Are vaccinations really the only way to protect humanity from pandemics?

The corona pandemic is leaving clear traces in society, the economy and medicine—and also in the consciousness and social interaction of people. Some people are beginning to question complex contexts, many are relying solely on the statements of official agencies and media reports, and yet others linger entirely in fear of the pathogen, the disease or the future.

Many decision-makers in politics, industry and medicine worldwide, now unanimously agree that the current pandemic can only be stopped once and for all when a vaccine against the coronavirus is developed, made available and used on a broad scale. Such and similar statements made by virologists, epidemiologists or politicians are usually reported by the media in an unreflected manner. Hardly any critical voices are heard, except in the independent media.

The corona crisis raises burning questions (see also end of article) that we need to ask as individuals as well as collectively. On one hand to understand the recent events with their causes and far-reaching consequences—and on the other hand to get clear and honest answers from people in charge and decision-makers, so that together we can learn lessons from them. First of all, however, there is some background to be explained, which becomes apparent when one starts to take a closer look at the topic of the vaccination efforts initiated in the last 15 years in particular.


The World Health Organization (WHO), around 80 percent of which is financed by donations and foundations—and thus linked to interests 1)—and its most important private sponsor, Microsoft founder Bill Gates with his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2), have been at the centre of efforts to establish mass vaccination programmes for years. Gates has been a leader in many vaccination programmes for many years. However, due to various mishaps, legal proceedings and negative headlines, his person and his commitment are now also the subject of controversial discussion. Currently, Gates is very active in sponsoring and promoting the development of a vaccine against COVID-19 and is therefore again acting as a strong crowd puller and opinion maker in the media.

At the global level, however, the question remains unanswered as to what conflicts of interest the WHO has actually manoeuvred itself into. The winners of global capitalism seem to decide how to solve the problems of the losers. Trusts worth billions and self-proclaimed philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett dominate the social and humanitarian sectors, which are also shaped by the idea that business people and business methods are particularly suited to improving people’s lives worldwide 3).

For Bill Gates, vaccines are part of a larger global strategy. They are supposed to improve health in third world countries and thus cause a reduction in population growth of up to 15 percent. Incidentally, Gates argues that health and reproductive medicine measures would also be necessary to achieve these goals. More on this below.

In this way, control over global health policy is also to be facilitated. Gates’ belief in the absolute necessity of vaccines is driven by his belief that the world can be saved through technology.4). For example, he promised to personally contribute 450 million 5) of the $1.2 billion needed to eradicate polio. He thus effectively took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI). Among other things, it prescribed up to 27 vaccinations 6) against polio for children before the age of five through overlapping vaccination programmes.

Paralysis due to vaccination

The last case of polio (Poliomyelitis or Acute Flaccid Paralysis AFP) was reported in India in 2011. In contrast, the numbers of polio related disease, Non-Polio AFP (NPAFP) remained inexplicably high. The expected rate of NPAFP was 1-2 cases per 100,000 people, but the number of cases actually counted was 13.35/100,000. This made the Indian researchers and physicians suspicious. A study published in 2018 7) found that the number of polio vaccine doses delivered (oral vaccines) correlated with the incidence of NPAFP. NPAFP cases were particularly high in the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the very places where most polio vaccinations were administered. If the number of vaccine doses was reduced, the morbidity rate also fell rapidly.

This sobering realisation is now also confirmed by science: “It’s actually an interesting conundrum. The very tool you are using for [polio] eradication is causing the problem,” says Raul Andino, professor of microbiology at the University of California in San Francisco, about the effects of the polio vaccine 8).

India blames the Gates vaccination campaign for such devastating epidemics as those of the NPAFP. The NPAFP affected 491,000 more children between 2000 and 20177, than could be expected according to normal estimates.

The recent outbreaks of polio, thought to have been “defeated”, in Congo 9) and the Philippines 10) are all related to vaccines, as the WHO had to admit. In fact, in 2018, about 70% of global polio cases were attributable to vaccinations.4

A prominent and sharp critic of the vaccination programmes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the US lawyer, activist and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr—son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy—in his capacity as Chairman of the Children’s Health Defense. Kennedy has been monitoring the activities of the Gates Foundation for years. In one of his latest newsletter articles he criticises the “Bill Gates effect”, as he calls it, and quotes from a 2017 study by Mogensen et al 11), which shows that the WHO’s DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccination campaign in Africa, which was purpose-financed by Gates, subsequently caused increased mortality among the vaccinated children. Kennedy writes that the researchers believed that the DTP vaccine would kill more children than the diseases it was designed to treat.

