ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”. Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”. By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present. In October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the samples. Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses, again found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found no hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in the Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials that tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Open Access Library Journal
2017, Volume 4, e3937
ISSN Online: 2333-9721
ISSN Print: 2333-9705
10.4236/oalib.1103937 Oct. 27, 2017 1 Open Access Library
HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya
Raises Concern in the Developing World
John W. Oller Jr.1, Christopher A. Shaw2,3, Lucija Tomljenovic2,3, Stephen K. Karanja4,
Wahome Ngare4, Felicia M. Clement5, Jamie Ryan Pillette5
1Communicative Disorders, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, USA
2Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Graduate Program in Experimental Medicine, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
3Neural Dynamics Research Group, Vancouver, Canada
4Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, Nairobi, Kenya
5University of Louisiana, Lafayette, USA
In 1993, WHO announced a birth-control vaccine” forfamily planning”
Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated t
tanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing
birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy ho
mones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions
females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet
Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers
working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant
WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population
in unstable less developed countries”. By November 1993 Catholic public
tions appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a
prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such
program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited bi
chemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus
being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present.
October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and
tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the
Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses,
found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found
hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in
Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials
tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the
vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines
How to cite this paper:
Oller Jr., J.W.,
C.A., Tomljenovic, L., Karanja, S.K.,
W., Clement, F.M. and Pillette, J.R.
7) HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vac-
in Kenya Raises Concern in the De-
: e3937.
September 12, 2017
October 24, 2017
October 27, 2017
© 2017 by authors and Open
Library Inc.
work is licensed under the Creative
Attribution International
(CC BY 4.0).
Open Access
, J.W., Jr.,
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 2 Open Access Library
to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus
campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic
Association as a front for population growth reduction.
Subject Areas
Gynecology & Obstetrics, Women’s Health
Anti-Fertility Measures, Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin,
Birth-Control Vaccine, Population Control Programs
1. Introduction
On November 6, 2014, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB) which
presides over the Kenya Catholic Health Commission (established in 1957 [1])
issued a press release alleging that the World Health Organization (WHO) was
secretly using a birth-controlvaccine in its anti-tetanus vaccination campaign
in Kenya 2013-2015 [2]. A few days later, an article in the
lowed with similar allegations quoting the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association
(KCDA) [3]. Such claims from sources in the Catholic Church prompted this
case study of the WHO Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign along with a review of
WHO research to develop anti-fertility vaccines1. Many published papers, which
we found in the Web of Science and PubMed data bases, document WHO expe-
rimental research with various anti-fertility vaccine conjugates [4]-[24] since the
1970s. The published objective of WHO researchers performing the experiments
was to engineer one or more birth-controlvaccines that can, with known re-
liability, produce and maintain infertility indefinitely.
In the background, as a subunit of the United Nations, the WHO has also
been pursuing the global objective of reducing world-wide population growth
primarily through family planning” and contraception [25]. In this paper, our
main focus is on just one of the WHO contraceptive vaccines [10] [16] [26] and
more specifically on speculation about whether or not it was deployed by the
WHO in the five administrations of tetanus vaccine in the Kenya campaign of
2013-2015. Here we examine the relevant research and the best laboratory data
available to us in order to form our best guess, the informed opinion in which
the authors concur, concerning what the WHO may have actually done in the
1Initially, several of us (Oller, Shaw, Tomljenovic, Clement, and Pillette) were jointly studying
and bacteriological carriers being used to deliver toxicants (e.g., in anti-cancer
and/or genetically engineered medical products to the cells and tissues of human patients.
the course of our work, after learning about the news reports regarding the WHO vaccination ca
paign in Kenya, we found a long-standing stream of published research by the WHO to
birth-control vaccines. Later we would contact the principal doctors in the KCDA, Karanja
Ngare, who would agree to join us in this review and case of study of the WHO Kenya
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 3 Open Access Library
recently completed Kenya vaccination campaign. Acknowledging from the be-
ginning that our investigation involves inferences from incomplete and partial
data, it is our opinion that all the parties involved in thefamily planning” work
of the WHO need to be fully informed.
Because, as we will report here, some of samples of thetetanusvaccine used
by the WHO in Kenya tested by the KCCB/KCDA contained a WHObirth-
controlcomponent, ethical and moral questions must be raised [27] [28] [29]
[30] [31]. First among them is the do no harm” caveat [32]. If as suspected by
the Catholic doctors [33] [34] mothers-to-be were misled into accepting an anti-
fertility vaccine in the hope of protecting their future children from neonatal te-
tanus, the do-no-harm caveat” was violated. In receiving up to five antifertility
injections any mothers-to-be would almost certainly be robbed of the very
children they were trying to protect from neonatal tetanus. If the suspicions were
valid, there would also be an ethical breach of the obligation on the side of the
WHO to obtaininformed consent” from those Kenyan girls and women [35]
[36] [37] [38]. If the patient is conscious and competent, known risks are un-
iversally supposed to be disclosed [37]. The underlying principle at issue comes
down ultimately to the Golden Rule of treating others the way we ourselves
would want to be treated [39] [40]. Do adolescent and mature women have the
right to know if they are about to receive an anti-fertility vaccine? Or, alterna-
tively, does the WHO have the prerogative to administer such a vaccine as a te-
tanus prophylactic without disclosing its anti-fertility aspect?2
The type of anti-tetanus birth-control vaccine the KCCB and KCDA sus-
pected the WHO of using in Kenya involves the linking the beta portion of the
hCG hormone with the active agent in tetanus vaccines which is tetanus toxoid
(TT). In fact, WHO biomedical researchers have been working to engineer such
an “anti-fertilityvaccine for birth-controlat least since 1972. Research pub-
lished in 1976 confirmed that recipients of a vaccine containing βhCG chemi-
cally conjugated with TT develop antibodies not only against TT but also against
βhCG. The result, first reported by WHO researchers at a meeting of the US Na-
tional Academy of Sciences [5], is a birth-controlvaccine that diminishes the
βhCG essential to a successful pregnancy and causes at least temporaryinfertil-
ity”. Subsequent research showed that repeated doses can extend infertility inde-
finitely [6] [8] [10] [11] [13] [14] [23] [24] [26] [50]. In the reported clinical tri-
als [10] [13] [14], researchers systematically avoided administering an “an-
deception urging millions of recipients of a contraceptive vaccine to expose themselves to
doses ostensibly to avoid the threat of MNT, it is nonetheless likely that many WHO
and supporters are still unaware of the WHO research into contraceptive vaccines, much less
they apt to know of the deception feared by the Catholic Church. Defenders of WHO “family pla
ning” antifertility research may also point to the claim by G. P. Talwar, the premier WHO antiferti
ity researcher, that learning how to prevent the
may reveal how
prevent the
[23] because some of the same hormones are involved
[46] [47] [48] [49]. However, even if such a happy outcome
achieved, would it justify the WHO deception suspected by the Catholic Church?
