Health or Heredity? COVID-19 Vaccines & California’s History of Eugenics

Last week, the Globe reported on the Sonoma County Equity Office driving the COVID-19 narrative. This is the follow up to that story.

As we reflect on the last several years, it is apparent that most everyone in the nation has been subjected to COVID-19 policies and precautionary measures. Throughout communities of color, COVID-19 inoculations, testing and masking have been promoted under the guise of an equity drive. During the initial vaccine roll out, Krispy Kreme Donuts and McDonald’s offered complimentary menu items in underserved communities in exchange for getting vaccinated.

While the Democratic narrative implied that the best interest of “health” was in mind, obesity rates skyrocketed throughout the pandemic. According to a 2021 article from NPR, “new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed 16 states now have obesity rates of 35% or higher. That’s an increase of four states — Delaware, Iowa, Ohio and Texas — in just a year.” CNN reported, “Covid-19 death rates are 10 times higher in countries where most adults are overweight. In the US, where 152.49 deaths were recorded per 100,000 people, 67.9% of the adult population is overweight, according to the report.  In the US, close to three-quarters of the population is either overweight or obese, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Based on this data, one could inquire if the incentives which drove the vaccination campaigns truly served the best interests of its community members.

As civil rights activist Malcolm X once stated, “the White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man.” According to The Guardian, “from 1909 to 1979, under the state eugenics laws, California forcibly sterilized about 20,000 people in state institutions who were deemed “unfit to produce”. The program disproportionately targeted the Latino community, women, people with disabilities and impairments – even those who had children out of wedlock. The mean age of victims was 17, and they included children as young as 12.”

As reported in SF Gate,”California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents. Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune.” “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

According to the guidance originally established by the University of California Board of Regents, eugenics research played an integral part at U.C. campuses. According to the Los Angeles Times, ” In late 2018, UC Berkeley bioethics professor Osagie K. Obasogie received a campus email about a research fund available to faculty members in the School of Public Health. He was stunned by what he read. The Genealogical Eugenic Institute Fund, the email said, supports research and education in eugenics — a field discredited after World War II as a horrifying ideology that sought to use science to improve the human race by promoting traits deemed superior and breeding out those judged undesirable. The $2.4-million fund was offering an annual payout of about $70,000 in fiscal year 2020 to support research and education on policies, practices and technologies that could “affect the distribution of traits in the human race,” including those related to family planning, infertility, assisted reproduction technologies, prenatal screening, abortion, gene editing and gene modification, the email said.” U.C. Berkeley’s Jennifer Doudna originally discovered the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technique, but ultimately lost the patent battle. Being that Governor Newsom has served as an ex-officio to the Board of Regents since 2019, we may inquire about overall intentions  of university research projects due to various corruption scandals throughout the Board’s history.

According to Time Magazine,”Using the CRISPR system adapted from bacteria, RNA can guide scissors-like enzymes to specific sequences of DNA in order to eliminate or edit a gene. This technique has already been used in trials to cure sickle cell anemia. Now it is also being used in the war against COVID. Doudna and others have created RNA-guided enzymes that can directly detect SARS-CoV-2 and eventually could be used to destroy it. More controversially, CRISPR could be used to create “designer babies” with inheritable genetic changes. In 2018, a young Chinese doctor used CRISPR to engineer twin girls so they did not have the receptor for the virus that causes AIDS. There was an immediate outburst of awe and then shock.” Rockefeller University currently holds many patents regarding CRISPR technology. Rockefeller University was originally founded in June 1901 by John D. Rockefeller upon recommendations from his adviser Frederick T. Gates. As quoted from Capital Research Center, “The Population Council was created in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III, grandson of the famous oil tycoon and founder of the Rockefeller Foundation. Unlike his grandfather, a devout Baptist whose lifelong definition of philanthropy was “helping the less fortunate” with small gifts, Rockefeller III used his family’s fortune and influence to push for “fertility control” to combat the rapidly growing populations in Asia. At the behest of the Rockefeller Foundation, a report was published in 1950 on the need to impose controls on far-Eastern countries.” If we fast forward to the present date, the Rockefeller Foundation and University have poured billions of dollars into accelerating global demand for Covid-19 vaccines. The Rockefeller Family’s passion and history surrounding eugenics inspires one to ask whether the COVID-19 mRNA inoculations fall under the traditional category of a “vaccine” or may be better referenced as a gene therapy.

“Comirnaty” is the FDA-approved monovalent COVID-19 (coronavirus 2019) vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech as the original Pfizer formula remains under emergency use authorization. The FDA expressed in the Comirnaty Q&A “it contains a piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus’s genetic material that instructs cells in the body to make the virus’s distinctive “spike” protein. After a person is vaccinated, their body produces copies of the spike protein, which does not cause disease, and triggers the immune system to learn to react defensively, producing an immune response against SARS-CoV-2”. As stated in the Federal Register on February 17 2022, “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) product application. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) was approved on August 23, 2020, and a license was issued to BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH. FDA has determined that COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) meets the criteria for a material threat MCM priority review voucher, which has been issued to BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH.” Priority review means that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews a drug application in about six months rather than the standard ten months. A USA Today article published on October 20, 2021 reported, “USA TODAY has debunked the notion that the Pfizer vaccine is not FDA-approved. That claim is similarly wrong. I can confirm that our vaccine has been granted FDA approval and that Comirnaty is available, Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer, said in an email.” To date, the product labeled as Comirnaty does not appear to be available at any pharmacies within the State of California which heightens skepticism regarding USA Today’s “fact check” response.

As of March 14, 2023, the FDA reissued a Letter of Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccines. Throughout the duration of the pandemic, these letters have clearly stated that the pharmaceutical product is investigational. According to the CDC’s glossary of terms, an investigational vaccine is “a vaccine that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in clinical trials on humans. However, because investigational vaccines are still in testing and under evaluation, they are not licensed for use in the general public.”

Given that these products are not meant to be used in the general public until they have been thoroughly vetted, why did our Democratic leaders mandate vaccination requirements in order to enter businesses, remain employed, travel, attend school, etc.? By subjecting children and adults to a product with limited research and zero long term studies, it is unclear as to whether the vaccinated individuals will see an improvement or a decline in their health over the next several years.

As stated in The Defender:

“Federal law, Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, states the following about products granted emergency authorization usage:

Individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

Any entity or organization that requires EUA COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 tests or masks are in violation of federal law, and will likely face lawsuits if they don’t allow exemptions or alternatives.”