Kennedy: “But Bill Gates and his surrogates, GAVI and WHO, made DTP a priority for African babies. The Danish government and Novo Nordisk Foundation commissioned this study by a team of the world’s leading experts on African vaccination. The two most prominent names, Drs. Soren Mogensen and Peter Aaby, are both vocal vaccine supporters. They were shocked when they examined years of data from a so called “natural experiment” in Guinea Bissau where 50% of children die before age five. In that west African nation, half the children were vaccinated with the DTP vaccine at three months and the other half at six months. Dr. Mogenson and his team found that girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids. While the vaccinated children were protected from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis, they were far more susceptible to other deadly diseases than unvaccinated peers. The vaccine apparently compromised their immune systems.” 12)

Ethical breaches in vaccination campaigns

During the MenAfriVac Campaign 2012 on the African continent, with the knowledge and involvement of WHO, GAVI, PATH, UNICEF and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, at least 40 of the approximately 500 vaccinated children suffered acute side effects with symptoms of paralysis, without these incidents having been commented on by these organisations or the media. 13)

Also in 2013, the Indian government had accused the Gates-financed programmes in a report 14) of far-reaching ethical violations. It was found, for example, that in the majority of cases the authorities responsible did not have proper consent for vaccination. Most of the girls came from indigenous groups who speak their own language. There was no education in their language nor at their educational level. In other cases, school principals gave their consent to treatment on behalf of the students.

In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Medical Association accused WHO of chemically sterilising millions of Kenyan women without their knowledge or consent with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Bill Gates has also been very open about birth control measures for years.15) Independent laboratories found a sterility formula containing the hormone HCG in the tested vaccines. After initially denying the allegations, the WHO finally admitted that it had been developing sterility vaccines for over a decade 16). Similar accusations come from Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.17)

In a circular of the German BUKO Pharma-Kampagne of 2016 18) the following can be read: “The influence of the Gates Foundation is partly seen very critically within the WHO as well. For example, Arata Kochi, head of the WHO malaria programme, complained back in 2008 about malaria research dominated by the Gates Foundation. Gates’ funding practices stifle the diversity of opinion among scientists and weaken the World Health Organization’s leadership role. Although the Gates Foundation’s money is important, it could have far-reaching unintended consequences. One of them was outlined by the former Executive Director of the Gates Foundation, Jeff Raikes, 2010: ‘We are not replacing the UN. But some people would say we are a new form of multilateral organisation.’19)

Already in 2010, Gates pledged $10 billion20) to the WHO and announced that “this decade will be the decade of vaccines.” Gates has repeatedly linked extensive vaccination programmes to a reduction in global population growth: “There are 6.8 billion people in the world today – and the trend is towards nine billion. If we do really good work now on new vaccines, health care and reproductive medicine, we could reduce that by maybe 10 or 15 percent.”21)

In a statement back in 2009, the Foundation explained how this is meant: “A surprising insight for us was that a reduction in the mortality rate reduces population growth.21 ” A large number of children is the only guarantee for the parents to be supported in old age. If the number of children who survive to adulthood increases, parents can achieve this goal without having so many children, many of whom die. It is up to each individual to decide whether vaccination programmes, with their many undesirable side effects, deaths and negative reports, are really the solution to the problems mentioned, or whether it would be better to invest in education, infrastructure, supply and sustainable environmental protection in affected countries.

Other disease control projects are neglected

Gates is also accused of using his influence to distract the WHO from projects that are proven to contain infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development. The Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million22) of its $5 billion budget on these areas. Thus, through Gates’ influence, the WHO seems to be mainly focused on the following credo: Good health only comes from the injection.

Is this only a very one-sided ideology based on the beliefs of the necessity of man’s domination of and struggle against nature, or even an exclusively economically motivated attitude? When we begin to think about the complexity of our lives, we should perhaps ask this question: Isn’t it more appropriate to promote a balanced and natural way of life, based on a healthy diet, regular exercise, deep breathing, good sleep quality, clean environment and loving interpersonal relationships?

Around the person of Bill Gates there is obviously a concentration of money and power that should give us pause for thought, especially as he exerts his influence on international efforts and programmes related to global health through purpose-financed funding. In addition to WHO and UNICEF, the two organisations GAVI and PATH (two publicly and privately funded alliances for the promotion of vaccination programmes) are on the list of recipients for which the Gates Foundation is a direct or indirect donor.23) In addition, Gates donated $50 million to pharmaceutical companies24) to accelerate the development of a coronavirus vaccine.

If you dig even deeper, you will find that business profits from big food and big pharma finance the WHO!25) That is because Bill Gates earns his billions through investments in certain industries. Critics complain that these industries all have something to do with disease-causing conditions. For example, the Gates Foundation holds shares in Coca-Cola worth 500 million dollars and shares in the world’s largest supermarket group Walmart worth one billion dollars. It also has holdings in the food companies PepsiCo, Unilever, Kraft-Heinz, Mondelez and Tyson Foods; in the alcohol groups Anheuser-Busch and Pernod; and in the pharmaceutical groups Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Gilead and Pfizer, some of which are also vaccine manufacturers.