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 4 Open Access Library
ti-fertilityvaccine to a pregnant woman on the theory that it would cause an
abortion as it does in experimental animal models [26].
The whole hCG hormone consists of two linked sub-units termed α (al-
pha-hCG) and β (beta-hCG). It is produced in increasing quantities [51] [52]
[53], if all is going well, by the rapidly dividing fertilized egg. The presence of
βhCG enables maintenance of the
ensuring that it will continue
sufficient production of progesterone needed for implantation and maintenance
especially throughout the first trimester. Successful implantation on day 4 - 7 af-
ter fertilization requires fairly precise amounts and timing of progesterone pro-
duction [5] [10] [11] [13] [16] [22] which depends in turn on sufficient βhCG.
Because increasing amounts of βhCG are essential to thecross-talkrequired
to maintain the early pregnancy, a vaccine containing TT/βhCG conjugate may
not only prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but if an embryo is already im-
planted, such a vaccine may cause its death. The result of any unexplained (un-
diagnosed) pregnancy loss is commonly referred to as a “spontaneous” abortion
[54]. However, if the loss was caused by a birth-controlvaccine, represented,
as suspected by the Catholic doctors in Kenya, only as a tetanus prophylactic”,
the death of the baby would be owed to the deceptive promise of a tetanus-free
live-birth. Therefore, if the suspicions of the KCCB and KCDA were valid, many
of the unsuspecting Kenyan mothers-to-be, ones being encouraged by the WHO
to ensure a better future for one or more of their own yet unborn children, were
actually being deceived to submit their bodies to one or many injections that
would keep their own unborn babies from ever being born.
Over the decades since the prototype of the WHO antihCG vaccine was first
tested in 1974 [5], the volume of published research on anti-fertility vaccines has
greatly increased. Although WHO researchers claim their TT/βhCG birth-con-
trol vaccine is reversible [11] [55], their on-going research aims to produce a re-
combinant gene using DNA of either
[21] or vaccinia virus [9]. Given the
power of recombinant DNA to reproduce, long-lasting or even permanent steril-
ity in vaccinated recipients is theoretically attainable.
2. Methodologies and Materials
Following the news reports in 2014 from the KCCB and KCDA claiming that the
WHO vaccination campaign advertised toeliminate maternal and neonatal
tetanus[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] was suspected of vectoring a birth-control
product into women of child-bearing age [3] [31] [45], some of us3 began
searching the Web of Science for published research concerning “anti-fertility
vaccine”, birth-control vaccine”, and fortetanus toxoid AND human chori-
onic gonadotropin(sometimes following up titles in the PubMed database).
Our question, was whether the WHO was engaged in developing a birth-control
vaccine linking TT to βhCG [5] [61]? What was the research basis, if any, for the
KCDA suspicions that the WHO might be using an anti-fertility vaccine in
3The Americans and Canadians, Oller, Shaw, Tomljenovic, Pillette, and Clement.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 5 Open Access Library
We found a plethora of studies beginning with the linking of TT to βhCG by
WHO researchers in the 1970s. We also found policy statements by the WHO
and its collaborators stating the geo-political and economic goal of population
growth reduction in unstable less developed countries(including Kenya),
known to be rich in costly mineral resources needed by the developed nations.
These initial findings gave credence to the suspicion that the WHO may have
disguised a clinical trial of their birth-control vaccine” in Kenya as an effort to
eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanusthere.
Given the published research confirming the history of the WHObirth-
control” vaccine, the American and Canadian co-authors decided to contact Dr.
Wahome Ngare who had been quoted in some of the published reports about the
WHO campaign in Kenya. He put the rest of us in touch with Dr. Stephen
Karanja, another of the physicians required by the Kenya Ministry of Health to
participate in the WHO vaccination campaign. They agreed to join us as
co-authors and to provide access to the data from laboratory tests of the vaccine
being used in the Kenya campaign. Together with the KCDA they have assured
us of the integrity of the chain of custody of the particular samples (carefully
apportioned aliquots”) of WHO vaccine that they were personally involved in
collecting, apportioning, and distributing to accredited Nairobi laboratories. In
this report, we merely summarize the results of the laboratory tests now in the
public domain. We also provide access to all three of the reports presented to the
WHO and Ministry of Health in Kenya by the KCCB of the results obtained
from the several laboratories [62] [63] [64]. While none of us can verify the
chain of custody of the tested aliquots handled by the various laboratories and
their employees, however, we hold the opinion based on data in hand, that at
least half of the vaccine samples actually obtained from vials being used in the
March and October rounds in 2014 tested positive for βhCG.
With all the foregoing in mind, we pursued a five-fold approach in our inves-
tigative research. In the following bolded list, we summarize each of our five
methodologies with bolded titles corresponding to the five distinct segments by
the same titles presented respectively in the Results section that immediately
follows the list:
1) Documenting the history and goals of the WHO. Various geo-political
and economic reports, and policy statements from the WHO, the United Na-
tions, and affiliated governmental agencies (in particular the U. S. Agency for
International Development) set a high premium on contraception forfamily
planning” in certainless developedregions of the world.
2) Examining the published scientific research. News reports from the
Catholic Church about the WHO vaccination campaign going on in Kenya
spurred us to seek out the published research in professional journals. Was it
true that the WHO had been engineering vaccines linking TT with βhCG? This
methodology led us to a trail of published research beginning around 1972
growing into many publications cited thousands of times showing that the WHO
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 6 Open Access Library
has been pursuing contraceptive vaccine research as claimed by the KCDA.
