled by their emotions, feelings, and passions. You can clearly see this in my comment section on Facebook. God’s ways repulse them, since His ways are the opposite of what they’ve been taught all of their lives.
Have you ever heard feminists teaching women to love their husbands? No. They teach women if they aren’t “happy” in marriage, then leave and divorce him. They will use the word “abuse” liberally for any woman who doesn’t like the way their husbands treats them, even if there is no abuse. They make all women victims in marriage. If you don’t want to give him sex, then don’t. If someone teaches women to not deprive their husbands sexually, they yell, “Marital rape!” They teach wives that they’re lives are NOT going to revolve around their husband’s lives, because they fought for independence from men.
Have you ever heard feminists teaching women to love their children? NO! They want women to have “freedom” and careers, and put their children into government paid daycare and public schools to be indoctrinated in Marxism and Feminism. They want women the freedom to have their babies slaughtered in their wombs, if it’s not a convenient time to have a baby or will keep women from their “dreams and goals.”
Do feminists teach women to be discreet? Discreet means “Prudent; wise in avoiding errors or evil, and in selecting the best means to accomplish a purpose; circumspect; cautious, wary; not rash.” No! They teach them to attend college, amass a ton of debt that will keep them in bondage for years, and then go work for a boss many years to pay off the debt. When the young women go to college, they can now pop a pill and have sex without consequences, although they fail to mention that abortion, infertility, and STDs are some of the consequences.
How about being chaste? Do women teach this? NO! This is why they were SO offended by my post “Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos.” They told me that simply by teaching women to be virgins (which doesn’t necessarily even include being chaste), I was judging women! They claim I am judging women by everything I teach, even though it’s exactly what God wants me to teach. Feminism teaches women to be the opposite of being chaste. Sexual freedom is their clarion call.
They certainly don’t teach women to be keepers at home. They will even use all of the career women in the Bible to negate God’s clear command on this issue. (There were no career women in the Bible.) They have such a repulsion to this teaching that it makes it hard for women like me to even teach it. I was actually forbidden from teaching it in one church, since it would offend the career women. Imagine caring more about offending women than having women learn God’s will for them.
Lastly, have you ever heard a feminist teach women to be obedient to their own husbands? Of course not since this always leads to abuse, they claim. They simply don’t want to obey God, so they twist His commands into something ugly. They tell me they’re “partners” with their husbands. They’ll gladly go off to work and submit to their boss all day long, but forget working hard at home for their families and submitting to their husbands.
So is feminism satanic in origin? Of course, it is! It’s the same sin that Eve had when confronted with the question by Satan, “Hath God said…?” And all of the feminists shout, “NO!”
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 1 Peter 3:3-6
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) was one of the greatest literary and political figures of the 20th Century. For the first 25 years of his life, Solzhenitsyn was an ardent supporter of Vladimir Lenin’s Soviet Revolution. In fact, by 1938 Solzhenitsyn’s enthusiasm for Communism had grown to the point of obsession. As a youth, Solzhenitsyn even declared, “I would gladly give my life for Lenin.”
This article documents how Solzhenitsyn eventually became an outspoken critic of Soviet Communism, as well as his conclusion that Jews were primarily responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born into an environment of chaos and suffering that rivaled anything he experienced in his later life. His young father died six months before his birth in excruciating pain from wounds received in a hunting accident. His grief-stricken mother rejoined her family in a nearby summer resort, only to find herself in the middle of a vicious battle then raging between Reds and Whites in Russia’s Civil War. Lenin and his band of Bolsheviks were fighting ferociously to consolidate their power, and the whole of Russia was awash in blood.
Solzhenitsyn’s youth was one of hardship, privation and poverty. For the first 23 years of his life, Solzhenitsyn did not know the inside of a house; he lived in huts with no running water. These huts were constantly assailed by the cold, and there was never enough fuel to keep him warm. Food shortages were common, and after the starvation of the 1930s, ordinary food shortages were only a minor problem. Solzhenitsyn regarded all of these hardships as normal, since the poverty and hunger he experienced as a youth were widespread in the Soviet Union.
Solzhenitsyn at the Age of 12 joined the Young Pioneers, which was the junior auxiliary of the Communist Party’s youth movement, the Komsomol. Like most of his friends, Solzhenitsyn passed automatically from the Young Pioneers to the Komsomol in his 10th and final year at school. Earnest and intense by nature, Solzhenitsyn studied Marxism-Leninism with an enthusiasm and energy typical of his eager spirit. He later wrote about his interest in Communist Party doctrine: “I was absolutely sincerely enthralled by it over a period of several years.” Solzhenitsyn became a Marxist, a Leninist and a Communist.
Despite his interest in literature, Solzhenitsyn chose to study physics and mathematics when he entered Rostov State University. His secret ambition had been to go to Moscow and study literature. However, concern for his mother, who was suffering from tuberculosis and in very poor health, held him back. Solzhenitsyn was an outstanding student at the university, receiving top marks in all his examinations. He was awarded during his last year at the university one of the newly created Stalin scholarships for outstanding achievement. This scholarship carried a stipend two-and-a-half times greater than the usual grant.
Solzhenitsyn seemed on the threshold of a brilliant career. As an outstanding student in physics and mathematics, he could look forward to the pick of the best jobs available. However, he opted for the modest post of a village schoolteacher, turning down the higher-paying jobs and glittering prizes that were within his reach. Bursting with enthusiasm and, above all, great literary talent, Solzhenitsyn was determined to pursue his dream of becoming a published writer.
Shortly after Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Solzhenitsyn attempted to enlist in the Soviet military. However, his medical examination resulted in a classification of “limited fitness” due to an abdominal disability, the result of a groin disorder in infancy that had gone undetected. While his friends marched to war, Solzhenitsyn was dispatched to the Cossack settlement of Morozovsk to work as a school teacher.
By mid-October 1941, Moscow was threatened and the German advance seemed irresistible. Under these dire circumstances, all classifications of fitness were cast aside and Solzhenitsyn was drafted into the Soviet Army. Solzhenitsyn spent a half-year as a downtrodden soldier before being accepted into officer training school. He disliked officer training, saying “they trained us like young beasts so as to infuriate us to the point where we would later want to take it out on someone else.” However, Solzhenitsyn completed officer training and was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant in October 1942. He reached the rank of captain in June 1944.