The foundation also holds nearly $12 billion worth of shares in the Berkshire Hathaway Trust of investor Warren Buffett. The trust in turn owns shares of Coca-Cola worth 17 billion dollars and Kraft-Heinz worth 29 billion dollars. If this is not a conflict of interests, then where else would it be?

It is undisputed that vaccinations are a lucrative business for manufacturers and investors. The extent to which this exerts an influence on the economy, politics, the media and thus on public opinion and perception is difficult to determine. However, it is remarkable that members of the commissions organised by the individual countries (e.g. the Standing Commission on Vaccination STIKO in Germany), which are responsible for the official vaccination recommendations of the countries, usually work very closely with vaccine manufacturers or are even involved in approval studies themselves.26) The accusation of conflicts of interest and bias on the part of members is a recurrent theme in the media. This disturbing circumstance and also controversial vaccination recommendations of the commissions are regularly described by independent experts as “too pharma-friendly”. The general criticism of their work comes from many sources such as scientists, doctors, specialist journals and even health insurance companies27), 28). We all have to form our own opinion on this, too.

Some important questions

In view of these facts, it is therefore necessary to consider:

  • Are viruses, bacteria and other pathogens really the life-threatening disease-causing agents which, if humanity wants to continue to exist, will require rigorous control and eradication?
  • Or are such organisms rather vital helpers of nature, which make many different mechanisms of control and adaptation up to communication between cells and living beings possible in the first place? If one summarizes the groundbreaking findings from microbiome research of the last decade regarding the innumerable bacterial inhabitants of our body and their diverse and vital functions for a healthy organism, everything points clearly in this direction—with a few exceptions of really dangerous pathogens, where an infection can cause great damage in a short time without adequate treatment.29)
  • Do we not have to consciously and publicly question the world view of a hostile and menacing nature, which seems to increasingly endanger the existence of mankind through mutations and forces of nature, and which therefore has to be controlled, dominated and harnessed?
  • Can it really be that humanity can only ensure its survival through coercive measures, isolation, social isolation, global surveillance and the worldwide use of pharmaceutical products such as vaccinations and artificial immunization?
  • Why is it that official bodies and authorities worldwide are of the exclusive opinion that there is no specific treatment for the Covid-19 disease30), despite the well-documented fact that many therapeutic and preventive measures are already known to achieve good results in conditions such as the current coronavirus disease?
  • Have all naturopathic methods and remedies as well as a natural lifestyle for the prevention and treatment of flu symptoms and respiratory diseases already been thoroughly tested for effectiveness and efficiency in their broad application and found to be ineffective, so that such single-track proposals could be justified at all?
  • Can we as a society simply continue to ignore the countless critical voices and case studies on physical and mental damage caused by vaccination in this situation?
  • Shouldn’t those in positions of responsibility in science, medicine, politics and the media be making every effort right now, before the widespread application of such measures, to examine in detail the actual effects and the short and long-term health safety of these pharmaceutical products?
  • Can governments guarantee that, with regard to announced nationwide vaccination programmes, freedom of choice, the human right to physical integrity and the rights of freedom of expression of the individual will be respected and that refusal of any measures will not lead to restrictions and discrimination against the person concerned?
  • Who bears responsibility for the consequences of possible undesired effects of such vaccination programmes?
  • Can it be proven beyond doubt that environmental influences such as microwave radiation , chemical toxins, heavy metals, air pollution or psychological stress as well as nutrient deficiencies, one-sided nutrition or long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs have no influence on the function of our immune system and can therefore be excluded at least as indirect contributors to the worldwide pandemic?
  • If not, what is being planned by governments to fill such gaps in knowledge and to study the actual connections?
  • What further measures are planned by governments for pandemic prevention in terms of strengthening the individual immune system, environmental protection and education of the general public with regard to a natural lifestyle?
  • Is the promotion and research of natural cures for pandemic diseases already on the political and medical agenda?

This list of issues surrounding the corona pandemic is by no means exhaustive. In general, it must be emphasized that under all circumstances it must remain the absolute and inviolable freedom of choice of the individual whether he or she wants to be vaccinated or not—regardless of the type of pathogen. Also, the non-vaccinated person may not suffer any disadvantages of any kind from his or her decision, which could be implied by state, society, economy or any other authority. What is needed now is a critical questioning of decisions that are currently being made, and an alert mind to be able to analyse connections in order to arrive at a personal and free decision.

