Bill Gates is the multibillionaire founder of Microsoft, whose net worth is estimated to be a mind-boggling $79.1 billion.
Via his eponymous foundation, Gates is also famous for his philanthropy, a word that the dictionary defines as “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.”
One of the funding outlets of his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are vaccines for poor people in the Third World. But a Freudian slip that Gates made in a speech at the 2010 TED conference belies the philanthropic purpose of those vaccines.
In his speech, Gates was on the subject of how to reduce global warming by lowering the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Earth’s atmosphere. A major way to do that is to reduce the world’s population.
Beginning at the 1:03 mark in the video below, Gates said:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a REALLY great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health service, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.”
You heard it. Gates was championing vaccines as a way to lower the world’s population.
Since when do vaccines, which immunize us against diseases, curb reproduction and in so doing reduce the rate of population growth?
Gates’ latest initiative is even more sinister.
Ben Johnson reports for LifeSiteNews, July 8, 2014, that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the development of a contraceptive microchip that can be remotely controlled to release hormones that can act as abortifacients — drugs that induce abortion — into a woman’s body for up to 16 years.
The chip, which measures 20 x 20 x 7 millimeters (0.79 x 0.79 x 0.28 inches), can be implanted under the skin of a woman’s buttocks, upper arm, or abdomen in 30 minutes. The device contains a 16-year reservoir of the drug levonorgestrel, releasing 30 micrograms a day – but the dosage can be altered by remote control, as well.
The technology was originally intended, and tested, to release osteoporosis medication in elderly women, but Dr. Robert Langer of MIT changed his focus to contraception after a personal discussion with Bill Gates. Gavin Corley, a biomedical engineer, told the BBC the technology could be used to achieve contraceptive targets in the developing world, indicating “a humanitarian application as opposed to satisfying a first-world need.”
The announcement comes as the Gates Foundation is spearheading an international, multi-billion-dollar push for expanding birth control in the developing world, bringing charges from pro-life and political that they are engaged in global population control.
There are at least 4 reasons to object to the Gates contraceptive microchip:
1. The chip isn’t just a contraceptive; it is also an abortifacient
Numerous studies have indicated that levonorgestrel, the hormone used both by this chip and the morning after pill, has a strong anti-implantation effect, meaning it acts in part by preventing a newly-conceived embryo from implanting in the uterus. One study found the hormone only has an “effectiveness rate” of 49% when blocking ovulation alone.
At a minimum, the contraceptive microchip that acts as an abortifacient puts the lie to Melinda Gates’ recent denial that the Gates Foundation “has decided not to fund abortion” as part of its efforts. The Catholic Church is opposed to both artificial contraceptives and abortion; the latter is an “intrinsic,” i.e., non-negotiable, evil. But Melinda professes to be Roman Catholic.
2. The hormones in the microchip can negatively affect women’s health
Fr. Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, warns that “Administration of dangerous hormonal contraceptive drugs, whether through new technologies or traditional oral methods, should not be considered a boon for women’s health, as the serious risks of these drugs are better known every day. Our concerns are only heightened when we see reporters promoting this effort of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation without mention of the harm done to women by other versions of these drugs, as if this only promises good health and empowerment for women. This isn’t reporting; it’s propaganda, and it is especially dangerous given the risks involved.”
3. PRIVACY CONCERNS
Civil libertarians worry about how hackers – and rogue government agencies – could exploit that technology. John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute, warns: “Whatever that chip transmits will go into a government file. The chip may actually know when you’re having sex. So, there will be no privacy, no.”
One source of privacy violation is hackers.
A remote-controlled computer chip potentially leaves the patient’s health at the mercy of anyone with sufficient computer skills. Dr. Robert Farra of MIT said the subcutaneous computer chip must be given “secure encryption” so that “someone across the room cannot re-program your implant.” To date, that security has not been developed.
In April, Wired magazine reported on a two-year effort led by Scott Erven that successfully hacked hospitals’ drug-infusion pumps, allowing them to alter the amount of morphine administered to patients; accessed defibrilators, creating unnecessary shocks or preventing life-saving shocks to restart a patient’s heart; refrigeration units that house blood, changing the temperature and potentially allowing the blood supply to spoil; viewed X-rays; and had the ability to change patients’ online medical records.
Another is government. Whitehead extensively researched the extent of government surveillance for his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.
Whitehead warns about the potential for abuse and violations of the Fourth Amendment: “Here’s what I’ve learned about government – whatever technology we have, theirs is much greater. The FBI is collecting a huge DNA database now.” The Supreme Court upheld widespread DNA collection in its 2013 Maryland v. King decision. “I’m afraid the chip could be activated in some harmful way,” such as a future eugenics program. “It could basically bar certain people from having children.” But instead of protecting citizens’ liberties, “Congress has given us no guidelines” about invasive forms of technology. Whitehead believes that is because Congress is “funded by the same groups that are providing the technology.”
Pre-clinical testing of the new microchip begins next year. Langer’s development team at MicroCHIPS Inc., based in Lexington, Massachusetts, hopes to introduce the product by 2018, pending approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Fr. Boquet warns, “The Gates Foundation and its partners are likely to continue this assault on women’s health until a sustained world-wide backlash ensues.”