Solzhenitsyn experienced his first combat in the summer of 1943 in battles at Kursk and Orel. He was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War, second class, for his part in the battle at Orel. Solzhenitsyn in 1944 found himself in the middle of some of the bloodiest battles on Germany’s eastern front. Inexorably, the Soviet Army advanced until it triumphantly crossed the Polish border. Solzhenitsyn was aghast at the brutalities the Soviet Army committed against captured Soviet citizens who had chosen to fight for the Germans. Experience was slowly making Solzhenitsyn question the Soviet communist system he had embraced as a youth.
Solzhenitsyn also abhorred the violence and atrocities committed by the Soviet Army when it reached Germany. In a hate-filled address, Stalin had told the Soviet troops to wreak vengeance on Germans for all that Russia had suffered during the war. Rape, pillage and plunder were all condoned by Stalin. Repelled by Stalin’s incitement to greed and cruelty, Solzhenitsyn lectured his men on the need to exercise moderation and restraint. However, Solzhenitsyn’s words fell on deaf ears. As the Soviet Army marched into Germany, it was Stalin’s vision that became reality.
Solzhenitsyn described the entry of his regiment into East Prussia in January 1945: “For three weeks the war had been going on inside Germany and all of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.” Solzhenitsyn was a committed opponent of such atrocities, and vocally opposed the rape of German women.
Solzhenitsyn’s fortunes took a catastrophic turn when he received a telephone call from brigade headquarters on February 9, 1945. He was ordered to report at once to the brigadier-general’s office. Solzhenitsyn was arrested and sent to prison for derogatory comments he had made about Stalin in correspondence to a friend. He later said his arrest was a defining moment in his life, which was crucial “because it allowed me to understand Soviet reality in its entirety and not merely the one-sided view I had of it previous to the arrest.” Solzhenitsyn became an outspoken opponent of Marxism after his imprisonment in the Soviet Gulag.
Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and sent in August 1945 to Butyrka Prison in Moscow. He was soon transferred to the Krasnaya Presnya transit prison in Moscow, which was in the heart of the Soviet prison system. On August 14, 1945, Solzhenitsyn and 60 other political prisoners were transferred to Novy Ierusalim (New Jerusalem) 30 miles west of Moscow. It was at New Jerusalem that Solzhenitsyn got his first bitter taste of the physically exhausting and crushing labor regimen in the Soviet camps.
Solzhenitsyn was transferred out of New Jerusalem when it became a camp for German prisoners of war. He spent the next 10 months doing forced labor at Kaluga Gate in Moscow, and was then transferred back to Butyrka Prison for two months. Solzhenitsyn was temporarily saved from the hardships and drudgery of the forced-labor camps by his degree in mathematics and physics from Rostov University. He was recategorized as a “special-assignment prisoner,” and was sent to several special prison institutes, known as sharashkas, for scientific research.
The relative comfort of being a special-assignment prisoner ended on May 19, 1950 when Solzhenitsyn was transferred back to Butyrka Prison. Solzhenitsyn then began a long and insufferable two-month journey across the Soviet Union to the Ekibastuz Labor Camp, deep in the semi-arid steppes of Kazakhstan. At Ekibastuz he experienced starvation rations, cruelty and bullying, and manual labor amidst the cold icy winds which slashed across the steppe. In addition to this incredible suffering, Solzhenitsyn was diagnosed on January 30, 1952 with cancer and admitted to the camp hospital.
Solzhenitsyn eventually made a complete recovery after an operation to remove the cancer. His close encounter with death from cancer, combined with his experiences as a front-line soldier and his subsequent imprisonment, had helped Solzhenitsyn to recognize God. Solzhenitsyn later said: “When at the end of jail, on top of everything else, I was placed with cancer, then I was fully cleansed and came back to a deep awareness of God and a deep understanding of life.” Solzhenitsyn also resolved to tell the full truth about life in Stalin’s prison camps.
Solzhenitsyn was released from prison on February 13, 1953, four days after the official end of his sentence. He was hired in April 1953 as a teacher of math and science at a local school. Solzhenitsyn survived a second bout with cancer, and was declared politically rehabilitated following a session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on February 6, 1956. Having been strengthened and purified by his time in prison and bouts with cancer, Solzhenitsyn was primed and ready to explode onto an unsuspecting literary world.
Solzhenitsyn wrote a short novel titled One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovichdescribing some of his labor-camp experiences. He didn’t risk showing this novel to any editors until after Nikita Khrushchev’s second de-Stalinization speech in the fall of 1961. Khrushchev, who apparently only superficially glanced at this book, approved its publication because he thought it could be used as an effective weapon against his Stalinist adversaries. Solzhenitsyn’s book became an international bestseller when it was published in November 1962. Many Russian readers wept over its pages, while foreigners were shocked by its stark revelations.
Solzhenitsyn managed to publish two short stories immediately after his success with IvanDenisovich. However, Khrushchev was overthrown in October 1964 in a palace coup that placed Leonid Brezhnev at the head of the Soviet Communist Party. Brezhnev began reversing Khrushchev’s reforms, and Solzhenitsyn had many of his manuscripts confiscated by the security services.
Solzhenitsyn managed to smuggle both volumes of his new novel, Cancer Ward, as well as some other books to the West. He forged an international reputation as Russia’s greatest living writer. Unfortunately, the new head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, considered Solzhenitsyn to be a subversive. Andropov drafted a decree for the Politburo to deprive Solzhenitsyn of his citizenship and expel him from the Soviet Union. Consequently, when Solzhenitsyn won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, Solzhenitsyn decided not to go to Stockholm to receive his prize because he feared he would be barred from returning to the Soviet Union.
Solzhenitsyn continued to experience literary success, and he became a world-famous living symbol of the struggle for human rights in the face of state censorship. His historical novel August 1914, which was published in the West on June 11, 1971, denounced all Marxism as evil. Solzhenitsyn’s work was translated into 35 languages during 1972. When a copy of Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelagowas discovered by Soviet authorities, Solzhenitsyn decided to publish it in the West as soon as possible. The Soviet authorities were enraged when the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago was published in Paris in December 1973. Solzhenitsyn had become a traitor in the eyes of the Soviet leaders.