References   [ + ]

1.Frumkina, N. (2020): Wer finanziert die WHO?, Tagesschau, online article from 23.04.2020, see also:, see also: Day M, Who’s funding WHO? BMJ. 2007;334(7589):338 340. / doi:10.1136 / bmj.39119.519664.BE
2.Kadama P.Y., B. Lee, H. Hamdani, P. Rundall, J. Schaber, B. Jeffrey et al. (2017): Conflict of interest safeguards far too weak to protect WHO from influence of regulated industries (the case of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), Open Letter to the Executive Board of the World Health Organization, January 2017
3.Kleinebeckel, A. (2020): The Money Question, Telepolis, online article from 19.03.2020, see also:
4.Kennedy R.F. (2020): Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination, Children’s Health Defense, online article from 09.04.2020, see also:
5.PND (2017): Gates, Others Pledge $1.2 Billion to Eradicate Polio, Philanthropy News Digest, online article from 13.06.2017, see also:
6.MMWR (2010): Progress Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication — India, January 2009–October 2010, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) December 10, 2010 / Vol. 59 / No. 48, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA, see also:, see diagram 2.
7.Dhiman, R.; Prakash, S.C.; Sreenivas, V.; Puliyel, J. Correlation between Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis Rates with Pulse Polio Frequency in India. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1755, DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15081755
8.Beaubien, J. (2017): Mutant Strains Of Polio Vaccine Now Cause More Paralysis Than Wild Polio, National Public Radio, online article from 28.06.2017, see also:
9.Roberts, L. (2018): Alarming polio outbreak spreads in Congo, threatening global eradication efforts, Science Magazine, online article from 02.07.2018, see also:
10.WHO (2019): Polio outbreak– The Philippines, Disease outbreak news, World Health Organisation, online article from 24. 09.2019, see also:
11.Mogensen SW., Andersen A., Rodrigues A., Benn CS., Aaby P. The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment. EBioMedicine. 2017;17:192-198. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041
12.Kennedy, R.F. (2020): The Bill Gates Effect: WHO’s DTP Vaccine Killed More Children in Africa Than the Diseases it Targeted, Children’s Health Defense, online article from 23.04.2020, see also:
13.England, C. (2013): Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine, La Leva di Archimede – Association for freedom of choice, online article from 06.01.2013, see also:
14.Parliament of India – Rajya Sabha (2013): 72 nd REPORT – Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine by Path in India. Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Department-Related Parliamentary Standing on Health And Family welfare, see also:
15.Oller, John & Shaw, Christopher & Tomljenovic, Lucija & Karanja, Stephen & Ngare, Wahome & Clement, Felicia & Pillette, Jamie. (2017). HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World. Open Access Library Journal. 04. 1-30. 10.4236/oalib.1103937. see also:
16.Nardi, G. (2020): Geheimaktion: WHO und Unicef wollten Millionen Frauen geheim sterilisieren. Katholisches – Magazin für Kirche und Kultur, online article from 03.06.2020, see also:
17.Tetanus vaccine may be laced with anti-fertility drug. International / developing countries. Vaccine Wkly. 1995;9 10. Online article from 29.05.1995;9-10, see also:
18.BUKO (2016): Rundbrief der BUKO Pharma-Kampagne Nr. 4, Juni 2016, ISSN 1618-4572, see also:
19.Pickard, G. (2010): Will Gates Foundation Replace the UN? UN Post. online article from 2010, see also:
20.Presseportal (2010): Bill und Melinda Gates stellen 10 Milliarden US-Dollar für „Jahrzehnt der Impfstoffe” bereit, online article from 29.01.2010, see also:
21.Rohwedder, W. (2020): Menschenfreund oder Geschäftemacher?, Tagesschau, online article from 15.04.2020, see also:
22.Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2018): Annual Report 2018, see also:
23.World Health Organization (2019): Voluntary contributions by fund and by contributor, 72nd WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY, Provisional agenda item 15.2, 09.05.2019, A72/INF./5, see also:
24.Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2020): Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard Launch Initiative to Speed Development and Access to Therapies for COVID-19, Press Release 10.03.2020, Seattle, see also:
25.Kruchem, T. (2019): Die WHO am Bettelstab: Was gesund ist, bestimmt Bill Gates, Sendung vom 22.1.2019, 8:30 Uhr, SWR2 Wissen, SWR2, see also:
26.Rabe, S. (2018): Transparenz bei der STIKO – die Hintergründe, Impf-Info, online article from 21.06.2018, see also:
27.Blöß, T. (2004): Impfungen: Kommission in der Kritik. In: Dtsch Arztebl 2004; 101(45): A-2996 / B-2534 / C-2418, see also:
28.Straumann, F. (2010): Impfexperten weniger verstrickt als befürchtet, Tages-Anzeiger, press article from 21.10.2010, see also:
29.Lloyd-Price, J., Abu-Ali, G., Huttenhower, C., (2016): The healthy human microbiome, Genome Medicine 8, Article No. 51, see also:
30.BAG (2020): Krankheit COVID-19, Symptome und Behandlung, Ursprung neues Coronavirus, Bundesamt für Gesundheit der Schweiz, online article from 03.06.2020, see also: