Epigenetic Engineering

By Michael Nield
October 12, 2010
(updated 2nd Jan 2011)

Changes of temperature or of diet may possibly affect the chromosomes. Knowledge on these matters is still in its infancy. But since mutations occur, it is clear that there are agencies which alter the hereditary character of an organism. When these have been discovered it may be possible to apply them artificially in such a way as to produce some intended result. In that case, eugenics will no longer be the only way of improving a breed…. While it is rash to make detailed prophecies, it is, I think fairly clear that in future a human body, from the moment of conception, will not be regarded merely as something which must be left to grow in accordance with natural forces, with no human interference beyond what is required for the preservation of health. The tendency of scientific technique is to cause everything to be regarded as not just a brute datum, but raw material for the carrying out of some other purpose. The child, and even the embryo, will come to be viewed more and more in this way as the mentality connected with scientific technique becomes more dominant. In this, as in all other forms of scientific power, there are possibilities of good and possibilities of evil. Science alone will not decide which is to prevail. – Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook, 1931. pp.175-177


The effects of synthetic chemicals on fertility in animals has been extensively studied and the implications have been considered at a political level for several decades. In the last five years, scientists have published studies showing that such chemicals can cause obesity. This article considers whether human exposure to these chemical endocrine disruptors has occurred purely by accident. During the early twentieth century the Rockefeller Foundation financed research in the physical and social sciences for the purpose of social control and human engineering. In the 1940s, a Rockefeller controlled drug company led the development of stilboestrol, a synthetic oestrogen which was given to millions of women over the next three decades. The company promoted its use in pregnant women despite evidence of adverse effects on the developing foetus.

In the same period, eminent British academics Bertrand Russell and Sir Charles Galton Darwin wrote about using biological science to change human beings physically and mentally. In 1952 Darwin suggested using synthetic hormones to alter the sexual and reproductive nature of mankind in order to create a more orderly society. The effect of stilbestrol and bisphenol A on the development of animal embryos was understood in the 1940s. The concept of epigenetics is that the expression of DNA is affected by biological stimuli especially in the early development of the animal. It was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington of Cambridge University. His early work at Caltech in 1939 was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1959 the University of Chigaco, which was founded by John D Rockefeller, awarded honary degrees to Sir Charles Galton Darwin; to Sir Edward Charles Dodds, the scientist who first synthesized stilbestrol in 1938; and to Sir Julian Huxley, evolutionary biologist, eugenicist and brother of Aldous Huxley. In 1963 Joshua Lederberg, the esteemed molecular biologist, coined the term ‘euphenics’ to describe the promising science of developmental engineering. He served as president of Rockefeller University 1978-90.

This historical background sheds a different light on the failure of regulatory agencies to protect the public from endocrine disrupting compounds and on the promotion of oestrogenic soy-based foods, especially soy infant formula.

Those unfamiliar with endocrine disruptors might first look at www.ourstolenfuture.org.

Acknowledgements and sources: Many of the books cited are those recommended by Alan Watt of CuttingThroughthematrix.com. OldthinkerNews.com provided a useful article on stilbestrol (DES). Original hard copies of the books were obtained and quotes come directly from the editions cited in the endnotes. Scans of some of the pages have been uploaded below. Where an internet source was used, a link is provided.

Legal Notice

Nothing in this article is intended as harrassment or incitement to hatred or harrassment under the UK 2010 Equality Act,which came in to force on 1st October 2010, or the UK 2008 Criminal Justice Act.

The following characteristics are now protected under UK law: age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.


1. Early twentieth century views on population control – reproduction and ‘human engineering’

Dr Russell Blaylock interviewed for prisonplanet.tv. Full one hour interview here

Dr Russell Blaylock is an expert on toxic food additives and has published several books on the subject. He recommends reading the following history of eugenic-oriented scientific research: The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology by Lily E. Kay.[1]

Lily details the transformation of America’s Davenport-style race eugenics into a corporate multi-displicinary scientific enterprise for the purpose of  ‘human engineering’. The end goal never changed for the private businessmen and technocrats who paid for and organized it. However, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the aims were often obscured in the scientific complexities, both in the social sciences and physical sciences. After the Second World War, the stigma of the Nazi experiment required that henceforth, all the annual reports of the Rockefeller Foundation ‘were sanitized of all rhetorical traces of eugenic goals’ [p220]. The terms ‘social control’, ‘human engineering’, ‘rationalization of human behaviour’ had to be replaced with terms like ‘understanding’ and ‘international cooperation’.

By the 1960s the movement’s leading scientists felt able to reaffirm the original intent publicly. Caltech’s Linus Pauling said in 1968 ‘There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol showing possession of the sickle -cell gene or whatever other similar gene…. It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing for defective gene before marriage, and some form of semi-public display of this possession, should be adopted.'[p276]

In 1962 there was a conference of two score distinguished scholars sponsored by the Ciba Foundation. Speculating on the role of molecular biology in shaping man’s destiny, Joshua Lederberg stated, ‘the ultimate application of molecular biology would be the direct control of nucleotide sequences in human chromosomes…'[p275]

From 1900, the end goal had always been expressed as ‘improvement’ or ‘betterment’ of the human race – positive eugenics. Robert Sinsheimer at Caltech prophesied in 1969 that ‘The new eugenics would permit in principle the conversion of all the unfit to the highest genetic level’.[p276]