On February 13, 1974, Solzhenitsyn was formally charged with treason and expelled from the Soviet Union. The United States, Great Britain and many other nations told Solzhenitsyn he would be welcome to reside in their countries if he wished. Solzhenitsyn chose Zurich, Switzerland as his initial place of residence. From Zurich, Solzhenitsyn traveled to Stockholm in December 1974 to finally collect his Nobel Prize in Literature.
Solzhenitsyn moved to the United States two years later during the summer of 1976. He arrived in America at a time when Americans were struggling for an adequate response to a perceived Soviet threat. As a Nobel laureate and dissident, who had quite literally put his life on the line in a mesmerizing duel with Soviet authorities, Solzhenitsyn inevitably attracted the interest of influential Americans. He was asked by numerous prominent members of Congress, labor leaders, and members of the Western mass media to comment on democracy and American political life.
In two separate speeches at AFL-CIO banquets, Solzhenitsyn alerted his audiences to the expanding communist menace. Solzhenitsyn stressed the unscientific and specious nature of Marxism-Leninism, as well as its lethal and aggressive nature. He warned that only firmness makes it possible to withstand the assaults of communist totalitarianism.
Solzhenitsyn resided in south-central Vermont throughout 1977 and the first half of 1978 while working on a multi-volume historical novel. He unexpectedly was asked to deliver the commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978. Solzhenitsyn accepted Harvard’s invitation, and in a televised address before 15,000-20,000 guests, he made some extremely frank and critical comments on the state of the West. Among other things, Solzhenitsyn criticized the Western media, which “miseducates” public opinion and fails to provide the in-depth analysis which society needs.
Solzhenitsyn in his Harvard address also mentioned the striking decline in courage in the West. He said this decline in courage was particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, which gave an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. Solzhenitsyn said that while there were many courageous individuals in Western society, they had no determining influence on public life. Solzhenitsyn noted that from ancient times declining courage in a civilization had been the first symptom of its end.
While rejecting socialism as an alternative to Western society, Solzhenitsyn also rejected the West as a model for the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn said that through deep suffering, his people had achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state did not look attractive. The insidious corruption of commercial advertising, TV stupor, intolerable music, and lack of spirituality in the West would not be attractive to the Soviet Union’s citizens. Solzhenitsyn had become disillusioned with what he considered was the spiritual vacuum of the materialistic West.
Solzhenitsyn had a deep-seated disdain for the Western media, which he revealed in his interview with Sixty Minutes. When asked to respond to an American commentator who had branded him “a freak, a monarchist, an anti-Semite, a crank, a has-been, not a hero,” Solzhenitsyn replied:
The Western press works in the following way: they don’t read my books. No one has ever given a single quotation from any of my books as a basis for these accusations. But every new journalist reads these opinions from other journalists. They have been just as spiteful to me in the American press as the Soviet press was before.
Although Solzhenitsyn had been kicked out of Russia, he always loved Russia and wanted to return to his native country. On August 16, 1990, Solzhenitsyn’s Russian citizenship was restored almost 17 years after it had been taken away from him. Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia on May 27, 1994, for the first time in more than 20 years.
The Russia Solzhenitsyn returned home to was transforming from communism in poor and deteriorating circumstances. Western culture and multinational corporations were moving in, with Western restaurants such as McDonalds ubiquitous in the cities. Solzhenitsyn expressed his dismay at Russia’s cultural decline in a speech he made at Saratov University in 1995. Solzhenitsyn said: “We are still holding together as a single unified country, but our cultural space is in shreds.” Solzhenitsyn later said he would refrain from voting for either Yeltsin or his Communist opponent, as neither candidate was worthy of being elected.
After extensive research, Solzhenitsyn realized that the Russian Revolution was primarily perpetrated by Jews, most of whom were imported into Russia from other countries. He said in 2002:
You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.
The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.
It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.
Solzhenitsyn wrote a two-volume nonfiction work titled Two Hundred Years Together. The first volume, published in 2001, was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916 and ran to 512 pages. The second volume, which was published in 2002, was a 600-page investigation titled The Jewsin the Soviet Union. This second volume exposed the predominantly Jewish constitution of the Bolshevik Revolution. No English-language translation of this work has been commercially published, and the only version of it offered on Amazon is the original Russian, at $978 as of May 2021.
Solzhenitsyn lived out his final years in Russia. On June 5, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree conferring the State Prize of the Russian Federation upon Solzhenitsyn for his humanitarian work. Putin, who personally visited the writer at his home to give him the award, said about Solzhenitsyn: “His activities as a writer and public figure, his entire long, thorny life journey will remain for us a model of true devotion, selfless service to the people, motherland, the ideals of freedom, justice and humanism.” Solzhenitsyn died August 3, 2008 near Moscow at Age 89.
Solzhenitsyn had an intense sense of mission about his literary work. He felt it was his ethical duty to publicly expose the Soviet Union’s shocking and murderous gulag system. One of the particulars of Solzhenitsyn’s literary genius was his overwhelming willpower. French author Nikita Struve wrote:
But Solzhenitsyn’s fate, life and work are characterized above all by will. To survive four years at the front, live through the Soviet concentration camps, overcome serious illness, struggle to become a writer, gain a world reputation against inhuman odds, and finally unswervingly to follow his path—all this is a miracle of rare willpower.
It is widely recognized that Solzhenitsyn had a major influence on the modern world. There is broad agreement that no other book contributed more directly and forcefully to the collapse of the Soviet Union than his book The Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn’s suffering and literary genius enabled him to expose the evils of Soviet Communism. Dr. David Duke writes about Solzhenitsyn: “He was a victim of Bolshevism and through his literary genius he laid bare the most horrific killing machine in all of world history.”
A version of this article was originally published in the March/April 2021 issue of The Barnes Review.
Explain why the concern has been changed from Covid deaths, to hospitalisations to Covid infections to Covid “cases” .
Explain how the “anti-vaxxers” are being blamed for the rise in “cases” when the only people who could possibly be contributing to the statistics are the people who are getting the “test” in the first place.
Explain, if all the vulnerable people have already been vaccinated, why do all the healthy people need to get vaccinated if you’re already protected by your own vaccine and the recovery rate was already 99.96% without the vaccine.
Explain why the average age of death with “Covid” (82.4 years) is higher than the average age of death without (81.5 years).
(left, Bill Vaccine Hands) The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario made it clear that any physician criticizing health policy risks losing his or her medical licence.