3) Tracking the reported events in Kenya. Our third methodology was a
form of investigative journalism. Materials consisted of the news reports coming
from Kenya set in chronological order with information from the two preceding
methodologies on the theory that concordance between such different streams of
information is unlikely to occur by chance.
4) Comparing vaccination schedules for tetanus and anti-fertility. Our
fourth method involved a thought experimentapplying the simplest type of
mathematical probative tests for a variety of Euclidean congruence [65]. The
KCDA claimed that the WHO dosage schedule of five shots administered in six
month increments was inconsistent with published tetanus vaccination sched-
ules. So, our simple probative test was to compare the published vaccination
schedules for TT,
, with the published schedules for TT/βhCG, β. Calling the
schedule used in Kenya, k, and taking “=” to mean congruent, if
≠ β, but β =
, it follows that k is a dosage schedule appropriate to TT/βhCG, the
WHO antifertility vaccine. The simple test of congruence of dosage schedules is
not conclusive proof by itself, but it is consistent with the opinion of the authors
that the WHO followed a dosage schedule appropriate for TT/βhCG in Kenya
but inappropriate for TT vaccine.
5) Laboratory Analyses of the WHO vaccines. With the assistance of the
KCDA, we analyzed the actual reports of laboratory tests of vials of the Kenya
vaccine obtained by the KCDA, as vouched for by Ngare and Karanja, during the
actual vaccination campaign. Those laboratory results were systematically com-
pared with analyses of samples provided later by WHO officials allegedly from
supplies maintained in Nairobi. Two sources were tested: a) vials of the vaccine
obtained by the KCDA from among those being administered by the WHO in
March and October of 2014, and b) 52 additional vials handed over by the WHO
from supplies in Nairobi to the Joint Committee of Experts”. Of the samples
that co-authors Karanja and Ngare were personally responsible for handling,
over half were found to contain βhCG by multiple laboratories and in multiple
distinct tests. The KCDA has also provided access to the public domain reports
and the technical data published for wider accessibility here for the first time in a
professional academic forum. Of the 52 samples provided by the WHO to the
Joint Committee” none were found to contain βhCG, and of those, 40 vials de-
livered after a lapse of 58 days (November 11, 2014 to January 9, 2015) by the
WHO, allegedly containing the Kenya TT vaccine, tested negative for βhCG, but
had exactly the same designator labels as the 3 vials obtained by the KCDA dur-
ing vaccinations taking place in October of 2014 that tested positive for βhCG.
The discrepancies require explanation and are addressed in the Discussion sec-
tion following the Results section.
3. Results
In this section we discuss the findings from each of the listed methodologies
taking them in the order just presented in the previous section.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 7 Open Access Library
1) Documenting the history and goals of the WHO
We found documentation connecting decades of work by the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the United Nations, the parent or-
ganization for the WHO making reduction in world population growth, espe-
cially in regions such as Kenya, a central goal. The WHO was established in 1945
and immediately embraced the idea thatfamily planning”, alias population
control, later referred to as “Planned Parenthood[66], was a necessity for
world health”. The notion that fertility reductionwas essential dated back to
Margaret Sanger’s first birth-control clinic in the US which was established in
1916 [67] and has been carried forward all the way to this present time of writing
Contemporaneous with the WHO’s initiation of research to develop anti-
fertility vaccines [5], under the leadership of Henry Kissinger a classified report
was being compiled on the basis of population growth studies predating it by
several decades.
[69], also known as the
200 [70], explained the geo-political and economic
reasons for reducing population growth, especially inless developed countries
(LDCs), to near zero. That report became official US policy under President Ge-
rald Ford in 1975 and explicitly dealt witheffective family planning programs”
for the purpose ofreducing fertilityin order to protect the interests of the in-
dustrialized nations, especially the US, in imported mineral resources (see p. 50
in [69] [70]). Although the whole plan was initially withheld from the public, it
was declassified in stages between 1980 and 1989. In the meantime, while that
document was on its way to becoming official policy”, the WHO research pro-
gram developingbirth-control” vaccines was initiated about 1972 and pre-
sented publicly in 1976 [5], just one year after the
was adopted
as official policy.
The officialpolicycalled for “far greater efforts at fertility control(p. 19 in
[69] [70]) world-wide, but especially in less developed countries(pp. 18-20 in
[69] [70]).
cited documents aboutPopulation Growth and
the American Futureas well as Population, Resources and the Environment”
and targeted LDCs specifically for fertility control”. Justifying certain LDC tar-
gets were their known reserves of aluminum, copper, iron, lead, nickel, tin, ura-
nium, zinc, chromium, vanadium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, cobalt,
manganese, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, sulphur, nitrogen, petroleum, and
natural gas (see p. 42 in [69] [70]). The linking of mineral resources with popu-
lation control (“family planning”) was because the industrialized nations were
already having to import significant quantities of the named minerals at consid-
erable cost and
anticipated those costs were certain to rise
because of instability in those LDCs precipitated by population growth (p. 41 in
[69] [70]).
also blamed population growth for pollution far in ad-
vance of the 2009 issue of the
, where Bryant
[61] predicted a
“significant increase of greenhouse gas emissions(p. 852). That WHO publica-
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 8 Open Access Library
tion estimated a rise in global population from around 6.8 billion people in 2009
to 9.2 billion by 2050. Extending that WHO argument, Bill Gates in 2010 ex-
pressed the hope that vaccines along with family planning” could bring popula-
tion growth to nearer to zero [71]. Whereas Bryant
described anti-fertility
measures as “voluntary family planning services”, they acknowledged that such
WHO “services had been reported as deceiving the persons served (pp.
852-853, 855) with sterilization procedures being applied without
[our italics] (p. 852). Similarly, a 1992 study entitled
published by the UN and WHO Program of Research Train-
ing in Human Reproduction, reportedcases of abuse in family planning pro-
grams” dating from the 1970s including:
[our italics]∙∙∙ [Such as] women being sterilized without their
knowledge∙∙∙ being enrolled in trials of oral contraceptives or injectables
without∙∙∙ consent∙∙∙ [and] not [being] informed of possible side-effects of∙∙∙
the intrauterine device (IUD). (p. 13 in [72])
The authors of that WHO report said that phrases like family planning” and
“planned parenthoodwere more acceptable to the public. They chose not to
mention “anti-fertility measures for population control”. Nor did they think it
wise to talk about economic development(p. 13) in mineral rich LDCs, or the
assistance industrialized nations could provide in bringing those mineral re-
sources to market. Speaking for the WHO, Bryant
wroteit is perhaps
more conducive to a rights-based approach to implement
[our italics] in response to the welfare needs of people and communities
rather than in response to international concern for global overpopulation(p.
