The depopulation agenda is thrust in our faces more than ever before.
Now, a ‘contraceptive vaccine’ to prevent pregnancy is in clinical trials.
Instead of hormonal birth control, the medical industrial complex wants to prevent pregnancies with a ‘vaccine.’
The Atlantic first reported on this new vaccine that’s going through clinical trials.
Reporter Katherine J. Wu writes in The Atlantic:
For half a century, Gursaran Pran Talwar has been developing what he hopes will be the next big thing in birth control. A nonagenarian who was once the director of India’s National Institute of Immunology, Talwar envisions bringing to market a new form of contraception that could block pregnancy without the usual trade-offs—an intervention that’s long-acting but reversible; cheap, discreet, and easy to administer; less invasive than an intrauterine device and more convenient than a daily pill. It would skip messy, sometimes dangerous side effects, such as weight gain, mood swings, and rare but risky blood clots and strokes. It would embody the sort of “set it and forget it” model that’s become a gold standard for health—and, in his words, be “accepted by the world over.”
Talwar’s invention is now in early-stage clinical trials. If all goes well, it could become humanity’s first contraceptive vaccine—one that would prevent pregnancies in a way distinct from any birth control ever cleared for human use. Whether they’re packaged as pills, patches, implants, or shots, most common medical contraceptives work by flooding the body with hormones to put a pause on ovulation. Talwar’s vaccine would do something different: It leaves the menstrual cycle unaltered, instead leveraging the powers of the immune system to keep unwanted pregnancies at bay.
Just an FYI: a new “birth control vaccine” is in clinical trials. Do they still claim this isn’t about depopulation? pic.twitter.com/9ctdIQlP5E
— Jason “Storm Chaser” Nelson (@RealJasonNelson) May 6, 2023
A vaccine for birth control?
Isn’t that just sterilisation with a nicer sounding name? pic.twitter.com/15oPIcqTnJ
— Space Pirate 🏴☠️ (@SpacePirate144) May 2, 2023
Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E. said this is an “absolutely horrible idea.”
The outlet also spoke with Mary Lou Singleton, a midwife and nurse practitioner, about the potential risks of this type of ‘vaccine.’
“So much can go wrong by ‘immunizing’ a woman with hCG identical to the hormone she produces, or men with sperm proteins to attack their own sperm at the production site." — Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E. + chief scientific officer for CHD#TheDefenderhttps://t.co/ThzEjVQhPL
— Children’s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) May 6, 2023
The Defender shared their comments:
Hooker told The Defender:
“So much can go wrong by ‘immunizing’ a woman with hCG identical to the hormone she produces, or men with sperm proteins to attack their own sperm at the production site.
“The big question that comes to mind is ‘reversibility.’ It is very difficult to turn off an immune response complete with memory B-cells after it has been turned on. My fear is that many would be left permanently sterile from this type of vaccine.
“Also, the problems posed by this technology related to autoimmunity are myriad.
“Essentially, by coaxing the body to attack human proteins, you also put human tissues, including primarily vital reproductive organs, in the line of fire for many harsh inflammatory processes associated with an immune response.
“This is one bad idea!”
Mary Lou Singleton, midwife and family nurse practitioner, also raised safety concerns. She told The Defender:
“This would be the first vaccine designed to provoke an immune response against a normal, healthy bodily process.
“Like all living organisms that reproduce sexually, the human body is organized around our reproductive potential.
“We have no idea what the long-term consequences of programming the immune system to attack the part of our body that sustains early pregnancy may be, but we do know that the history of medicine is full of unintended consequences.”
Let’s call this for what it is.
Scientific American has no issue hiding the agenda.
Scientific American says that "population decline will change the world for the better," citing the benefits of lower CO2 emissions and fewer people using up planetary resources.
— Igor Chudov 🐭 (@ichudov) May 7, 2023