Health Bullies Muzzle Canadian Doctorsby Janice Fiamengo(henrymakow.com) One of the many remarkable features of the COVID “new normal” has been the seemingly widespread compliance of doctors with draconian and irrational health mandates. Such mandates have included unprecedented school closures, curfew orders, prohibitions on hugging, magical-thinking restaurant policies, restrictions on outdoor activities, harsh fines for drive-in church services, interdictions on businesses selling items deemed non-essential, and excessive force by police to uphold the orders. We have heard little from doctors even on subjects presumably close to physicians’ hearts, such as the cancellations of non-emergency surgeries, the use of “virtual'” medical consultations, and the yearlong isolation of the elderly in care homes. My mother, in her 90th year and with various health ailments (still, fortunately, living in her own home), has been unable to see her doctor in person, with one brief exception last summer, over the past 14 months. Once-regular visits have been replaced by phone consultations in an increasingly remote relationship. I have often wondered whether her doctor honestly believes that such distancing is a necessary and commensurate response to the pandemic. Recently, however, the silence of doctors has became more explicable. On April 30, 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), an organization empowered by law to regulate the practice of medicine province-wide, made an official statement warning doctors not to speak out against any government COVID orders. Referring to “isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us,” the college made it clear that any physician criticizing health policy risks losing his or her medical licence…DERELICTION OF DUTY Let’s not dwell on the colossal irony of a public health body condemning so-called “misinformation” in light of the notable contradictions and lack of scientific underpinning of Canadian health authorities’ own (frequently changing) statements. These authorities have regularly flouted “available evidence” in their public statements about risks to Canadians, viral transmission routes, mask efficacy, lockdown benefits, and vaccines. In fact, officials’ frequent flip-flops make it difficult to imagine how discipline would be meted out by the CPSO. Would a doctor who spoke out against the AstraZeneca vaccine in early March be punished for “publicly contradicting public health … recommendations,” or would that doctor be applauded for anticipating Canada’s own (later) decision to suspend AstraZeneca? What would happen to a doctor who criticized measures now widely recognized as inhumane, such as isolating children from their families in the case of possible COVID contact, or preventing family members from visiting care home residents for over a year? Is the CPSO certain that its own recommendations, if thoroughly investigated, would escape designation as “unsupported, unproven treatments”? Officials have studiously ignored the well-known deleterious health consequences of their harsh directives while continually stoking public fear with daily death announcements and warnings about second, third, fourth, and future variant “waves.” One wonders how it could possibly be in the public interest that, even in cases in which a medical practitioner is convinced that certain health rules are damaging, the doctor still “must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders.” Does this prohibition not violate every doctor’s primary commitment to do no harm? The situation is not unique to Ontario. Doctors in British Columbia are similarly being warned that they face discipline if they contradict health recommendations, a warning contained in a joint statement by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC and the First Nations Health Authority. The statement specifically prohibits B.C. doctors from promoting “anti-vaccine, anti-mask wearing, anti-physical distancing, and anti-lockdown stances.” Such statements are deeply unsettling. While there is undoubtedly no shortage of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of COVID-19, the sweeping censorship of medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but is also profoundly anti-scientific. All medical knowledge is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method, with its requirement of falsifiability, debate, and disputation over evidence. Clearly, there can be no genuine debate when doctors fear the loss of their livelihoods for dissenting from official policy. The forcing of medical unanimity will inevitably weaken public trust not only in health bodies like the colleges of physicians and surgeons, rightly judged to be exercising tyrannical power, but also in all aspects of a health-care system in which doctors cannot communicate openly and honestly with their patients. Fortunately, there has been some pushback from the Canadian community in the form of a Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth, which alleges that the statement by the CPSO represents a “watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry” as well as a potential “crime against humanity.” The declaration’s website features a petition that has been signed by over 11,000 physicians and concerned citizens at the time of this writing (an encouraging number, though still too low). These physicians object that the order violates doctors’ pledge to put their patients’ well-being above any other loyalty, use evidence-based medicine in their practice, and fully inform patients of the risks and benefits of treatments. The doctors demand that the CPSO immediately “withdraw and rescind its statement.” Unfortunately, the CPSO has not yet done so. It doesn’t require a background in medicine to know that censorship of medical professionals during a pandemic is an outrageous and dangerous act. There is no better time than now for rigorous debate on the efficacy of public health measures, with unproven and potentially catastrophic lockdown policies and vaccine passports being forced on populations worldwide.——————————————–Janice Fiamengo is a professor of English at the University of Ottawa. Her latest book is “Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say.”
A woman who works for Joyce asked her: “When you began your ministry in 1976, what God expected of women was very different from what God was calling you to do. How did you deal with that?”
Joyce answered: “I was so caught up in what I *felt* like God was calling me to do.”
Voddie: “Just because you *feel* like you were called to do something, doesn’t give you the right to overthrow biblical qualifications.”
Joyce: “I didn’t know women couldn’t preach until people started telling me. The church felt like I wasn’t supposed to be teaching. Dave should be teaching.”
Voddie: “‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence’ (1 Timothy 2:12). Because the Bible says so. No one gets to do everything they *feel* they are gifted at.”
Joyce preaching to a huge audience filled with men and women: “We’re all equal. God has gifted me to be up here.”
Voddie: “What if a man *feels* gifted to be a pastor but has several wives? God says he must have ‘one wife.’ Just because you *feel* gifted to do something, doesn’t give you the right to overthrow biblical qualifications.”
Joyce in her interview: “I didn’t want to just teach women. God gave me a verse in Philippians 2 that told me that I was to teach Scripture to all men. I never felt called to just teach women.”
Voddie: “The office of the elder is to be a ‘husband of one wife.’ Pastors must be men!”
The author of the video, John Henry said, ‘The question asked to Joyce Meyer was Cultural Marxism, Feminism, and even Christian Progressivism. It wasn’t based on anything biblical. ‘I felt like…’ This is what happens when everything is based on our feelings.”
Then the video switched to an interview with Voddie on CNN after Sarah Palin was selected as Vice President candidate:
Voddie when asked about Sarah being selected as VP when women weren’t even supposed to preach in the churches: “Feminism has gained a foothold in many evangelical churches. Culture doesn’t dictate truth. The Gospel dictates truth.
CNN moderator: “What about Deborah?”