853 in [61]). The WHO public message was to be about healthand family
planning”. However, the message of hope would occasionally include a reference
to birth-control” vaccines. For instance, on January 22, 2010 it was officially
announced that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had committed $10 bil-
lion to help accomplish the WHO population reduction goals in part with new
vaccines” [73] [74].
About a month later, Bill Gates suggested in his “Innovating to ZeroTED
talk in Long Beach, California on February 20, 2010 that reducing world popula-
tion growth could be done in part with “new vaccines” [71]. At 4 minutes and 29
seconds into the talk he says:
The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion
[here he is almost quoting Bryant
]. Now, if we do a really great job on
[our italics], health care, reproductive health services, we
could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent∙∙∙ [71]
Given the published intentions of the WHO and its collaborators concerning
population growth reduction, we focus attention next on the published scientific
literature from the Web of Science and PubMed about the WHO anti-fertility
vaccine research programs.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 9 Open Access Library
2) Examining the published scientific research
A search on the Web of Science (and PubMed) fortetanus toxoid AND beta
hCGled to publications by WHO researchers spearheaded by G. P. Talwar
[4]-[24]. After his first report appeared in 1976 in the
[5], the number of citations of the stream of publica-
tions emanating from that WHO research program would begin to grow expo-
nentially. By August 5, 2016, the Web of Science database already pointed to 150
research publications citing the 1976 report while subsequent papers have now
been cited many thousands of times. Figure 1 shows citations through 2015 of
just one of the follow up papers by Talwar
, this one from 1994 titled, “A
vaccine that prevents pregnancy in women [13]. It also appeared in the
and by January 9, 2016, according
to the Web of Science, had already been cited 2538 times.
We focus attention next on findings from a forensic journalism methodology
laying out the chronology connecting the WHO anti-fertility research agenda to
the 2013-2015 vaccination campaign in Kenya.
3) Tracking the reported events in Kenya
Figure 2 actually begins with milestone events leading up to and through the
WHO campaign in Kenya. Event 1 in the top row represents the population re-
duction efforts of Margaret Sanger beginning in 1916. She described the goal to
purify the “gene poolby “eliminating the unfit”—persons with disabilities [75].
This meant establishing some means of surgical sterilization or otherwise pre-
venting “unfitpersons from reproducing.
Figure 1. A bar graph generated from the Web of Science showing growth through 2015 in the number of citations of the 1994
paper titled “A vaccine that prevents pregnancy in women,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
and authored by G. P. Talwar and some of the same co-authors on the 1976 paper also in the Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences that debuted the first human testing of a WHO anti-fertility conjugate of the beta chain of human chorionic go-
nadotropin with tetanus toxoid.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 10 Open Access Library
Figure 2. A chronology of milestone events leading up to and including the current research project based on the WHO “tetanus”
campaign in Kenya 2013-2015.
By 1942, the American Birth Control League, having been publicly criticized
as “anti-familyand pro-promiscuity”—words used by Mike Wallace while in-
terviewing Sanger on September 21, 1957 [76]—changed its name to “Planned
Parenthood with Margaret Sanger at the helm from 1952-1959. In the period
from 1945 to 1948, after World War II had ended, while the WHO was being
conceptualized and becoming the first world-wide subordinate agency under the
auspices of the UN, “Planned Parenthood”, headed up by Bill Gates’s father [77],
was promoting the idea that population growth, unless halted or reduced by
governmental intervention, would inevitably lead to world-wide famine, disease,
the destabilization of governments, and at least one more world war.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 11 Open Access Library
In 1961, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) joined with
the UN and the WHO in population studies culminating in
first promulgated as an official classified document to government officials
in 1974. In the meantime, moving to the second row in Figure 2, WHO re-
searchers led by Talwar were linking TT to βhCG and testing the first WHO
contraceptive vaccine on humans [10]. Then, the years 1993, 1994, and 1995,
were marked by news reports of WHO anti-fertility vaccination campaigns in
LDCsspecifically, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines [42] [43] [78] [79]
[80], along with a forestalled campaign in Kenya in 1995 [3]all of which were
represented to the public in those countries, and to the vaccinated females of
child-bearing age, as part of the WHO campaign to eliminate maternal and
neonatal tetanus[56] [57] [58] [59] [60].
As seen in Figure 2, between events 8 and 9, the $10 billion from the Gates
Foundation committed in 2010 was associated by Bill Gates himself with the
world-wide population control objective of the WHO to be achieved in part, ac-
cording to his own words, as noted earlier, with new vaccines [71]. Although
there is no reason to suppose that other fund-raisers, besides Gates, intended to
promote the WHO population control agenda, the targeted regions for the MNT
campaigns were effectively the same as theLDCs identified earlier in
. For example, a 2015 news release by Associated Press, an-
nounced “immunization campaigns to take place in Chad, Kenya and South Su-
dan by the end of 2015 and contribute toward eliminating MNT in Pakistan and
Sudan in 2016, saving the lives of countless mothers and their newborn babies
From event 9 forward, news reports suggested that the WHO had represented
an anti-fertility vaccine as a tetanus prophylactic [3] [31] [45] [82]. Throughout
the entire chronology of events 9 - 20, the Kenya Ministry of Health and the of-
ficials speaking on behalf of the WHO, maintained that the campaign was only
to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus [44]. For example, in his official
statement on behalf of the Kenya government, Health Minister James Macharia
told the BBC that the WHO Kenya campaign vaccine is safeand “certified
and he said “I would recommend my own daughter and wife to take it [44].
With the foregoing in mind, in Part 4, we compare the schedules for adminis-
tering tetanus vaccine as contrasted with those for TT/βhCG conjugate (birth-
control) vaccine, and, then, in Part 5 we present and discuss the laboratory find-
ings analyzing samples of the vaccines from the 2013-2015 Kenya campaign as
summarized in events 12 - 20 of Figure 2.
