Connect with us

Health

Kenyan doctor condemns WHO for sterilizing African women with vaccines

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

Dr. Wahome Ngare

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

In 2014 and 2015, the WHO campaigned for the eradication of Tetanus in Africa, pushing a vaccine that, according to Dr. Ngare, made women “sterile.”

A Kenyan doctor denounced the World Health Organization (WHO) before Uganda’s president for being untrustworthy as shown by its African vaccination campaigns, including a Tetanus shot push that caused infertility in women.

Dr. Wahome Ngare, the director of Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF), warned President Yoweri Museveni in a speech posted online Tuesday, as the WHO was negotiating amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the massively influential global health body has a recent history of working against the best interests of Africans.

As a glaring example of this, he told how in 2014 and 2015, the WHO campaigned for the eradication of Tetanus in Africa, pushing a vaccine that, according to Dr. Ngare, made women “sterile.” He explained that the vaccine combined the Tetanus virus with a substance that produces antibodies against a hormone needed to maintain pregnancy, called human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).

“When we inject a woman with that vaccine, she produces antibodies against that hormone and therefore is rendered sterile,” Dr. Ngare noted. A paper has been published in the journal Vaccine Weekly echoing the Kenyan doctor’s claim, asserting that “similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG” (to produce antibodies against the natural hormone) “have been uncovered in the Philippines and in Nicaragua.”

The article’s abstract pointed out that a former president of Human Life International (HLI) “asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug.”

Dr. Ngare said he and other doctors in Africa have noticed increasing cases of young couples who appear medically “normal” but cannot conceive children, as well as couples who are losing as many as “three, four, or five” children before the mother can carry a child to term.

He went on to argue that another reason the WHO cannot be trusted is that it has proposed the vaccination of African children against malaria despite the fact that it is a “treatable disease.”

He pointed out that the U.K. “was able to eradicate malaria in 1921,” and the U.S. eliminated the disease in 1951, but the WHO has seemingly not yet worked out how to rid the African continent of malaria. Dr. Ngare argued that in fact, there is a natural treatment for malaria, found in the trees used to create quinine, which is known to treat malaria. There is further a plant, known as Artemisia annua or sweet wormwood plant, grown in Africa, that also treats malaria.

“One of our doctors in Congo wrote a paper that demonstrated how well the Artemisia tea worked and compared it to conventional medicine and even demonstrated it works better than conventional medicine. And two years later, his paper was pulled out. It was retracted. We do not need a vaccine for our children to treat malaria,” Dr. Ngare told Museveni.

Dr. Ngare has previously advised African countries to “collectively treat all vaccination programs as a national security risk,” stating, “If you cannot determine what is in the vaccine that is being given to your people, you may be opening a door to destroy the African population.”

The WHO has been under heavy fire recently from politicians and activists around the world for its proposed “pandemic agreement” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), on which the WHO failed to gain consensus from its member states this week. A more modest “consensus package of (IHR) amendments” will be presented this week, and The New York Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time to come to an agreement.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has also suggested that efforts to come to an agreement on the proposals will continue.

“We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, reported The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 9 hours ago

Tent Cities Were Rare Five Years Ago. Now They’re Everywhere

Fraser Institute / 10 hours ago

How to talk about housing at the holiday dinner table

armed forces / 10 hours ago

Remembering Afghanistan and the sacrifices of our military families

Health

All 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier

Published on December 25, 2025

By

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

I joined Del Bigtree in studio on The HighWire to discuss what the data now make unavoidable: the CDC’s 81-dose hyper-vaccination schedule is driving the modern epidemics of chronic disease and autism.

This was not a philosophical debate or a clash of opinions. We walked through irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence showing that whenever vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared directly, the unvaccinated group is far healthier—every single time.

Click here to see the video

Reanalyzing the Largest Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Birth-Cohort Study Ever Conducted

At the center of our discussion was our peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford Health System vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth-cohort study (Lamerato et al.)—the largest and most rigorous comparison of its kind ever conducted.

The original authors relied heavily on Cox proportional hazards models, a time-adjusted approach that can soften absolute disease burden. Even so, nearly all chronic disease outcomes were higher in vaccinated children.

Our reanalysis used direct proportional comparisons, stripping away the smoothing and revealing the full magnitude of the signal.

  • All 22 chronic disease categories favored the unvaccinated cohort when proportional disease burden was examined
  • Cancer incidence was 54% higher in vaccinated children (0.0102 vs. 0.0066)
  • When autism-associated conditions were grouped appropriately—including autism, ADHD, developmental delay, learning disability, speech disorder, neurologic impairment, seizures, and related diagnoses—the vaccinated cohort showed a 549% higher odds of autism-spectrum–associated clinical outcomes

The findings are internally consistent, biologically coherent, and concordant with every prior vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, all of which show drastically poorer health outcomes among vaccinated children

The 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Regulators Ignore

In the McCullough Foundation Autism Report, we compiled all 12 vaccinated vs. unvaccinated pediatric studies currently available. These studies span different populations, countries, study designs, and data sources.

Every single one reports the same overall pattern. Across all 12 studies, unvaccinated children consistently exhibit substantially lower rates of chronic disease, including:

  • Autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders
  • ADHD, tics, learning and speech disorders
  • Asthma, allergies, eczema, and autoimmune conditions
  • Chronic ear infections, skin disorders, and gastrointestinal illness

This level of consistency across independent datasets is precisely what epidemiology looks for when assessing causality. It also explains why no federal agency has ever conducted—or endorsed—a fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated safety study.

Flu Shot Failure

We also addressed the persistent failure of seasonal influenza vaccination.

A large Cleveland Clinic cohort study of 53,402 employees followed participants during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season and found:

  • 82.1% of employees were vaccinated against influenza
  • Vaccinated individuals had a 27% higher adjusted risk of influenza compared with the unvaccinated state (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.07–1.51; p = 0.007)
  • This corresponded to a negative vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% CI −55.0 to −6.6%), meaning vaccination was associated with increased—not reduced—risk of influenza

When vaccination exposure increases, chronic disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, and inflammatory illness increase with it. When children are unvaccinated, they are measurably healthier across virtually every outcome that matters.

The science needed to confront the chronic disease and autism epidemics already exists. What remains is the willingness to acknowledge it.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Continue Reading

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on December 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Trending

X