Voddie: “The fact that something happened doesn’t mean it’s normative for the Church. In Isaiah 3, we’re told a sign that a nation is under judgement when women are in leadership.”
Another women on CNN used Ephesians 5 to claim that Sarah’s husband laid down his life so Sarah could run for the VP, and that working class families must have two incomes to survive. She tried to justify what Sarah was doing.
Voddie: You are playing fast and lose with the text, since it states that the man is head of the wife. You are ignoring that Palin’s role is governed by Scripture, not by what we feel. My job isn’t to translate Scripture into working class families. My job is to be honest with the text. The text say that women are to be keepers of their homes. I will not violate the teachings of Scripture in order to sound more appropriate for the culture. I am a herald of the truth of the Gospel, and my job is NOT to teach the Gospel according to what I think the culture wants to hear.”
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:33, 34
Most Americans have no idea how far gone their country is. We not only have the Biden regime announcing solidarity with BLM and flying the BLM flag at US embassies and consular missions, US military recruitment videos stressing recruitment of lesbian females, men dressing as women, and Americans having their genitals removed so they can become “no gender” https://www.rt.com/op-ed/524768-nullo-surgery-genital-modification/, we have Democrat school systems teaching white people self-hate and infusing them with guilt and making them effective agents in reconstructing America as a racial caste system favoring blacks.
In the Spring 2021 issue of City Journalpublished by the Manhattan Institute, Christopher F. Rufo documents with their own words and deeds how the Oregon public school system has abandoned education for cult indoctrination.
Rufo focuses on the school systems in Tigard-Tualatin, Beaverton, and Portland where white Americans account for 98-99 percent of the population. Using their own documents and official statements, he shows that the purpose of the education bureaucrats is to destroy the confidence of white students and infuse them with “white guilt,” “white shame,” and self-loathing. A hate speech code is institutionalized, the purpose of which is “to pathologize any political opposition to the new order.” The cause of oppression is “whiteness” and white values of color-blindness, individualism, and meritocracy.
In place of advancement by merit there is to be advancement based on “equity,” which means outcomes that favor blacks independently of merit. Color-blindness is denounced as a white trick to uphold a merit-based system. Individualism is to be replaced with group think described by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg as his ideal where everyone complies with group thought controlled by him and a handful of others of the “new order.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/okeefe-project-veritas-hannity-facebook-vaccine-hesitancy
The New York Times’ 1619 Project has allied American media with the attack on the United States Constitution. According to the New York Times and the Oregon public school system, the Constitution is a racist document written for the sole purpose of institutionalizing black slavery in the foundation of the American state.
As Rufo notices, “We have reached the strange reality in which the state, through the organs of education, agitates for its own destruction. Educators have condemned the entire structure of the social order and celebrated those who would tear it down.”
It is clear that white liberals have succeeded in destroying the belief of many Americans in the rule of law and the Constitution by denouncing these historic achievements as “tools of white supremacy.”
Some red states have passed laws prohibiting the teaching of the demonization of white Americans in their states. What is likely to happen is that the presstitutes, the intellectuals, and the anti-white US Department of Justice will overthrow the state laws as a form of McCarthyism that prohibits freedom of expression.
In other words, freedom of expression is limited to denunciation of the founding values of the United States as white supremacist and white Americans as “systemic racist oppressors.”
Today the states are disunited between blue and red to a far greater extent than they were in 1860. There are two countries today occupying the same geographical location. One, the red states, believe in America and its founding documents. The other, the blue states, believe that America epitomizes white supremacy evil.
The message is clear. From the Democrats the message is that white Americans must submit to blacks whom they have wronged. From the Red States the response is that whites freed the blacks from the slavery that their black brothers sold them into, whites passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that guarantee blacks equality before the law. The claim that white Americans denied these protections to blacks is a lie by traitors guilty of treason who intend to overthrow the United States of America.
The only way out of this is civil war. We will learn if the red states have enough confidence and will to defend the Constitutional rights of white Americans.
Otherwise we will have, as was predicted some years ago, a “dispossessed majority.” White Americans could be dispossessed not only of their legal and Constitutional rights, but also of their lives.
Liberty County, TX — Last week, a standoff took place between Liberty County law enforcement and a fellow cop from one county over. Harris County Precinct 1 deputy Robert Johnson engaged in a standoff with multiple SWAT officers for several hours before taking his own life.
After his suicide, we learned that during this standoff, this decorated Houston cop had confessed to utterly horrifying crimes against children. He also named names.
According to authorities in Liberty County, Johnson became the subject of an investigation earlier this month over allegations he had sexually abused a child.
On May 14, the investigation began when a dispatcher was being evaluated on their work performance, according to Pct. Constable Alan Rosen.
He said during the evaluation, the dispatcher made an outcry about the child abuse allegations involving Precinct 1 Deputy Constable Robert Johnson.
Rosen said the allegations were reported to Internal Affairs and the investigation began.
He said on Monday morning the department contacted the Houston Police Department to investigate the case, where investigators found out the incidents took place in Alvin.
Rosen said HPD and CPS contacted the Alvin Police Department about the allegations. He said Alvin police tried to make contact with Johnson.
On Wednesday morning, Rosen said that the same dispatcher who made the outcry said she was with Johnson and that he was threatening to kill her and take his life.
When police attempted to find Johnson for questioning, they engaged in a traffic stop. The stop turned into a dangerous chase with Johnson reportedly travelling at high speeds into oncoming traffic.
Eventually Johnson came to a stop on the FM 787 bridge over the Trinity River where a standoff ensued.
During the standoff he reportedly called his supervisor and confessed to the allegations of sex abuse of multiple children.
He also named other employees within the Harris county sheriff’s office who were involved.
“Chief Harrison spoke to Johnson for hours because it was important to us to try to prevent a suicide and most importantly to get any and all facts relative to this case that we could get from him,” Harris County Constable Alan Rosen said.
“We wanted to know everything. We wanted to know who the victims are and how long this has been going on.”
Two of the people mentioned by Johnson during his confession have since been arrested.
Dispatcher Christina McKay and deputy Chonda Shalett Williams were fired from the police department before being arrested for their involvement in the child sex ring as alleged by Johnson.
“There was a lot of people who spoke highly of him as a police officer. It’s pretty apparent that everyone around this guy had no idea he was a pedophile. No idea. Not his wife. Not his friends. Not his coworkers. Nobody,” Rosen said.