4) Comparing vaccination schedules for tetanus and anti-fertility
Table 1 shows the officially recommended intervals for TT shots, including
those combined with other antigens such as diphtheria and pertussis [78]. Those
intervals differ very little for adults and neonates. The most important difference
is that in the case of an unvaccinated woman who is already pregnant, a stepped
up schedule for TT is recommended withthe first dose as early as possible
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 12 Open Access Library
Table 1. “Tetanus toxoid vaccination schedule for pregnant women and women of
childbearing age who have not received previous immunisation against tetanus,” as re-
ported in Martha H. Roper, J. H. Vandelaer, and F. L. Gasse in
2007, 370:
Optimum dosing interval
Minimum acceptable
dosing interval
Estimated duration
of protection
Dose one
At first contact with health
worker or as early
as possible in pregnancy
At first contact with health
worker or as early
as possible in pregnancy
Dose two 6 - 8 weeks after dose one* At least 4 weeks after dose one
1 - 3 years
Dose three 6 - 12 months after dose two*
At least 6 months after
dose two or during
subsequent pregnancy
At least 5 years
Dose four 5 years after dose three*
At least one year after
does three or during
subsequent pregnancy
At least 10 years
Dose five 10 years after dose four*
At least one year after
does four or during
subsequent pregnancy
All childbearing age
years; possibly longer
*Should be given several weeks before due date if given during pregnancy.
during pregnancy and the second dose at least 4 weeks later” ([37], p. 200). But
contrary to all of the published research on TT inoculations, the WHO Kenya
campaign spaced 5 doses ofTT” vaccine at 6
contravening, as
illustrated in Figure 3, the repeatedly published schedule for TT. However, the
Kenya schedule was identical to the one published for the WHO birth-control
conjugate of TT linked to βhCG [6] [10] [26] [50] [83]. The official schedule of
TT doses and the intervals between them in Table 1 were published in
in 2007 for girls and women of child-bearing age and for neonates ([35], p.
1951) and was unchanged from the WHO schedule published in 1993 in the
document titled,
, and as copied in the top half of Figure 3 [84].
The critical elements of the generalized TT administered as a separate antigen
(as in the WHO Kenyatetanuscampaign protocol) are these:
a) The official dose-size consists of half a milliliter of the TT vaccine (0.5 ml).
b) The number of doses recommended to establish about 5 yearsworth of
immunity requires at least 3 doses.
c) And, the approximate intervals between the first 3 doses and the booster
doses to follow (4 more shots, or 7 shots in all) are very similar in all cases to
those in the schedule for neonates.
The official documents show that the published WHO schedule for doses of
TT is consistent with theone-size fits allCDC doctrine [35] [36] and is essen-
tially the same for all recipients even if TT is combined with pertussis and diph-
theria antigens. The same schedule published by the WHO in 1993 was copied
and re-iterated in 2007 [57] [84] and calls for three primary doses of 0.5 ml
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 13 Open Access Library
Figure 3. Recommended schedule for administering tetanus toxoid from A. M. Galazka
(1993, p. 9, Figure 2) [84] at the top contrasted with the WHO schedule applied in the
Kenya campaign. The copyright to the original figure is held by the World Health Organ-
ization but according to their published notice the containing document “may, however,
be freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced and translated, in part or in whole.”
according to the standard CDC doctrine which is contrary to dose-response
theory and research in every other area of medicine [85] [86], and one of the
main explanations for the pervasiveness of auto-immune disorders associated
with vaccines [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]one-sizefits-alldose produced by manu-
facturers for all recipients at least four weeks apart, followed by booster doses at 18
months, 5 years, 10 years and 16 years and then every 10 years [57] thereafter.
The TT schedule for adolescents and adults, and the one for neonates, require the
full basic course of 7 doses of vaccine as shown in Table 1 [57] and as spelled out
in the top part of Figure 3 where the intervals between doses are indicated on the
horizontal time line. Therefore, a question arises: Why would the WHO Kenya
tetanuscampaign require a radically different schedule of 5
, as shown in the bottom half of Figure 3? Interestingly, the dosing schedule
for the tetanuscampaign in Kenya 2013-2015 was exactly the one set for the
WHO birth-control conjugate containing TT/βhCG [2] [9] [36].
Figure 3 shows the intervals between doses recommended for tetanus immu-
nization for persons who have not been previously inoculated with a tetanus
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 14 Open Access Library
vaccine series (in the top half of the figure). Note that all 5 doses of the WHO
Kenya campaign (in the larger red rectangle at the bottom of Figure 3) would be
administered in 30 months, as contrasted with the same time frame normally
accounting for only 3 doses in the recommended TT schedule (the smaller red
rectangle near the center of Figure 3). The intervals between doses in the WHO
campaign in Kenya beginning in October 2013 (in the bottom half of Figure 3)
are dramatically different from the generalized WHO protocol with an interval
of one month between doses 1 and 2, up to 12 months between dose 2 and 3, up
to five years between 3 and 4, or even 10 years between doses 4 and 5 [42] [70]
[74] [75]. The protocol would be different, of course, if an individual had been
previously inoculated, for instance, with the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus)
series or any other multi-valent series containing TT within the preceding 5
years, in which case, the recommended procedure would be to administer just
one dose (a tetanus “booster”) not to be repeated for up to 10 years. However, as
shown inside the red border in roughly the bottom half of Figure 3, the WHO
Kenya campaign involved 5 doses of vaccine administered at approximately
Moreover, the fact that
in the WHO Kenya campaign seems to imply that tetanospasmin pro-
duced by
cannot infect post-birth males of any age, or fe-
males outside the targeted range of 12 to 49 years. The defense that the WHO
intended only to target maternal and neonatal tetanusseems odd in view of
the fact that males are about as likely as females to be exposed to the bacterium
which is found in the soil everywhere there are animals. The notion that males,
and females outside the child-bearing age range, are less susceptible to cuts,
scrapes, and other injuries that might introduce a tetanus bacterium is not cred-
ible. But that difficulty is not the only unexplained irregularity in the WHO “te-
tanus” vaccination campaign in Kenya. Until after the KCCB published its sus-
picions and preliminary laboratory results confirming them in November 2014
[2] about the WHO tetanuscampaign underway from October 2013, the fol-
lowing unusual facts made it difficult for the KCDA to obtain the needed vaccine
samples for laboratory testing:
the campaign was initiated not from a hospital or medical center but from
the New Stanley Hotel in Nairobi [92];
vials of vaccine delivered to each vaccination site for this special “campaign”
were guarded by police;
handling of vials of vaccine by nursing staff at the site administering the
shots was strictly controlled so that when a vial was used up it had to be re-
turned to WHO officials under the watchful eyes of the police in order for
the nurse to obtain a new one;
vials of WHO “campaign” vaccine were never stored in any of the estimated
60 local facilities but were distributed from Nairobi and used vials were re-
turned there at considerable cost under police escort.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 15 Open Access Library
The fact that vials of this particular vaccine had to be stored in Nairobi is pe-
culiar for two reasons: for one, according to the KCDA this is not usually re-
quired for vaccine distribution, and, for another, the Kenya Catholic Health
Commission (as the medical branch of the KCCB) also manages a network of
448 Catholic health units consisting of 54 hospitals, 83 health centers and 311
clinical dispensaries plus more than 46 programs for Community Based Health
and Orphaned and Vulnerable Children scattered all over Kenya’s 224,962
square miles [93]—an area larger than any US state in the lower 48 except for
Texas at 268,601 square miles [94]. In addition, the Catholic Health Commission
manages mobile clinics for the nomadic peoples who move about Kenya and in-
to the arid regions of bordering countries. Usually, vaccines in Kenya, according
to our physician co-authors (Drs. Karanja and Ngare), would be handled by the
nearest hospital, health center, or mobile clinic: why did the particular tetanus
vaccine used in the MNT campaign of 2013-2015 require so much special han-
dling beginning from the New Stanley Hotel in Nairobi?
In our final part, we present and discuss some of the details of the analyses of
7 vials of vaccine obtained by the KCDA directly from vials being injected in
March and October of 2014 during the WHO Kenya 2013-2015vaccination
campaign as well as the 52 vials eventually handed over by the WHO to the
Joint Committee of Expertsfrom vaccines stored in Nairobi.
5) Laboratory Analyses of the WHO vaccines
The original laboratory results of several different enzyme-linked immu-
nosorbent assays (ELISA) previously referred to in various news reports (al-
ready cited) along with results from subsequent analyses using anionic ex-
change high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) are tabled below in
this section.
Samples of the WHO tetanusvaccine used at the March 2014 administra-
tion (event 11 in Figure 2) were disguised as blood serum and were subjected to
the standard ELISA pregnancy testing for the presence of βhCG at three differ-
ent laboratories in Nairobi (event 12 in Figure 2). Results of those analyses are
presented in Table 2. Although none of the samples contained enough βhCG to
surpass the threshold for a positive judgment of “pregnancy” in a blood sample,
all of them tested positive for βhCG above the threshold of zero βhCG expected
for a TT vaccine.
At the October 2014 round of WHO vaccinations (dose 3 for participating
women shown as event 15 in Figure 2), the KCDA obtained six additional vials
of the WHO tetanus” vaccine and apportioned carefully drawn samples (ali-
quots) for distribution to 5 different laboratories for ELISA testing with results
as shown in Table 3. All but one of the tests showed the presence of βhCG in 3
the 6 samples tested (KA, KB, and KC). Even the PathCare Laboratory, which
used less sensitive ELISA kits, ones capable only of measuring international units
per liter, IU/L, rather than the more sensitive ELISA kits measuring thousandths
of an international unit per milliliter, mIU/ml, found quantities of βhCG in two
of the samples (KB and KC) that were well above the expected zero.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 16 Open Access Library
Table 2. ELISA results for a sample of WHO “tetanus” vaccine obtained by the Kenya
Catholic Doctors Association from the March 2014 administration.
Laboratory Conducting the Analysis
Amount βhCG Detected*
Date Reported
Mediplan Dialysis Centers1 1.12 mIU/mL June 30, 2014
Pathologists Lancet Kenya2 1.2 mIU/mL July 6, 2014
University of Nairobi3 0.3 mIU/mL October 22, 2014
*There is a long-standing consensus [95] [96] reflected in available ELISA kits [97] [98] that any amount <
5 mIU/mL is in the normal range for a non-pregnant woman. In the WHO vaccine samples the level of
βhCGshould be zero. For the sensitivity of ELISA tests to βhCG, see [97]-[102]. 1PO Box 20707, Nairobi,
ph. 0726445570,; 28th Floor-5th Avenue Building, Ngong Road, Nairobi, ph. 0703 061
000; 3College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Paediatrics and
Child Health.
Table 3. ELISA results for six samples of WHO “tetanus” vaccine obtained by the Kenya
Catholic Doctors Association from the October 2014 administration (blank cells mean
only that no report was returned to the KCDA).
Independent Laboratories Performing the Tests for βhCG
Dialysis Centers
Lancet Kenya
KA 0.80 mIU/mL 0 IU/L 0.76 mIU/mL <1.2 mIU/mL† <1.2 mIU/mL†
KB 1.16 mIU/mL 130 IU/L 0.79mIU/mL <1.2 mIU/mL† <1.2 mIU/mL†
KC 1.25 mIU/mL 30 IU/L 0.75 mIU/mL <1.2 mIU/mL† <1.2 mIU/mL†
KD 0.26 mIU/mL 0 IU/L <5 mIU/mL 0.305 mIU/mL† ††
KE 0.09 mIU/mL 0 IU/L <5 mIU/mL †† ††
KF 0.14 mIU/mL 0 IU/L <5 mIU/mL †† ††
*The Pathcare cut-off for a positive judgment for pregnancy was >4 IU/L (as also used by the Exeter Clini-
cal Laboratory in England [100]), which is the same as a negative judgment for <5 mIU/mL as used by the
other laboratories with ELISA kits calibrated for mIU/mL with the normal range for a non-pregnant person
set at <5 mIU/mL which is the equivalent standard value for the majority of ELISA kits for measuring
βhCG, for a few examples see [97]-[102]. †Either the measured βhCG fell below the minimum for a positive
pregnancy judgment or the laboratory reported no result implying levels of βhCG in the normal range. ††In
these cells, no sample could be delivered to the laboratory because not enough fluid remained in vials KD,
KE, and KF. 1Regal Plaza, Limuru, Road, PO Box 1256-00606 Nairobi,; 2POBox 30026, G.P.O 00100, Nairobi, Tel: +254(020) 2845000, +254(020)
2846000,; 3PO Box 30325, Nairobi, Tel: 531199 3118, no email listed on report.
With the results of Table 2 and Table 3 in hand, on November 11, 2014, the
Catholic doctors took their findings to the Kenya Ministry of Health (as WHO
surrogates) at an official meeting of Kenya’s “parliamentary health committee
[3] (event 16 in Figure 2). At that meeting, the Cabinet Secretary, James Macha-
ria, rejected the ELISA test findings and expressedtrustin the WHO and
UNICEF [3]. However, the Ministry proposed a follow up by a “Joint Committee
of Experts on Tetanus Toxoid Vaccine Testingto include representatives of
WHO on the one hand and the KCDA on the other (event 17 in Figure 2). The
Ministry also decided to order high performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) retesting the vaccines already in possession of the KCDA having been
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 17 Open Access Library
obtained during the ongoing October 2014 vaccine administration and of which
samples had already been tested by ELISA (as shown in Table 3). It was agreed
also that additional vials of the Kenya vaccine would be supplied by the WHO
for HPLC analysis. The samples already being held by the KCDA and ones to be
supplied from the government (WHO) stores were to be delivered to AgriQ
Quest Laboratory in Nairobi as verified in the presence of representatives of the
Joint Committee (including both WHO surrogates and doctors representing
the KCCB). AgriQ Quest Laboratory was instructed to determine if βhCG was
present in the submitted vials(see slide 5 in the official PowerPoint Presenta-
tion [62]), to be reported back to theJoint Committee” at a date to be an-
nounced later by the Ministry.
In fact, two separate sets of HPLC tests would be run by the AgriQ Quest
Laboratory. The first set of results, as shown in Table 4, were reported within
five days to the KCCB on November 16, 2014 in a document of public record ti-
[63] (event 18 in the chronology of Figure 2). Nine
weeks later, after a lapse of 58 calendar days from the time of the setting up of
the Joint Committee”, the WHO surrogates in the Kenya Ministry of Health
by-passed theJoint Committeecontravening their prior commitment and de-
livered an additional 40 vials of WHO vaccine directly to AgriQ Quest on Janu-
ary 9, 2015. Of the 52 aditional vials allegedly coming from Nairobi supplies to
be subjected to HPLC analysis (event 19 in the chronology, Figure 2), the set de-
livered on January 9, 2015 directly to AgriQ Quest,
. We will revisit this fact in the Discussion section below.
Table 5 summarizes results reported by AgriQ Quest to the Joint Commit-
tee in a document of public record titled
[64] and in an
oral presentation assisted by a PowerPoint document also of public record on
Table 4. Summary of Anionic Exchange High Pressure Liquid Chromatography testing
for presence of βhCG in the six samples of WHO “tetanus” vaccine from the October
2014 administration using Detector A (220 nm).
Sample tested
AgriQ Quest, Nairobi
Peak retention time for βhCG
βhCG as % of area at peak retention
KA 36.283 37.593
KB 35.825 26.512
KC 38.042 23.939
KD 36.692 0.480
KE 38.842 0.830
KF 36.425 3.334
*For all analyses, 100% of each sample was processed in 40 minutes.
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 18 Open Access Library
Table 5. Lots delivered by the Joint Committee to AgriQ Quest for analysis with the nine
digit batch number for each vial, its expiration date, whether it was closed or opened
when received for analysis, and whether it contained βhCG according to the results ob-
Lot number
and source
Open or closed
(number of vials)?
Date samples
delivered to
AgriQ Quest
Date analysis
run at
AgriQ Quest
Lot 1:
from the
Program (EPI)
Stores, in
019B4002D January 2017 Closed (1)
December 10,
January 5,
019B4003A January 2017 Closed (1)
019B4003B January 2017 Closed (1)
019B4002C January 2017 Closed (1)
11077A13* August 2016 Closed (1)
019B4002C January 2017 Closed (1)
019B4002D January 2017 Closed (1)
019B4003B January 2017 Closed (1)
019B4003A January 2017 Closed (1)
019L3001B† February 2016
Open (1)**
019L3001C† February 2016
Open (1)**
019L3001B† February 2016
Open (1)**
019B4002D January 2017 Open (1)
019B4003A January 2017 Closed (1)
Lot 2:
from Upper
Hill Medical
in Nairobi
019B4003A January 2017 Open (1)
December 17,
January 5,
019B4002D January 2017 Open (1)
019B4002D January 2017 Open (1)
019B4002D January 2017 Open (1)
Lot 3:
from WHO
019L3001B† January 2017 Closed (10 vials
for Pokot tribe)
January 9,
January 9,
019L3001C† January 2017 Closed (20 vials
for Turkana tribe)
019L3001B† January 2017 Closed (10 vials
for Turkana tribe )
*This particular vial was the only one from Biological E, Ltd. All other vials were manufactured by the Se-
rum Institute in India. **Judged by analysis to contain βhCG. †Note that the batch numbers on the vials
containing βhCG are identical to “matching” vials supplied by the WHO that were tested and did not con-
tain βhCG.
January 23, 2015 [62]4. Altogether, 58 vials of WHO vaccine were tested. They
consisted of the 6 vials previously tested by ELISA and also by HPLC at the re-
quest of the Catholic Health Commission (Table 3 and Table 4, respectively).
Additionally, there were 52 new samples provided by the WHO as presented in
Table 5. Table 4 shows that the first HPLC analyses, conducted at the request of
4All three reports prepared and presented by AgriQ Quest to the “Joint Committee of Experts
Tetanus Toxoid Vaccine Testing”, the two written documents and the PowerPoint are available
request from
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 19 Open Access Library
the Health Commission of the KCCB, using the same 6 samples of WHOteta-
nus” vaccine from the October 2014 (round 3 administration by the WHO) con-
firmed the ELISA findings as reported earlier in Table 3. Samples KA, KB, and
KC contained βhCG.
