Exploring the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links
- The AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries, in part because it doesn’t require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics surrounding distribution are less complex
- Patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, investors of which include Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British government
- While AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date
- The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was co-developed by Adrian Hill, who has long-term ties to the British eugenics movement through his work with the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics and affiliation with the Galton Institute, formerly the U.K. Eugenics Society
- Members of the Galton Institute have called for population reduction in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted
While the two currently available COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. are based on novel mRNA technology — which in actuality are experimental gene therapies, not true vaccines — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a bit different. It uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein instead.
In the video above, James Corbett of The Corbett Report interviews1 Whitney Webb, a writer and researcher who covers intelligence, Big Tech, surveillance and civil liberties, about some of the basic differences between these vaccines.
They then delve into the curious ties between Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the British eugenics movement — a topic Webb covered in her in-depth December 26, 2020, investigative report “Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to U.K. Eugenics Movement,”2 co-written with Jeremy Loffredo.
The Corbett Report interview and this article offer only a cursory summary of the findings in that report, so I highly recommend reading Webb’s original article for a more detailed view.
The Not for Profit Myth
Webb points out that one of the reasons the AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries is because it doesn’t require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics surrounding distribution are far less cumbersome and complex. As a result, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, has partnered with AstraZeneca to bring the vaccine to the developing world, including Africa3 and Egypt.4
Now, while AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there’s a time limit on this pledge that most media pundits fail to note. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.5
As explained by Webb, the patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, the investors of which include BRAAVOS (a capital investment company set up by a Deutche Bank executive), Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British government.
All of these investors stand to profit from this vaccine at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.
In her article, Webb quotes Vaccitech’s CEO Bill Enright, who promised that investors will receive “a big chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as ‘milestone’ payments if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.”6
Mapping the Players
The actual developer of the vaccine, Webb explains, is the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research, founded in 1995 as a public-private partnership between GlaxoSmithKline and the British government.
After a few years, a reorganization took place, turning the Jenner Institute into a partnership between the University of Oxford and the Pirbright Institute (previously known as the Institute for Animal Health). The Jenner Institute is also part of the Oxford Vaccine Group.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has also received U.S. funding. In 2020, the company received $1 billion in funding for its COVID-19 vaccine from the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is part of the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is among those who have promoted the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will need to become an annual inoculation, which will allow Vaccitech and its investors to massively profit well into the future.
Among the profiteers will be The Wellcome Trust7 which, like other Vaccitech investors, is part of the technocratic globalist network. Wellcome is the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.” It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceutical pioneer and progressive industrialist.
Their board consists of present or former bankers, insurance executives and investment board members. Sir Henry Wellcome, while still alive, founded the company that went on to become GlaxoSmithKline, so the Wellcome Trust is essentially the “philanthropic arm” of GSK.
Adrian Hill’s Ties to Eugenics
Adrian Hill is the director of the Jenner Institute and was a lead developer of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Hill also heads the U.K. Vaccine Network, a government entity that decides where to funnel funding and vaccine technology.
One of Hill’s bosses early on in his career, and his thesis adviser when he was a doctoral student, was the late David Weatherall, founder of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, a research institute at the University of Oxford.
Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute from a time when it was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society, and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Hill gave a lecture at Galton in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:8
“Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.
The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.
The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …
While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute.
Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’
David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project, originally dreamt up by Galton’s former president Walter Bodmer, had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’
This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.'”
Hill and the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics
Hill also holds a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics. One of his former students there was Sarah Gilbert, who served as program director for the Centre. Gilbert is also co-founder of Vaccitech and a lead researcher on the COVID-19 vaccine along with Hill.
At the Centre for Human Genetics, Hill’s focus has been “population genetics and race, particularly in Africa” Webb explains. In general terms, the Centre investigates race genetics and susceptibility to diseases and infertility. Hill’s specialty is genetics and respiratory illnesses. The Wellcome Trust is also the archivist for the Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute. Webb writes:9
“The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center’s work, as an entire working group at the center, the Myers Group, is dedicated to mapping the ‘genetic impacts of migration events.’
The center also funded a paper that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it’s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, ‘Is the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?’
According to Hill’s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific infectious diseases.”
As noted by Webb in her interview, eugenics never really disappeared. It was simply rebranded into more acceptable terms revolving around “public health.” This raises all sorts of questions, starting with: Why is the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which has such strong eugenics ties, being earmarked for and marketed specifically to developing countries?
Anti-Racism Agenda, or Eugenics?
Webb also points out how so-called “woke vaccine policy” is using systemic racism as a justification for making sure the COVID-19 vaccine is given to minorities first.