But as the two arrests show, his coworkers did know and actually participated in it.
According to KPRC, McKay is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child and Williams is charged with sexual assault of a child. Both are being held at the Brazoria County Jail and have bonds set at $200,000.
According to court documents, Johnson and Williams drugged a child together before raping them. The allegations were made by the child who came forward to report the incident which happened in December 2020.
Williams reportedly admitted to the incident and admitted to seeing Johnson rape an unconscious child in a hotel room.
According to the same court documents, McKay admitted to providing Johnson with pills so he could use them to render his child victims unconscious.
McKay knew about the abuse, according to the records, as far back as August 2020 but never reported it out of fear of Johnson’s retaliation.
Highlighting the scope and frequency of the abuse, McKay admitted to booking hotel rooms and supplying drugs at least 20 times in the last 12 months.
BluebonnetNews.com spoke to a former girlfriend of Johnson, on the condition of anonymity, who said there may be many more victims coming forward.
She told Bluebonnet News that he was an abusive narcissist who preyed on vulnerable women, particularly those with children. With Johnson now dead and no longer a threat, other young victims may come forward, she said.
Others apparently had no idea this man was a pedophile in a uniform and despite being fired in 2012 for an inappropriate relationship, Johnson went on to Harris county where he was hired with open arms and received multiple awards, including officer of the year.
“Marriage is on the decline, and it’s a scary thought. Imagine dating a man for years, cohabitating, and giving the relationship your all without him ever having to ‘put a ring on it.’ No matrimony, no wedding dress, and no big celebration with family and friends. What about the thought of having children without marriage?”
Young women, I hope you can easily spot the problem with this statement. WHY should a man marry a woman who is already fornicating with him and acting like his wife with NO commitment? This is foolishness, women! Don’t give your virginity away until your wedding night. If men weren’t getting sex and having a make-believe wife so easily, they would still be getting married!
“Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland, says, ‘Women’s independence and gender equality is a huge factor in the long-term decline in marriage.’”
Of course, they are! Feminism’s goal was to convince women that they don’t need men. They need careers and paychecks more than they need a husband and children. They convinced women to store their treasures (careers and paychecks) upon this earth where moth and rust destroy, rather than storing them (husband and children – family) in heaven; those things that last for eternity. Also, men don’t want to marry women that act like men. They want to marry feminine women. These are the women who will make good wives, not feminists who demand their own way.
“There has also been a rise in men’s rights groups such as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) and the Manosphere, where men in droves complain about men’s unfair treatment in relationships and family courts. They’re tired of being brow-beaten by women and the gender bias laws against men. For this reason, millions of men don’t want to get married and are opting out of marriage altogether.”
This is where biblical womanhood comes in, women. If a man who has gone MGTOW meets a godly, young woman who has a kind and submissive spirit, he will most likely change his mind. The problem is that most men aren’t meeting women like this. They are rare indeed. “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies” (Proverbs 31:10). But if you want to marry, you must learn to have a meek and quiet spirit instead of loud, contentious spirit that wants to dominate and control men. Feminism has produced the opposite of what men are looking for in a wife. Become a wife that a godly man will want to marry.
“Divorce rates are sky-high: 45% of marriages end in divorce, and women initiate 80% of them. Ultimately, men know they could lose a lot, from losing their freedom to being financially exploited to losing custody of their children. It’s common knowledge that the courts favor women over men. They’re renowned for favoring women regarding the division of assets, child support, and alimony even if they aren’t married.”
In women’s fight for their rights, they have destroyed the greatest institution known unto men and created by God Almighty, marriage. All feminists have fought for is themselves. In the process, they have greatly harmed not only themselves, but men and children too. And once the family is destroyed, the nation is destroyed. We can see the consequences of this all around us. The only way this nation has a chance of surviving is if women will turn away from feminism and begin to build up their marriages and homes, as God has commanded that they do.
Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands. Proverbs 14:1
O’Keefe strikes again! Project Veritas on Monday released video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the social media giant’s effort to secretly censor Covid vaccine concerns on a global scale.
The documents obtained by Project Veritas show Facebook’s efforts to curb “vaccine hesitancy” or “VH” in comments.
One whistleblower told James O’Keefe that Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content, to be what they call “vaccine hesitant” (screenshot below) without the users knowledge.
“They assign a score to these comments that’s called the VH score, the “vaccine hesitancy” score,” the whistleblower said.
“And then based on that score will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment.”
This is the untold story of how Bill Gates funded NGO PATH killed tribal girls in India in unauthorised clinical trials and got away with it.
We’ve seen a lot of India in the news recently. A lot more than we usually do.
There’s an apocalypse of sorts going on there, if the popular media is to be believed. But as is often the case, these reports are devoid of any context or perspective.
While the world’s media can’t get enough of India today, in its rush to support a narrative of terror about Covid-19, twelve years ago when there was a real story going on there, the world’s media was nowhere to be seen.
The Unauthorised Clinical Trials
In 2009, a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded NGO carried out unauthorised clinical trials of a vaccine on some of the poorest, most vulnerable children in the world. It did so without providing information about the risks involved, without the informed consent of the children or their parents and without even declaring that it was conducting a clinical trial.
After vaccination, many of the participating children became ill and seven of them died. Such were the findings of a parliamentary committee charged with investigating this wretched affair. The committee accused the NGO of “child abuse” and produced a raft of evidence to back up its claim. This entire incident barely registered on the radar of Western media.
The project’s aim was, in PATH’s own words, “to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines”.
It was conducted in four countries: India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam.
Another Gates-funded organization, Gavi, had originally been considered to run the project, but responsibility was ultimately delegated to PATH. The project was directly funded by BMGF.
PATH headquarters, Seattle
Significantly, each of the countries selected for the project had a different ethnic population and each had a state-funded national immunisation program.
The use of different ethnic groups in the trial allowed for comparison of the effects of the vaccine across diverse population groups (ethnicity being a factor in the safety and efficacy of certain drugs).
The immunisation programs of the countries involved provided a potentially lucrative market for the companies whose drugs were to be studied: should the drugs prove successful and be included on these countries’ state-funded national immunisation schedules, this would represent an annual windfall of profits for the companies involved.
Two types of HPV vaccine were used in the trial: Gardasil by Merck and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). In this article, we are going to examine PATH’s trial of Gardasil in India.
