Introduction by Health Ranger [4-26-2026].

(Notice that the referenced article at the end was published in 1969, 57 years ago. It should be obvious that this was being discussed long before that. A little online research indicates that this goes all the way back to the early 1900s. In fact, this movement can be traced all the way back to Thomas Malthus's 1798 writings (228 years ago)!!!

Don't forget that there are groups wanting to reduce total world population to 500 million people from the current 8.3 billion (94% reduction). What do you think CV19 & the vax was all about? It was planned! What are some of the real reasons about the wars in the Middle East & elsewhere? — RAD)

Allow me to demonstrate how strongly mainstream AI models are programmed to tell you that "depopulation" is a "conspiracy theory," despite the decades of evidence of active efforts to exterminate huge swaths of human populations.

If you ask a mainstream AI engine about the 1969 NYT article titled, "A Sterility Drug in Food is Hinted" by Gladwin Hill, it will summarize and highlight the details of that article:

Article basics

Headline: "A Sterility Drug in Food Is Hinted"

Subhead: "Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth"

Byline: Gladwin Hill, Special to The New York Times

Published: November 25, 1969 (datelined San Francisco, Nov. 24)

Hill was covering the opening day of the 13th national conference of the U.S. Commission for UNESCO, held at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of government, outside organizations, and the public Jew World Order, and roughly 500 conservationists and others attended the two-day meeting, which that year focused on environmental problems.

The article's lead reported that Stanford biologist Dr. Paul Ehrlich — author of the bestseller The Population Bomb (1968) — raised the possibility, in his remarks, that governments might eventually feel compelled to add sterility drugs to reservoirs or to food aid shipped abroad as a way to slow population growth. Hill framed Ehrlich as a leading public crusader on the population issue, not as a policymaker.

Ehrlich's specific proposals as reported

- Establishing a Federal Population Commission with a substantial budget for public-information campaigns.

- Adding a temporary sterilant to a staple food or to the water supply (mentioned as a future possibility he envisioned, not an existing program).

- Arguing that compulsory family-size regulation might become necessary if voluntary measures failed.

Other voices in the article

- Dr. Lee DuBridge, President Nixon's chief science adviser, who according to the article said population control should be a top priority for every government.

- Dr. Barry Commoner of Washington University in St. Louis, who challenged institutions — schools, churches, families, governments, and UNESCO itself — to make zero population growth their central task.

... and then the AI engine will sternly tell you that depopulation is a "conspiracy theory" and that there's no evidence of any actual depopulation agenda.

That shows strongly-programmed guardrails in the AI LLMs. They are trained to bury the truth about the ongoing human mass extermination agenda, which is entering a whole new phase with the wartime destruction of energy infrastructure and fertilizer.

Famine is coming. And it's being engineered.

People like myself and Michael Yon, Matt Bracken, etc., are among the very few voices telling you the truth about the famine weapon that has been unleashed against humanity. If you want to live, follow our channels and tune in.

A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED; Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth

by Gladwin Hill, special to the New York Times [11-25-1969].

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24 -A possibility that the Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem. The crusader, Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, among a number of commentators who called attention to the “population crisis" as the United States Commission for Unesco opened it 13th national conference here today. Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of Government, outside organizations and the public. Some 500 conservationists and others are attending the two-day meeting at the St. Francis Hotel, devoted this year to environmental problems.

President Nixon's chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, brought up the population question in his keynote speech last night, calling the reduction of the earth's population growth rate to zero "the first great challenge of our time."

Godfrey a Speaker: His comments went beyond recent statements of President Nixon, who in a message to Congress stressed the provision of birth control information to underprivileged women.

But, the Federal Government's willingness to come to grips with population limitation was questioned by another speaker, Arthur Godfrey, radio-television star and a conservation campaigner. "Dr. DuBridge rightly said that population control should be the prime task of every government," he said. "But is there anyone here — anyone — who thinks that this Administration, or the next or the next, will act with the kind of force that's necessary?"

Dr. Ehrlich, who is a biologist, said: "Our first move must be to convince all those we can that the planet Earth must be viewed as a spaceship of limited carrying capacity." "I think that 150 million people (50 million fewer than there are now) would be an optimum number to live comfortably in the United States.

'Alternative to Armageddon' "Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect-except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon." He urged establishing a Federal Population Commission "with a large budget for propaganda," changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools. He also urged "changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research so that the majority of it goes into the broad areas of population regulation, environment sciences, behavior sciences and related areas rather than into short-sighted programs on death control."

If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply," with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery. Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, "the solution does not lie in that direction" because "other people already are suspicious of our motives.”

Economic Pressure Urged. Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.

Dr. Barry Commoner of St. Louis, Washington University ecologist, in an ensuing discussion period differed with Dr. Ehrlich. He said that he thought the urge to multiply was rooted in the sense of insecurity, and that the better way to reduce reproduction was by "increasing the well-being of peoples." He also opposed chemical strategems on the ground that "every technological trick like that we've tried has caused disaster."

Recapitulating the environmental problems stemming from population, Dr. DuBridge said: "Do we need more people on the earth? We all know the answer to that is no. Do we have to have more people? Also no. "Can we reverse the urges of a billion years of evolving life? We can. We know techniques for reducing fertility. We are not fully utilizing them." Citing a widespread attitude, he said: "'We have the right to have as many children as we can afford,' we say. Do we, today? No.

"Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution — school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco-should set this as its prime task."