There were other eugenically minded scientists at Caltech in other disciplines whom the book doesn’t cover, such as the nuclear physicist Harrison Brown. Brown worked on the Manhattan Project and authored The Challenge of Man’s Future (1954). It was a detailed consideration of world population and natural resources and also had a few pages in favour of eugenics. It was very influential and has an endorsement from Einstein on the back cover.[2] Interestingly Brown was mentor to John P Holdren who is currently President Obama’s ‘Science Tsar’. Brown helped Bertrand Russell and Einstein set up the post-War Pugwash conferences from 1955, and John P Holdren became chairman of the International Pugwash Council.[3]

The Challenge of Man’s Future was based on a book published two years earlier entitled The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin of Cambridge University, England. Galton Darwin was the grandson of Charles Darwin, a senior nuclear physicst and President of The Eugenics Society 1953-59. In 1922 he was a visiting professor at Caltech.[4,5]

Darwin concluded that man should attempt to trump the laws of natural selection:

Attempts at improving the lot of mankind have all hitherto been directed towards improving his conditions, but not his nature, and as soon as the conditions lapse all is lost. The only hope is to use our knowledge of biology in such a way that all would not be lost with the lapse of the conditions. The principles of heredity offer an anchor which will permanently fix any gains that there may be in the quality of mankind.[p208]

On the other hand some scientists and philosophers, including Darwin, recognized the possibilities of eugenics for governmental purposes. Governmental eugenics was given detailed consideration in part three of Bertand Russell’s book The Scientific Outlook (1931).[6] It was evidently the basis for Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and according to the current Wikipedia entry, Russell considered suing Huxley for plagiarism.

Russell warned:

Manipulation and exploitation are the ruling passions of the typical scientific industrialist. The average man may not share this narrow concentration, but for that very reason he fails to acquire a hold on the sources of power, and leaves the practical government of the world to the fanatics of mechanism. The power of producing changes in the world which is possessed by the leaders of big business in the present age far exceeds the power ever possessed by individuals in the past…. Fortunately, the modern holders of power are not yet quite aware how much they could do if they chose, but when this knowledge dawns upon them a new era in human tyranny is to be expected.[p157]

Utilizing ‘scientific technique in biology’, only millionaires would be served real meat; everyone else would eat synthetic beefsteaks. In the main, food would be manufactured in ‘vast chemical factories’. ‘Men will acquire power to alter themselves, and will inevitably use this power. What they make of the species I do not venture to predict’.[pp167-169]

He outlines the ‘scientific society’ in part three. Education would be different for rulers and ruled:

…the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. Their diet will not be left to the caprices of their parents, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.[pp251-252]

As for the governing class,

Eugenics, chemical and thermal treatment of the embryo, and diet in early years will be used with a view to the production of the highest possible ultimate ability.[p253]

The two classes would over time, become more distinct in character and heredity:

I think it may be assumed, however, that there would be a very strong tendency for the governing class to become hereditary, and that after a few generations not many children would be moved from either class into the other. This is especially likely to be the case if embryological methods of improving the breed are applied to the governing class, but not to the others. In this way the gulf between the two classes as regards native intelligence may become continually wider and wider. This will not lead to the abolition of the less intelligent class, since the rulers will not wish to undertake uninteresting manual work, or to be deprived of the opportunity for exercising benevolence and public spirit which they derive from the management of manual workers.[p258]

Russell said that, as with animals, only a small percentage males would be required for breeding. 5% of males and 25% of females would be selected to breed and the rest would be sterilized. Sexual activity amongst the sterile would still be generously permitted.[pp260-261]. However paternity goes out of the window completely:

Fathers would, of course, have nothing to do with their own children. There would be in general only one father to every five mothers, and it is quite likely that he would never have even seen the mothers of his children.[p263]

Unfortunately, he foresaw that a truly scientific society would necessarily become sadistic.

The advancement of knowledge will be held to justify much torture of individuals by surgeons, biochemists, and experimental psychologists. As time goes on the amount of added knowledge required to justify a given amount of pain will diminish, and the number of governors attracted to the kinds of research necessitating cruel experiments will increase. Just as the sun worship of the Aztecs demanded the painful death of thousands of human beings annually, so the new scientific religion will demand its holocausts of sacred victims….  Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good. New forms of drunkenness involving no subsequent headache may be discovered, and new forms of intoxication may be invented so delicious that for their sakes men are willing to pass their sober hours in misery.[pp267-268]

In The Impact of Science on Society (1952), Russell reiterated the possibility of governmental eugenics in a scientific society:

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[p66][7]

In same pages he said that the pacification of males would be required in a scientific dictatorship:

Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle, other for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition.[p67]

Bertrand Russell was an eminent academic at Trinity College, Cambridge. The possibility of using synthetic chemicals to alter peoples’ hormones and fertility was foreseen by Charles Galton Darwin -also at Cambridge – in The Next Million Years:

Looking a little deeper there is the possibility of substantially altering the intellectual and moral natures of individuals by some sort of hormonal injections; already great effects have been produced on animals.[p76]

And again:

Why cannot man set up a community like an ants’ nest? This would be the ideal of the anarchist, and hitherto it has held no promise at all of success, but with the help of recent and probable future biological discoveries, some sort of imitation by man of the ants’ nest cannot be quite excluded from consideration. Thus the control of the numbers of the two sexes may become possible, and with the knowledge of the various sexual hormones it might also become possible to free the majority of mankind from the urgency of sexual impulse, so that they could live contented celibate lives, instead of the unsatisfied celibate lives that are the compulsory lot of such a large fraction of the present population of the world. If these discoveries should be made – and this is really by no means impossible – man would be able to carry out the sex revolution which is the typical characteristic of the insect civilizations.[p124]

And for a third time:

Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive.[p183]

In The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell also mentioned the possibilty of using synthetic hormones to change behaviour:

The work of Cannon and others concerning the influence of the ductless glands upon the emotions has become widely known, and it is clear that by administering artificially the substances which the ductless glands provide, a profound effect can be produced upon temperment and character.[p188]

Abolition of war was one of Russell’s primary concerns. He thought that a scientific world stood a better chance of survival if ways could be found to subdue man’s aggressive nature:

It may be that in some such way a safety valve can be provided for the anarchic and violent forces in human nature; or again, it may be that by wise education and suitable diet men may be cured of all their unruly impulses, and all life may become as quiet as a Sunday school… If a scientific world is to survive, it is therefore necessary that men should become tamer than they have been. The splendid criminal must no longer be an ideal, and submissiveness must be more admired than it has been in the past.[pp.221-22]

Joshua Lederberg was an esteemed molecular biologist, the president of Rockefeller University 1978-90, and a science adviser to nine U.S. presidents. In 1963, he wrote and spoke about ‘developmental engineering (euphenics) aimed at controlling hormone function, brain size and intelligence’.[Kay pp275-76] Like Russell, he said that mankind must somehow evolve in order to avoid global annihilation through war. In June 1965, Science magazine included a review of the book Man and his Future, the proceedings of the 1962 Ciba Foundation conference in which Lederberg had participated:

Whereas the Ohio symposium dealt with molecular and cellular engineering versus selection in the control of genetic properties of future generations, Lederberg regards the real impact of molecular biology as being in the engineering of human development. Experimental modification of the developing human by physiological and embryological alterations has its effect in the same generation, not in future generations. Therefore, as such methods become applicable, they will have an immediate, not a long term, impact. Lederberg’s view is that such possibilities can become real very soon. For developmental (as opposed to genetic) engineering, Lederberg proposes the term euphenics, and it is a measure of the impact of this book that the word has already come into general usage…. It is good to know what some of our most sophisticated men say in their uninhibited discussions and speculations. To quote one participant: “Public information on the possibilities of human modification is not widely available or prevalent, particularly in the seats of high political power.

The substance of Lederberg’s address to the Ciba conference was contained in a Nature article published in 1963 entitled Molecular Biology, Eugenics and Euphenics. He considered the impact of euphenics on sexual development:

Most genes segregate independently of sex, but must then work in concert with the bio-cultural dimorphism of sex. This must impede stringent selection; or conversely, does rapid eugenics not imply the convergence of the sexes to a common goal ? At a considerable cost in its rate the evolutionary process might be confined to sex-limited, -linked, or -irrelevant mutations, if any, which still affect personality. Euphenics can switch the entire programme to match the sexual or other role-defining polymorphisms. Education-the whole cultural apparatus-does this now.

Writing in The American Naturalist in 1966, Lederberg addressed the issue in the context of genetic engineering:

Half the beneficiaries of eugenic design will be women. Will their creativity and happiness be augmented in a genotype that recombines XX and a set of male-oriented autosomes? Or shall we bypass the dimorphism and evolve a race where this does not matter? To shout “Vive la difference” and then ignore it is hypocrisy.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s ‘science of man’ project incorporated research into hormones (endocrinology) and embryology from the beginning. The 1933 annual report recorded this amongst their priorities:

Can we obtain enough knowledge of the physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control? Can we unravel the tangled problem of the endocrine glands, and develop, before it is too late, a therapy for the whole hideous range of mental and physical disorders which result from glandular disturbances?[Kay, p45]

In the 1948 annual report, Chester Barnard, the Foundation’s President, again asked, ‘What is the bearing of endocrinology or pathology on the moral assessment of human behaviour?'[p221]

2. American charitable foundations funded gender equality

The large American tax exempt foundations have been proud promoters of gender equality. Female empowerment is often cited as a method for reducing birth rates, especially in third world countries. How did this quest for female empowerment manifest in early twentieth century American education? Georgetown University historian, Professor Carroll Quigley observed the following in his book Tragedy and Hope (1966)[8]:

Closely related to this confusion, or even reversal, of the social roles of the sexes was decreasing sexual differentiation in child-rearing practices. As recently as the 1920’s girl babies were reared differently from boys. They were dressed differently, treated differently, permitted to do different things, and admonished about different dangers. By 1960, children, regardless of sex, were all being brought up the same. Indeed, with short cropped hair and play suits on both, it became impossible to be sure which was which. This led to a decrease in the personality differences of men and women, with males becoming more submissive and females more aggressive.

This tendency was accelerated by new techniques of education, especially in the first twelve years of life…. New methods, such as whole-word method of teaching reading or the  use of true-and-false or multiple-choice examinations, were also better adapted to female than to masculine talents. Less and less emphasis was placed on critical judgement, while more and more was placed on intuitive or subjective decisions. In this environment girls did better, and boys felt inferior or decided that school was a place for girls and not for boys. The growing aggressiveness of girls pushed these hesitant boys aside and intensified the problem. As consequences of this, boys had twice as many “non readers” as girls, several times as many stutterers, and many times as many “teen-age bedwetters.”[p1259].

Quigley does not identify the cause of this trend. However, the tax-exempt foundations must be considered one of the prime influences because they dominated the financing of American education in the early 20th Century. In 1954 the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (the ‘Reece’ committee) was set up to find out what the real goals of these foundations were. In 1982 the staff director of the committee, Norman Dodd, stated in an interview that America’s large tax-exempt foundations were working together towards a common goal: The Carnegie Endowment, the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, ‘all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States’.[9]

However the Reece committee was shut down and the Foundations continued their work. Lily Kay noted that in the early 1950s the Ford Foundation launched an enormous program in the behavioural sciences especially psychology, anthropology, and sociology. By 1957 it had granted nearly $24 million to such research, $13 million to the mental health program. [p274] As early as 1917, James McKeen Cattell, editor of Science, expressed his unease about the influence of the large foundations in American education:

The Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations have undertaken to dictate educational affairs all over the country and all the way from the primary school to the university. The fact that their large resources enable them to employ able men is a dangerous aspect of the situation. So many institutions are now subsidized by one or both of these foundations, that many educational leaders are not free to express their real opinion or are not in a position to form unprejudiced opinions.[p28]

More evidence has come to light recently. Hollywood producer Aaron Russo was a former friend of one of the Rockellers. In an interview with Alex Jones shortly before he died, Russo said that Nick Rockefeller had bragged that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind the Women’s Liberation movement. “We funded Women’s lib’… We’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television”.[10] He said that their goal was to get women into work to increase tax revenues and at the same time hand over their childrens’ education to the schools which they controlled.

The websites of the Rockefeller, Ford, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations disclose the millions of dollars annually being used to promote gender equality all around the world.

3. How many people have reduced fertility due to diethylstilbestrol exposure?

In the American Journal of Public Health, Sarah Vogel provides some of the history of DES:

While in pursuit of a synthetic estrogen, Edward Charles Dodds, a British medical researcher at the University of London, identified the estrogenic properties of BPA in the mid-1930s. For the next several years, Dodds continued testing chemical compounds in search of what he later referred to as the “mother substance”, a powerful estrogenic substance that he identified as diethylstilbestrol (DES).

DES was commercialized in the 1940s for the purported therapeutic treatment of numerous female “problems” related to menstruation, menopause, nausea during pregnancy, and for the prevention of miscarriages. Meat producers injected animals with the synthetic estrogen to increase meat production. For 30 years, DES was prescribed to millions of pregnant women and injected into millions of animals despite persistent concerns about its carcinogenicity. In 1971, the drug was finally banned for use in pregnant women after the first epidemiological studies reported rare vaginal cancers in young women exposed to DES while in their mothers’ wombs. After considerable debate and controversy, the FDA finally banned all forms of DES use in meat production in 1979.[11]

Following the research by Dodds in London, DES was proposed as a prostate cancer drug in 1941 by Charles Huggins and Clarence Hodges at the University of Chicago.[12] This university was founded by J D Rockefeller in the 1890s.[13] In 1947 the FDA granted a licence to prescribe the drug to prevent miscarriage and other problems in pregnant women. The one of the first drug companies to obtain a licence was Squibb. According to Morris Bealle’s 1949 book The Drug Story, this was one of several Rockefeller controlled drug companies.[14] Gillam and Bernstein investigated the dubious process of FDA approval in their 1987 article Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine:

In the United States a dozen drug companies banded together in 1941, mounted an unusual collaborative effort, overcame some medical dissent, and gained FDA approval for use of the drug in four specific conditions including those of menopause.

……More tellingly, Karnaky had reported such transplacental DES effects on infants as discoloration of the breasts and genitals. In line with this last finding, an animal researcher had warned, in 1944 that sex hormones known (as DES was) to alter the in utero development of animal embryos probably did so in humans too [emphasis added]. Several experts, when contacted by the FDA, opposed any endorsement of prenatal DES on safety grounds. Thus, the FDA could easily have rejected these 1947 applications for a variety of reasons, including weak (almost non-existent) data, potential fetal and maternal risks, and expert doubts. Instead, the agency swept past all difficulties and quickly approved DES for use in habitual and threatened miscarriages, premature labor, and pregnancy problems complicated by diabetes… Curiously, the agency also advised the manufacturer of a non-prenatal DES preparation to delete a proposed literature statement warning against its use in pregnancy.[15]

The DES story is also told in Worse Than The Disease (1988) by Diana B. Dutton Ph.D, a Senior Research Associate at the Stanford University School of Medicine:

The idea of using DES in pregnancy apparently came not from Karnaky but from scientists at E. R. Squibb and Sons, one of the original DES manufacturers…. Two Squibb researchers “came to Houston, fed me and dined me… and I started using it,” Karnaky recalled.[p47][16

By 1947 it was well known amongst endocrinologists that experimental hormones could affect the developing fetus:

Beginning in the late 1930s, a number of studies on “experimental intersexuality” described what happened to animal offspring when pregnant females were treated with estrogens, including DES. The findings revealed, among other things, that female rat offspring developed enlarged uteri and structural changes in the vagina and ovaries, and that male rat offspring had small and inadequately developed penises and other sexual deformities.[p52]

The effects of DES on the sons and daughters of those millions of pregnant women prescribed DES has been considered recently. In 2005 the results of a five year study were published by Scott P. Kerlin, Ph.D of DES Sons International Network, Vancouver[17]. Infertility was one of a wide range of suspected reproductive side effects:

Nations of Origin

Approximately 85% of network members were born in the U.S., while 5% each indicated they were born in Canada, Europe (chiefly UK) or Australia.

• Core Health Concerns of DES Sons

Based on preliminary analysis of critical health issues reported by individual DES sons in the network, the three topics most frequently listed among the sample of 500 individuals with confirmed or suspected prenatal DES exposure are (a) gender identity concerns (at least 150 reports); (b) psychological/mental health issues, especially depression and anxiety disorders (at least 100 reports); and (c) hormonal/endocrine health issues (at least 75 reports) (see Appendix, Part II).