The analyses summed up in Table 5, from the second series of HPLC tests,
called for by theJoint Committee”, was run a few weeks after those reported in
Table 4. Reading left to right across the rows in Table 5, the sample vials of vac-
cine are listed by Batch Number, Expiration Date, whether the vial was found to
have been Open or Closed upon delivery to AgriQ Quest, the date delivered to
AgriQ Quest, and, finally, the date when the analysis was run. Proceeding di-
rectly to the question of interest, the 3 vials of the 6 obtained by the Catholic
doctors from the WHO vaccine actually used in the October round of injections,
the same vials of which samples previously tested positive for βhCG by multiple
ELISA analyses and by the HPLC analyses summed up in Table 4, were again
found to contain βhCG. They are marked with a double asterisk (**) in the
fourth column from the left in Table 5.
By contrast, all 52 additional vials of vaccine delivered to AgriQ Quest by the
WHO tested negative for βhCG. More importantly, as noted above, of the 40
samples provided directly to AgriQ Quest by the WHO surrogates on January 9,
2015, the only ones that
The reports to the Joint Committee on January 23, 2015 [62] [64] by
AgriQ Quest (event 20, Figure 2) concluded that only 3 of the 6 vials obtained
directly by the Catholic doctors at the round 3 administration in October 2014
contained βhCG (namely those numbered 019L3001B or 019L3001C).
4. Discussion
Given the foregoing results, the following facts are known and require explana-
The WHO has been seeking to engineer antifertility vaccines since the early
1970s [5].
Reducing global population growth, especially in LDCs, through antifertility
measures has long been declared a central goal of USAID/UN/WHO family
planning” [66]-[77].
Spokespersons associated with the Catholic Church and pro-life groups have
published suspicions at least since the early 1990s that the WHO was mis-
representing clinical trials of one or more antifertility campaigns as part of
the world-wide WHO project toeliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus”
[3] [41] [42] [43] [45] [92] [103] [104] [105] [106].
Comparison of the published schedules for TT versus TT/hCG conjugate
found the WHO dosage plan in the Kenya 2013-2015 campaign to be incon-
gruent with any of those for TT but congruent with published schedules used
in TT/hCG research [this paper].
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 20 Open Access Library
Multiple analyses of samples of WHO “tetanus” vaccines, alleged by one or
more Catholic spokespersons to have been obtained from vials actually being
administered by WHO officials as tetanusprophylactics, were found to
contain hCG [1] [2] [43] [45] [103] [104] [105] [106].
As recounted in this paper, documents in the public record show that half the
vials taken from actual administrations of WHO vaccine during the Kenya
campaign in 2014, ones supposedly aimed to prevent MNT, tested positive
for βhCG [2] [63] [64].
An important component of the present investigative research is the discovery
of βhCG in some of the vaccine vials used in the WHO campaign in Kenya sup-
posedly aiming to prevent MNT. Possible explanations for the finding of βhCG
in those vials include contamination by one or more accidents that might in-
clude: 1) a manufacturer’s error in production or labelling; 2) unreliable analysis
by the Nairobi laboratories (owing to unclean wells, tubes, gloves, pipette tips,
expired or damaged ELISA kits, or poorly calibrated HPLC equipment, inade-
quately trained laboratory personnel, faulty handling of samples received, mix-
ing of samples, and so on); 3) careless or otherwise inaccurate reporting, or the
contaminating βhCG might have been deliberately added by the KCDA seeking
to sabotage the WHO anti-fertility efforts by making up false stories about the
ongoing “eliminate MNTproject.
Noting immediately that we are relying on reasonable inference to reach the
conclusion that we offer at the end of this paper as our opinion, we believe that
some of the competing alternatives can be ruled out to narrow the field of possi-
bilities. To begin with, a manufacturing error accidentally getting βhCG in just 3
vials but missing 40 vials from the very samebatchas judged by the Batch
Number is unlikely. Similarly, labeling errors marking just 3 vials containing
βhCG with the same label associated with 40 vials not containing βhCG is
equally unlikely for the same reason. Batch Numbers are used to track whole lots
of vaccines produced on a given run from the same vat of materials in a liquid
mixture. Coordinated manufacturing and labeling errors repeated 43 times, 21
times for label 019L3001C and 22 times for 019L3001B, could not be expected to
occur by chance but only by intentional design.
Next, there is the possibility of unreliability of handling by laboratory person-
nel, faulty kits or equipment, and the like. But any explanation attributable to
somewhat randomized (unintentional) errors can only account for stochastic va-
riability, e.g., differences across samples of the same vials of vaccine as tested at
different laboratories (Table 2 and Table 3) or at different times in the same la-
boratory (Table 4 and Table 5). However, the myriad sources of unreliability
can all be definitively ruled out when the same results for the 6 vials tested re-
peatedly and independently on different occasions and by different laboratories
with more than one procedure give the same pattern of outcomes. In the latter
instance, the one at hand, in this paper, we have what measurement specialists
call successful triangulation where multiple independent observations by mul-
J. W. Oller Jr. et al.
10.4236/oalib.1103937 21 Open Access Library
tiple independent observers using multiple procedures of observation concur on
a single outcome. In such an instance, all the possible sources of unreliability can
be dismissed and we are left only with some non-chance alternatives.
Among the non-chance alternatives we come to the possibility that the KCDA
salted the samples of vaccine that tested positive for βhCG. Logically that possi-
bility is inconsistent with the fact that the KCDA had the opportunity to salt the
vials and samples for all the ELISA tests and for all 6 of the vials they handed
over twice for testing to AgriQ Quest (Table 4 and Table 5). Also, even if the
KCDA had access to βhCG so as to add it to just the vials that would test positive
for it, such a deliberate mixture before handing samples over to the laboratories
for testing would not produce the chemical
found according to AgriQ
Quest in the samples that tested positive by HPLC. In their oral report to the
Joint Committeethey described the βhCG they found in those 3 vials as
chemically linked(on slide 11 of [62]. Such linking is consistent with the pat-
ented process for TT/hCG conjugation as described by Talwar [5] [84], but
could not be achieved by simply mixing βhCG into a vial of TT vaccine.
Published works by the WHO and its collaborators continue to encourage
and/or sponsor research to generate antibodies to βhCG through “a recombinant
vaccine, which would: 1) ensure that thecarrier is linked to the hormonal
subunit at a defined position and 2) be amenable to industrial production [23].
Such a conjugate has already been achieved with a bacterial toxin (from
and can be mass produced with the assistance of a yeast (
). Also,
a DNA version of the new</