Such justifications become all the more questionable if not outright suspicious in light of the eugenics angle, which tends to be heavily focused on reducing populations of Blacks and various native groups.
In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Webb suspects there’s an ulterior profit motive behind its not-for-profit pledge to developing countries. If the vaccine ends up being an annual inoculation, they may insist you keep getting the same brand. This way, if AstraZeneca ends up getting a majority share of the market from the start, Vaccitech and its investors will ultimately reap the greatest profits in years to come.
But in addition to the profit angle, there’s also the possibility that they might alter the vaccine at any point in the future to fit the eugenics agenda, and no one would be the wiser. As noted by Webb in her article:10
“There are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to ‘voluntarily’ get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.
Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s ‘affordable’ vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the U.S. and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.
As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy assertions with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation.
As the cofounder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed Society for the Study of Social Biology) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, ‘Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.'”
Africans Leery of AstraZeneca’s ‘Gift’
Considering the history of Big Pharma using Blacks as guinea pigs, both in Africa and the U.S., it’s not surprising that Africans are leery about the gift of COVID-19 vaccines. As just one example, a 2009 Jenner Institute vaccine trial in South Africa killed seven infants. In her article, Webb writes:11
“An investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had … knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective.
The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by Emergent Biosolutions and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective.”
As reported by the Inquirer in the video below, concern among South Africans has been so widespread that the South African government, in early February 2021, temporarily paused its rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Google Ventures’ Conflict of Interest
As mentioned earlier, Google Ventures is another investor in Vaccitech. Considering Google has a vested stake in the success of a COVID-19 vaccine, its policy to censor “vaccine misinformation” is a clear conflict of interest that they really should be held accountable for, Webb says.
Indeed, it makes no sense that Google, which stands to profit from a COVID-19 vaccine, is allowed to suppress reporting on it. Disturbingly, Webb points out that, as far as she could tell, she’s the only one who has pointed out this link between Google and the AstraZeneca vaccine.
The Gates Foundation
Not surprisingly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can also be found in this web of eugenics. Webb writes:12
“The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).
The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda. As researcher Jacob Levich wrote in the ‘Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism,’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’
Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’ One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years.
It was taken off the U.S. market in 2002 after more than 50,000 women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those class action suits were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.
Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.'”
Are Any of the COVID Vaccines Safe?
I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and suspected, if not inevitable, problems with COVID-19 vaccines, primarily the mRNA gene therapies since they are the two currently in use in the U.S. You can find them all using the search bar at the top of this page.
In addition to their high risk of allergic reactions, there’s compelling evidence to suggest they may trigger severe inflammation and immune dysregulation. Many scientists are also warning of the possibility for pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement, which will make subsequent infection with a coronavirus far more dangerous than were you not vaccinated.
In a paper13 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen also warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS.
Meanwhile, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has expressed concern about mRNA vaccines’ ability to cause “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”14
Around the world, reports are now also pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving these COVID-19 vaccines.15,16,17,18,19,20 In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.
As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.21 Pfizer’s vaccine has so far been responsible for 58% of deaths in the U.S. VAERS list, while Moderna’s vaccine accounts for 41%.
As of March 11, 2021, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg have all suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of blood clots.22
Austria has also suspended a particular batch of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in order to complete an investigation into the death of a 49-year-old woman who suddenly developed a severe coagulation disorder.23
Another Austrian vaccine recipient, a 35-year-old woman, developed acute lung disease from a dislodged blood clot. The same vaccine batch had reportedly been used in Denmark, where a 60-year-old woman died from a blood clot. According to a March 2, 2021, report24 by The Defender, U.K. data show the AstraZeneca vaccine has 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine.
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.25
If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.
- 1 The Corbett Report February 24, 2021
- 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Unlimited Hangout December 26, 2020
- 3 Nairametrics February 22, 2021
- 4 SABC News January 12, 2021
- 5 Fierce Pharma October 8, 2020
- 7 Wellcome Trust
- 13 Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 2021; 5(1): 1-3 (PDF)
- 14 University of California Public Comment related to consideration of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, December 8, 2020 (PDF)
- 15 Daily Star December 30, 2020
- 16 RT January 4, 2021
- 17 The Defender January 7, 2021
- 18 The Vaccine Reaction January 24, 2021
- 19 Gov.UK Weekly Summary of Yellow Card Reporting February 25, 2021
- 20 Principia Scientific International February 9, 2021
- 21 The Defender February 19, 2021
- 22, 23 The Defender March 11, 2021
- 24 The Defender March 2, 2021
- 25 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352