• Additional Reported Adverse Health Effects
Though identified less frequently in overall health reports provided by study participants, several participants listed histories of infertility, reproductive tract abnormalities (including reports of ambiguous or underdeveloped genitalia), epididymal cysts, cryptorchidism, hypospadias, gynecomastia, and erectile dysfunction. Statistics on the full extent of reporting of these concerns are still undergoing analysis. [emphasis added]

One of the most ubiquitous and controversial endocrine disruptors is bisphenol A. It is strongly suspected of impairing fertility especially in males. Although it was first discovered in 1891, it was suggested for use as a synthetic estrogen by Charles Dodds in 1936, the scientist that created DES. Dodds received a knighthood in 1954 and was made a Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in 1958. He also received an honorary degree from the University of Chicago in 1959, the same year it awarded honary degrees to Sir Julian Huxley and Sir Charles Galton Darwin.[18] The University of Chicago maintained close ties with the Rockefeller Foundation in its early years. Caltech and Chicago received by far the largest grants of any university from the Foundation for molecular biology research between 1930 and 1955. This ‘science of man’ project began under Max Mason, the outgoing president of Chicago who was appointed president of the Foundation in 1929.[Kay pp. 13,39]

[Dodds]own research covered many aspects of endocrinology. It was prolific and of  sustained high quality, perhaps the greatest achievement being the discovery and synthesis, in association with Wilfrid Lawson, of stilboestrol. – The Royal College of Physicians website[19]

4. A medical doctor’s opinion

In 1958 Dr R Swynburne Clymer discussed DES in his book, Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason. See the article at Daniel Taylor’s www.OldThinkerNews.com

The employment of stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young  women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer – something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind.

The influence of big money in medicine had encouraged most doctors to be less opinionated about anything which might upset the apple cart. In 1966, Carroll Quigley wrote:

Many of these eager workers headed for medicine, because to them medicine, despite the ten years of necessary preparation, meant up to $40,000 a year income by age fifty. As a consequence, the medical profession in the United States ceased, very largely, to be a profession of fatherly confessors and unprofessing humanitarians and became one of the largest groups of hard headed petty-bourgeois hustlers in the United States, and their professional association became the most ruthless materialistic lobbying association of any professional group.[p 1273]

Diana Dutton’s investigtion into stilbestrol confirmed this pessimistic portrayal of many members of the American medical profession. When women started complaining about the drug’s side-effects in the early 1970s, ‘numerous physicians who had prescribed DES not only refused to search their records, but actually managed to “lose” the charts of treated patients… To some disillusioned women, it began to seem that many doctors were more interested in not finding medical records than in finding them’.[p75]

5. Increasing the death rate with obesogenic endocrine disruptors

Research published in the last five years suggests that endocrine disruptors may be increasing the death rate by causing morbid obesity. The epidemic of ‘metabolic syndrome’ or ‘syndrome X’  has been making some interesting headlines in Britain lately.

Mayor calls Adsa shoppers ‘mutants’: A town mayor is under fire for labelling Asda shoppers ‘mutants’ in a video posted on YouTube

In July earlier this year, the mayor of Ellesmere Port in Cheshire caused outrage when he said he went to the supermarket in the evening “to avoid the mutants who go in during the day”. He offered a strange explanation and apology later, but many had suspected that he was really referring to fat people.[20]

‘Fat, tattooed britons are not ship shape‘, reported The Daily Telegraph in September. British Ferry chief Pim de Lange, Stena Line’s director for the North Sea, said that he had to recruit foreign workers because the “British are quite fat and covered in tattoos… not fit for the job…”[21]

Grun and Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, coined the term ‘obesogen’ in the Journal of Endocrinology in 2006.[22] They have published several studies showing that plastic could be making us fat:

The modern world is plagued with expanding epidemics of diseases related to metabolic dysfunction. The factors that are driving obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and dyslipidemias (collectively termed metabolic syndrome) are usually ascribed to a mismatch between the body’s homeostatic nutrient requirements and dietary excess, coupled with insufficient exercise. The environmental obesogen hypothesis proposes that exposure to a toxic chemical burden is superimposed on these conditions to initiate or exacerbate the development of obesity and its associated health consequences.Recent studies have proposed a first set of candidate obesogens (diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A, phthalates and organotins among others) that target nuclear hormone receptor signaling pathways (sex steroid, RXR-PPARgamma and GR) with relevance to adipocyte biology and the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling can alter adipocyte proliferation, differentiation or modulate systemic homeostatic controls, leading to long-term consequences that may be magnified if disruption occurs during sensitive periods during fetal or early childhood development.[23]

The Breakspear Medical Group’s newsletters reported the research at Harvard which suggested the impact of obesogens on babies:

In 2006, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity ininfants under 6 months had risen 73% since 1980. Since the babies were given only formula or breast milk and did not get a lot of exercise, the explanation has to be related to a different factor in the environment. In general, the standard view is that the calories consumed have to equal the calories used. Therefore if more calories are consumed than are burned, weight is gained. However, exposure to environmental obesogens during  development and early life may be contributing to the obesity epidemic which is occurring now in babies. The various obesogens, which can cause a predisposition to obesity, are:

bisphenol A: a component in hard polycarbonate plastic, including that found in babies bottles

tributyltin: a pesticide used as a biocide especially in marine anti-fouling paints

phthalates: chemicals that are present in some plastic food wraps, plastic bottles and vinyl plastics

perfluoroalkyl compounds: substances used in stain repellents and non-stick cooking surfaces [24]

6. Endocrine disruptors in pregnancy or early life can condition the expression of DNA -the science of epigenetics

Synthetic chemicals cause epigenetic changes in mammals. This means that although the underlying DNA sequence is not changed, the way the gene functions or expresses does change. These epigentic shifts are particularly significant if the chemical is introduced early in life. Scientists at Cambridge University’s physiology department write:

In mammals, including man, epidemiological and experimental studies have shown that a range of environmental factors acting during critical periods of early development can alter adult phenotype. Hormones have an important role in these epigenetic modifications and can signal the type, severity and duration of the environmental cue to the developing feto-placental tissues. They act to alter gene expression, hence the protein abundance in a wide ange of different tissues, which has functional consequences for many physiological systems both before and after birth. By producing an epigenome specific to the prevailing  condition in utero, hormones act as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, with important implications for adult health and disease. … Recent studies have also shown that inappropriate exposure to glucocorticoids during intrauterine development affects the ensuing adult phenotype and leads to abnormalities in a wide range of physiological systems much later in life.[25]

The science of epigentics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington of Cambridge University from the 1930s onward. Later he became Director of The Institute of Genetics in Edinburgh. Waddington’s early work on embryology and steroid ‘inducing factors’ was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. His book Organisers and Genes 1940 was published after he went to the United States to work on fruit flies at Caltech in 1939. In it he described how cells and tissues reacted to an inducing signal.[26]

His chemistry teacher at school, E J Holmyard, had introduced him to Arabic Alchemy and Alexandrian Gnosticism. In later life, he maintained that this interest in metaphysics had been seminal for his later scientific work. The source cited in the notes below provides a detailed biography. 

In 1931, Bertrand Russell discussed the significance of early research in embryology to the understanding of genetics:

No change in an organism is inherited unless it affects the chromosomes, which are the bearers of hereditary characters; but a change which affects the chromosomes may be inherited. When the larvae of the fruit-fly are exposed, at an early stage, to the operation of X-rays, they develop into adults which differ noticeably from most ordinary fruit-flies. It may be the changes produced by X-rays affect the chromosomes as well as the rest of the body, and that, if so, they can be inherited. Changes of temperature or of diet may possibly affect the chromosomes. Knowledge of these matters is still in its infancy.[p175]

7. Endocrine disruptors permanently alter the germ line of future generations through epigenetic inheritance

A landmark study published in Science in 2005 by Matthew Anway et al found that epigenetic changes induced by the fungicide vinclozolin, were heritable in mammals. This was confirmed by the authors in later studies.

Transgenerational effects of environmental toxins require either a chromosomal or epigenetic alteration in the germ line. Transient exposure of a gestating female rat during the period of gonadal sex determination to the endocrine disruptors vinclozolin (an antiandrogenic compound) or methoxychlor (an estrogenic compound) induced an adult phenotype in the F1 generation of decreased spermatogenic capacity (cell number and viability) and increased incidence of male infertility. These effects were transferred through the male germ line to nearly all males of all subsequent generations examined (that is, F1 to F4). The effects on reproduction correlate with altered DNA methylation patterns in the germ line. The ability of an environmental factor (for example, endocrine disruptor) to reprogram the germ line and to promote a transgenerational disease state has significant implications for evolutionary biology and disease etiology.[27]

The chemical used in the experiment, vinclozolin, is a fungicide introduced in Germany in 1976 by BASF. It is used on vines, fruit, and vegetables worldwide. Other studies have confirmed its potential to affect fertility in animals:

Our morphological results indicated that vinclozolin has morphological effects similar to those of MPA, feminizing males (hypospadias) and masculinizing females (longer urethras).[28]

8. Use of these chemicals suggests design more than accident


OurStolenFuture.org comments on a study on phthalates published in year 2000:

They found widespread exposure at troubling levels. Most problematic, the subgroup with the highest level of exposure was women of child-bearing age, just the people public health efforts should keep out of the path of reproductive toxicants.

What did they find? They found that the phthalate monoesters with the highest urinary levels were monoethyl phthalate (MEP), monobutyl phthalate (MBP) and monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP). The presence of these monester metabolites reflects exposure to diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Likely sources of these exposures are through cosmetics, including hair sprays, nail polishes and perfumes.

The exposure of women of child-bearing age is especially troubling, as these compounds are particularly known for their ability to interfere with fetal development, especially in males. There may be a tragic irony in the fact that one of the pathways of exposure, cosmetics, is targeted especially toward women of reproductive age. By using phthalate-containing compounds in the battle of the sexes, they could be undermining the future sexuality of their male offspring.[29]

Making babies’ bottles out of BPA

It is interesting that, given that the effects of endocrine disruptors on the development of infant mammals was considered in the mid 1930s, babies bottles have been mass produced in BPA polycarbonate.

Warming the bottle for the baby accelerates the leaching of BPA into the milk. According to a 2008 study published in the medical journal Toxicology Letters,

A team at the University of Cincinnati filled new and used bottles with water at room temperature for a week and then measured the concentration of BPA in the liquid. The bottles were then cleaned and filled with hot water. After 24 hours, the heated bottles were releasing BPA far more quickly – at a rate of 8 to 32 nanograms per hour, compared with just 0.2 to 0.8 nanograms per hour before heating.[30]

Significant proportion of exposure to endocrine disruptors is through food and drink packaging

The August 2009 edition of Science of The Total Environment identified 50 known endocrine disruptors in food packaging that contaminate the product inside. There are many other such contaminants yet to be indentified. Food contact materials were found to be a major source of food contaminants and at levels and combinations which were toxicologically relevant.[31]

In the last few years supermarkets started selling meat and fish that is vacuum suck-wrapped in plastic, increasing the surface area of plastic in contact with the food. Olive oil manufacturers have recently started selling olive oil in plastic instead of glass bottles.

The chemical PFOA has been associated with signifcant decrease in sperm count in humans. These chemicals are widespread in the environment but also happen to be in pizza boxes, popcorn bags, candy wrappers, and fast food bags.

Considerable levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid were found in all young men (medians of 24.5, 4.9, and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively). Men with high combined levels of PFOS and PFOA had a median of 6.2 million normal spermatozoa in their ejaculate in contrast to 15.5 million among men with low PFOS–PFOA (p = 0.030). In addition, we found nonsignificant trends with regard to lower sperm concentration, lower total sperm counts, and altered pituitary– gonadal hormones among men with high PFOS–PFOA levels.[32]

9. Regulatory action – or lack of it

The United Nations food regulatory body The Codex Alimentarius Commission allows the use of hundreds of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including vinclozolin.[33]

Codex also permits genetically modified foods. GM crops are designed to tolerate higher doses of of such chemicals.

In 1999, the European Commission set up a working group on endocrine disruptors. To date it has drawn up lists of chemicals to ‘monitor’ and ‘evaluate’ but hasn’t removed such chemicals from food packaging or placed signifcant restrictions on many implicated pesticides. The European Food Standards Agency recently confirmed that it would not ban BPA from food contact materials.[34]

The US Food and Drug Administration is under considerable pressure to ban BPA but has yet to do so.

FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.[35]

In 1992 scientists at Health and Welfare Canada published a study on foil laminate wrappers used to package butter and margarine.[36] They discovered that the plastic layer of the laminate leached phthalates into the food inside. A similar study in Britain was carried out in 1994 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.[37] It found extremely high levels of phthalates in some cheese samples and concluded that these could not have originated in the fat concentration process.

10. Simultaneous exposure to oestrogenic soy and obesogenic flavour enhancers

The mantra from the sustainable development movement is that meat is very resource intensive so eating soy protein instead is much more environmentally friendly. This oestrogenic food has also been promoted by governments. In 1990 the The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established.

for information about the oestrogenic effects of soy and its impact on fertility.

Is it a coincidence of no consequence that some infant formula is made out of soy, and might be served warmed up in bottles made of BPA?

What happens when soy is mixed with, for example, the fungicide vinclozolin?

The low-dose mixture and high-dose vinclozolin produced the most significant alterations in adults: decreased sperm counts, reduced sperm motion parameters, decreased litter sizes, and increased post implantation loss. Testicular mRNA expression profiles for these exposure conditions were strongly correlated.

Our study shows that chronic exposure to a mixture of a dose of a phytoestrogen equivalent to that in the human diet and a low dose—albeit not environmental—of a common anti-androgenic food contaminant may seriously affect the male reproductive tract and fertility.[38]

Dr Russell Blaylock is the author of Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills. He has examined the medical literature on food flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate and aspartame. One of the many serious health problems they are both linked to is gross obesity. Aspartame was licenced by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s and nearly every government food regulatory agency in the world now approves its use. It is difficult to find any processed food that does not contain at least one type of artificial flavour enhancer. What is the combined effect of obesogens in the form of endocrine disruptors in the food packaging and the pesticide residues, and obesogenic excitotoxins added to the food?

11. Corporations are aware of serious problems with processed foods but sell it anyway

In the mid 1990s, there was a TV cooking programme in Britain called The Two Fat Ladies. One of the presenters was Clarrisa Dickson Wright. Her godfather was the founder of the company that would become Unilever, the pioneer of hydrogenated fats and one of the biggest processed food and chemical companies in the world. The Daily Mail recently reported:

On my 18th birthday, my godfather made me make him a solemn vow. ‘Please, Clarissa,’ he said, ‘promise me that you will never, ever, ever eat margarine.’

I was a dutiful girl and fond of my godfather so was happy to oblige, but I did want to know why.

‘Clarissa, my dear,’ he replied solemnly, ‘you have no idea what goes into it.’

What’s important about this rather eccentric anecdote is that he did. For my godfather was Rudi Jurgens, scion of the Jurgens family, which back in the Twenties joined forces with the van den Berghs to form the Dutch company, Margarine Unie, which a few years later would merge with Lever Brothers and become Unilever. His family actually made the filthy stuff.[39]

Carroll Quigley mentions Unilever in Tragedy and Hope:

It is possible that the British vegetable-oil monopoly around Unilever was as powerful as the German monopoly around I.G. Farben, but, while much has been heard about the latter, very little is heard about the former. After an effort to study the former, Fortune magazine wrote, ”No other industry, perhaps, is quite so exasperatingly secretive as the soap and shortening industries.”[p513]

The trans-fatty acids in hydrogenated oils are now considered a major risk factor for heart disease, one of the biggest killer diseases in the developed world.


A common Freemasonic symbol is the beehive. As the higher-ups see it, this is the model for human society: the elite live in luxury ruling over contented worker bees. Alan Watt’s book Cutting Through Volume One provides some very useful and interesting information in this regard. Sir Charles Galton Darwin said that a beehive society might be created using chemicals which reduce fertility. The science of epigenetics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington also of Cambridge University after research at Caltech funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The ‘mother’ oestrogenic agent DES, was developed into a drug by Rockefeller-funded Chicago university and by several drug companies which included Rockefeller-controlled Squibb. In 1959 Chicago awarded honary degrees to Sir Charles Galton Darwin, Sir Julian Huxley, and Sir Charles Dodds, the discoverer of DES. In 1963 Joshua Lederberg coined the term ‘euphenics’ to describe the science of developmental engineering. He served as president of Rockefeller University 1978-90. The goals of the Rockefeller Foundation in the social and physical sciences was ‘social control’ and ‘human engineering’. Will governments use legislation to block public exposure and criticism of such activities?


1. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology, Lily E Kay. Oxford University Press, 1993.

2. The Challenge of Man’s Future, Harrison Brown. Viking Compass Edition 1956, twentieth printing 1971. First published by The Viking Press 1954.

3. Harrison Brown 1917—1986. A Biographical Memoir, Roger Revelle. National Academy of Sciences, 1994. http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/hbrown65.pdf

5. The Next Million Years, Charles Galton Darwin. Rupert Hart-Davis, 1952.

6. The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1931.

7. The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1952.

8. Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Carroll Quigley. First published by The Macmillan Company, 1966. Reprinted by CSG & Associates.

9. Transcript of the interview of Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin, 1982

10. Reflections and Warnings: An interview with Aaron Russo , Alex Jones productions. Available on YouTube – posted on the top right of the homepage of this website.

11. The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A “Safety” , Sarah Vogel. American Journal of Public Health S559-S566 November 2009, Vol 99, No. S3. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/99/S3/S559

12. Studies on prostatic cancer. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate, Huggins C, Hodges CV (1941). Cancer Res 1 (4): 293–7. Referred to in Carcinoma of the male breast with axillary metastasis following stilbestrol therapy report of a case treated by radical mastectomy, G.Y. Graves, MD., and H S Harris, MD. Annals of Surgery, 1952.

13. Building for a long future: The university of Chicago and its donors, 1889-1930 , University of Chicago website. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/excat/donors1.html#f

14. The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story, Hans Ruesch. http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html

15. Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine, Richard Gillam and Barton J. Bernstein. The Public Historian Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 57-82. University of California Press.(Available to purchase as PDF download from website)

16. Worse Than the Disease: Pitfalls of Medical Progress, Diana B. Dutton with contributions by Thomas A. Preston, Nancy E. Pfund. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

17. Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in males and gender-related disorders: Results from a 5-year study, Scott Kerlin. International Behavioral Development Symposium 2005.

18. Honary Degrees 1950-60, website of The University of Chicago

19. Munks Roll, biographical details for Sir Edward Charles Dodd, Royal College of Physicians

20. Mayor calls ASDA shoppers ‘mutants’, The Daily Telegraph, 29 July 2010

21. Fat, tattooed Britons are not ship shape, The Daily Telegraph, 21st September 2010.

22. Environmental oestrogens: organotins and endocrine disruption via nuclear receptor signaling. Grün F, Blumberg B.Endocrinology. 2006 Jun;147(6 Suppl):S50-5. Epub 2006 May 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16690801

23.Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling by environmental obesogens as emerging factors in the obesity crisis, Grün F, Blumberg B. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2007 Jun;8(2):161-71. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657605

24. Breakspear medical bulletin No 23, Winter 2010. http://www.breakspearmedical.com/files/publications.html

25. Hormones as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, Abigail L. Fowden and Alison J. Forhead. Experimental Physiology 94, June 2009.

26. Conrad Hal Waddington: The last Renaissance biologist, Jonathan Slack. Nature Reviews, November 2002, Vol 3.

This article was freely available from the website of the University of Sussex under URL


It was subsequently removed.

27. Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male Fertility, Matthew D. Anway et al. Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1466 – 1469.

28. Embryonic exposure to the fungicide vinclozolin causes virilization of females and alteration of progesterone receptor expression in vivo: an experimental study in mice, Jill Buckley et al, Environmental Health, Vol 5, 2006 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/4

29. Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population. Blount, BC, MJ Silva, SP Caudill, LL Needham, JL Pirkle, EJ Sampson, GW Lucier, RJ Jackson, JW Brock. Environmental Health Perspectives 2000: 108:979-982. Quoted at

30. Warming baby’s bottle could release ‘gender-bending’ chemicals, David Derbyshire, The Daily Mail, 30 January 2008

31. Exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds via the food chain: Is packaging a relevant source? Muncke J.Sci Total Environ. 2009 Aug 1;407(16):4549-59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482336

32. Do Perfluoroalkyl Compounds Impair Human Semen Quality?, Ulla Nordström Joensen et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(6) 2009. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=

33. The Alliance for Natural Health.

34. EU watchdog says no need to cut cap on BPA in food, Reuters, 30 Sept 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68T4KR20100930

36. Studies into the transfer and migration of phthalate esters from aluminium foil-paper laminates to butter and margarine, B. Denis Page; Gladys M. Lacroixa, Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, Ottawa Ontario. Food Addit Contam. 1992 May-Jun;9(3):197-212. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397395

37. Levels of di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and total phthalate esters in milk, cream, butter and cheese, Matthew Sharmana et al. Food Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Norwich, UK. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, Volume 11, Issue 3 May 1994, pp375–385.

38. Chronic Dietary Exposure to a Low-Dose Mixture of Genistein and Vinclozolin Modifies the Reproductive Axis, Testis Transcriptome, and Fertility, Florence Eustache, et al. Environ Health Perspect v.117(8); Aug 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721872/

39. Stop spreading lies and trying to ban butter, says TV’s fat lady, The Daily Mail, 19th Jan 2010.

Scans of selected pages (PDF files)

The Next Million Years  p1, p2

The Scientific Outlook p1, p2

The Impact of Science on Society p1

The Challenge of Man’s Future p1

Tragedy and Hope p1, p2

Worse than the disease p1, p2

Further information

Dr Mercola, 13th October 2010

The hazards of eating soy – soy infant formula should be illegal

Dr Mercola, 15th October 2010

Dr Mercola, 18th October 2010

Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This to Your Child – more compelling reasons to avoid soy infant formula

Comments are closed.