It’s worth noting here the relationship between BMGF and one of the companies whose drugs were being tested. In 2002, BMGF had, controversially, bought $205m worth of stocks in the pharmaceutical sector, a purchase which included shares in Merck & Co. The move had raised eyebrows because of the obvious conflict of interest between the foundation’s role as a medical charity and its role as an owner of businesses in the same sector.
The Wall Street Journalreported, in August 2009, that the foundation had sold its shares in Merck between 31st March and 30th June of that year, which would have been around the same time that the field trials of the HPV vaccine were starting in India.
So for the entirety of this project (which was already in operation by October 2006), right up to its final field trials, BMGF had a dual role: as both a charity with a responsibility for care, and as a business owner with a responsibility for profit.
HPV vaccine aims to prevent cervical cancer. Gardasil had been launched successfully by Merck in the US in 2006, but its sales suffered after a series of articles in American medical journals had judged that its risks outweighed its benefits.
Especially damaging was an analysis of reports made to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) about adverse reactions to Gardasil. This analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 19th 2009.
The 12,424 adverse reactions which had been reported included 772 which were considered serious, 32 of which were deaths.
Other reported serious side effects included autoimmune disorders, venous thromboembolic events (blood clots) and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In the same edition of JAMA, Dr. Charlotte Haug, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote, “Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit.
If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain.
Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk from the vaccine.”
Dr. Haug also noted, “When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit”, in a clear dig at Gardasil manufacturer Merck.
The Gardasil Controversy
Merck’s attempts to promote Gardasil had been controversial. Dr. Angela Raffle, one the UK’s leading experts on cervical cancer screening, described Merck’s marketing strategy as “a battering ram at the Department of Health and carpet bombing on the peripheries.”
Dr. Raffle was concerned that the push to mass vaccination would harm the successful screening programme which had operated in the UK since the 1960s.
“My worry is that the commercially motivated rush to make us panic into introducing HPV vaccine quickly will put us back and worsen our cervical cancer control programme.”
Professor Diane Harper
Professor Diane Harper, then of Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, had led 2 trials of the vaccine and was adamantthat Gardasil could not protect against all strains of HPV.
When Merck launched a huge public relations campaign in 2007 to persuade European governments to use the product to vaccinate all the continent’s young girls against cervical cancer, she said:
“Mass vaccination programmes (would be) a great big public health experiment…. We don’t know a lot of things. We don’t know the vaccine will continue to be effective. To be honest, we don’t have efficacy data in these young girls right now. We’re vaccinating against a virus that attacks women throughout their whole life and continues to cause cancer. If we vaccinate girls at 10 or 11 we won’t know for 20 to 25 years whether it is going to work or not. This is a big thing to take on.”
So at the time that PATH was carrying out its trials in India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam, Gardasil was a controversial vaccine: its safety, efficacy and Merck’s attempts to promote it were being questioned, not by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, but by the international medical establishment and the respected mainstream media.
The Girls Of Khammam
Khammam district, in 2009, was a part of the eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (boundary changes made in 2014 mean that today Khammam district belongs to the state of Telangana). The region is predominantly rural and is considered to be one of the poorest and least developed parts of India.
Girls of the Koya tribe, Khammam
Khammam is home to several ethnic tribal groups,with some estimates putting its tribal population at about 21.5% (approximately 600,000 people). As is common for indiginous people throughout the world, the tribal groups of Khammam suffer from a lack of access to education. Consequently, their level of literacy is of a standard considerably lower than that of the region as a whole.
Some 14,000 girls were injected with Gardasil in Khammam district during 2009. The girls recruited for PATH’s project were between 10 and 14 years of age and all came from low-income, predominantly tribal backgrounds. Many of the girls did not reside with their families; instead they lived in ashram pathshalas (government-run hostels), which were situated close to the schools the children attended.
Professor Linsey McGoey, of the University of Essex, later stated she believed girls at ashram pathshalas had been targeted for the project as this was a way of “side-stepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots.”
So it was typical that PATH’s project to administer and study the effects of the HPV vaccine went unheralded in the West. Typical, too, that the same was true in India itself: the Indian media is no more renowned for its reporting on tribal groups than the Western media is for its coverage of Indians.
Despite concerns expressed about the project in October 2009 by Sama, a Delhi-based NGO that advocates for women’s health, the matter remained absent from India’s news.
Members of the advocacy group Sama
This project, then, couldn’t have been more off-the-map had it taken place on the moon, and it remained so for several months until, early in 2010, stories began to filter out from Khammam that something had gone terribly wrong: many of the girls who had been involved in the trials had subsequently fallen ill and four of them had died.
In March 2010, members of Sama visited Khammam to find out more about the emerging stories. They were told that up to 120 girls had experienced adverse reactions, including epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches and mood swings. The Sama representatives remained in Khammam to investigate the situation further.
The involvement of Sama finally brought the matter to the attention of the Indian media and, amid a barrage of negative publicity, the Indian Council of Medical Research (IMCR) suspended the PATH project. At this point the Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Healthbegan an investigation into the affair.
On May 17th, Sama produced a damning report highlighting, among other things: that the trials had been promoted as a government immunisation programme and not a research project, that the girls had not been made aware that they could choose not to participate in the trials, and that parental consent had neither been asked for nor given in many cases.
The report stated that “Many of the vaccinated girls continue to suffer from stomach aches, headaches, giddiness and exhaustion.
There have been reports of early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps, extreme mood swings, irritability, and uneasiness following the vaccination.
No systematic follow up or monitoring has been carried out by the vaccine providers.”
Sama also disputed the Andhra Pradesh State Government’s claim that the deaths of four of the girls who had participated in the trials had nothing to do with vaccination.
The Parliamentary Committee
The wheels of bureaucracy are slow to turn. It was more than three years later, on 30th August 2013, when the report of the Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health was finally published. Although many had expected the report to be a whitewash, it was anything but: it made for shocking reading.
The report excoriated both PATH and the IMCR, concluding that the “safety and rights of children were highly compromised and violated.”
The committee found that PATH, despite operating in India since 1999, had no legal permission to do so. It noted that although the organisation had finally received a certificate from India’s Registrar of Companies in September 2009, this certificate itself was in breach of the law.
The report stated that “PATH….has violated all laws and regulations laid down for clinical trials… its sole aim has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers. This is a serious breach of trust… as the project involved the life and safety of girl children and adolescents who were mostly unaware of the implications of vaccination. The violation is also a serious breach of medical ethics. This act of PATH is a clear cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents. It is also an established case of child abuse.”
The committee charged thatPATH had lied to it and had attempted to mislead it during the course of its investigation and recommended that the Indian Government report PATH’s violations of human rights to the WHO, UNICEF and the US Government.
The report declared that PATH’s whole scheme was a cynical attempt to ensure ongoing profits for Merck and GSK.
“The choice of countries and population groups; the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunisation programmes of the respective countries are all pointers to a well planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation.
Had PATH been successful….this would have generated a windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced to the immunisation programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.”
“To achieve this end effortlessly, without going through the arduous and strictly regulated route of clinical trials, PATH resorted to an element of subterfuge by calling the clinical trials ‘Observational Studies’ or ‘a Demonstration Project’ and various such expressions. Thus the interest, safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized by PATH by using self-determined and self-servicing nomenclature which is not only highly deplorable but also a serious breach of the law of the land.”
Indian Girls Used As Guinea Pigs
These charges were echoed by leading voices in India’s medical community. “It is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India,” said Chandra M.Gulhati, editor of India’s influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, “(this) was not philanthropy”.
Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India and a long-standing critic of corrupt practices in health, did not mince his words: “This is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”
Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus National Medical Journal of India
The standing committee’s report was also highly critical of the relationship between PATH and members of several of India’s health agencies, highlighting multiple conflicts of interest.
On the issue of informed consent, the committee confirmed the allegations made by Sama to be true, finding that the majority of consent forms weren’t signed by either the children or their parents, that many consent forms were postdated or not dated at all, that multiple forms had been signed by the same people (often the caretakers of the hostels the girls lived in) and that many signatures didn’t match the name on the form. It found that parents had not been given information on the necessity of vaccination, its pros and cons or its potential side effects.
No insurance was provided for any of the children in the event of injury and “PATH did not provide for urgent expert medical attention in case of serious adverse events.” Further, PATH seriously contravened Indian health regulations by carrying out a clinical trial of a drug on children before first conducting a trial of the drug with adults as subjects.
Regarding the girls who had died, the committee criticized PATH, Indian medical authorities and the Andhra Pradesh State Government for summarily dismissing the link between their deaths and vaccination without conducting thorough investigations.
By 2016, some 1,200 of the girls who had been subjects in the two HPV vaccine trials in India were reporting serious long-term side effects, more than 5% of the total cohort of 23,500. By then, the total number of deaths had risen to seven.
A Deathly Silence
This appalling breach of medical ethics and human rights went almost completely unmentioned outside India. The Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health had literally accused an American NGO of child abuse, providing extensive evidence to support their charge, yet practically no mention of this was to be found anywhere in the Western media.
Popular science publications Nature and Science each contained a brief article about the debacle, but neither goes into any detail about PATH’s legal and ethical breaches. While the Science article is at least slightly critical, the Nature piece gives more space to a rebuttal of the charges by PATH director Vivien Tsu.
The Guardian, for all its claims to give a voice to the most vulnerable in the world, stayed curiously silent about the young girls of Khammam. That is, except for one article, published in October 2013, about six weeks after the release of the standing committee’s report.
The article was written not by one of the girls or one of their parents, not by one of the women from Sama who had advocated on the girls’ behalf, not even by one of the Indian parliamentarians who had been charged with investigating the affair. No. It was written by an American man called Seth Berkely. Berkely is the CEO of Gavi, another BMGF funded health behemoth.
Seth Berkely, CEO Gavi
Berkely used his forum in The Guardian to claim that the girls who had died after being vaccinated in Khammam had committed suicide.
Speaking about the 14,000 subjects involved in the trials, he said, “it would have been unusual if none of them went on to kill themselves.”
Compassion wasn’t the only element missing from his article. Not once did Berkley address the multiple breaches of law and ethics which had occurred or the role of PATH and that of his employers, the Gates Foundation, in his dismissal of this iniquity.
The Guardianbegan receiving funding from BMGF in August 2010. Prior to that arrangement, in 2007, the newspaper had published two separate articles which were critical of the lobbying tactics used by Merck to promote Gardasil and which questioned the efficacy of its use in mass vaccination programs. Subsequent to their arrangement with Gates, all coverage by the Guardian of this drug (and of HPV vaccination in general) has been positive.
Indian Govt Surrenders To Bill Gates’ Influence
The Indian government was reluctant to take any of the measures recommended by the committee. After all, there were huge amounts of money being made available to the state, institutions and individuals from organisations likePATH. So no official reports of human rights violations were ever made by the Indian government to the WHO, to Unicef or to the American government, as had been recommended by the standing committee.
BMGF headquarters, Seattle
However, in 2017, it announced it would no longer accept grants from BMGF for its Immunisation Technical Support Unit, an organisation which provides “vaccination strategy advice” in relation to an estimated 27 million infants. Nevertheless, the Indian government continues to accept the foundation’s grants in other areas.
Merck, and their HPV vaccine Gardasil, have done very well since the dismal events recounted in this article. The Khammam scandal never really affected the company, due to a lack of awareness about it outside India. In 2018 alone, Gardasil sales amounted to more than $3bn, thanks to its inclusion on immunisation schedules around the world, and its launch that year in China.
PATHhas never been better. Just like Merck, the lack of reporting about what happened in Khammam meant the organisation didn’t suffer. Since 2010, it has continued to receive huge funding from BMGF and, to a lesser extent, the US Government. During this period, BMGF has provided PATH with more than $1.2bn in funding.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has continued expanding its web of influence. Describing the organisation’s practices around the time of the events outlined here, Jacob Levich said,
“In essence, BMGF would buy up stockpiled drugs that had failed to create sufficient demand in the West, press them on the periphery at a discount, and lock in long-term purchase agreements with Third World governments.”
The foundation has since moved on to even more lucrative pastures. The Covid-19 pandemic has really pushed BMGF to centre stage. Gates himself has seen his public profile and political influence grow to an extent that would have been unimaginable even in 2019.
It And the girls of Khammam? Well, those poor children and their plight wasn’t even widely known outside of India back in 2010. To say they had been forgotten would be to imply that anybody knew about them or cared about them in the first place.