The Dark Truth About John D. Rockefeller

John D. Rockefeller Sr. is celebrated as one of the most influential figures in American history, revered for his role in shaping modern business and establishing an oil empire that defined the Industrial Age. Widely regarded as one of the richest individuals in history, Rockefeller’s name is synonymous with wealth, innovation, and philanthropy. However, beneath this veneer of success and generosity lies a much darker legacy—one that continues to shape American society and the world in troubling ways.

 

While many know of Rockefeller as a business titan and philanthropist, few are aware of the profound and insidious influence he wielded over key societal structures. From aggressively monopolizing the oil industry through ruthless business practices to shaping the American healthcare and food systems in ways that fostered dependency and control, Rockefeller’s reach extended far beyond Standard Oil. His business tactics, often described as predatory, led directly to the creation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, yet even this landmark legislation wasn’t successful in curbing his dominance.

 

Rockefeller’s role in inspiring philanthrocapitalism—where charitable efforts conveniently align with private interests—further reveals the complex and often exploitative nature of his legacy. Through leveraging his immense wealth to influence politicians, manipulate regulations, and secure favorable legislation, Rockefeller undermined democratic processes, leaving a legacy of corruption that’s still significant today.

 

Let’s take a deep dive into the dark side of Rockefeller’s history, exploring how his quest for power and control left a permanent mark on our society. From his manipulation of public systems to his exploitation of political influence, we will take a closer look into the hidden impact of Rockefeller’s legacy and how it continues to shape the world we live in.

 

 

Who Is John D. Rockefeller Sr.?

 

 

John Davison Rockefeller Sr. (July 8, 1839 – May 23, 1937) was an American industrialist and philanthropist, widely recognized as one of the wealthiest individuals in modern history and the world’s first confirmed billionaire. Born in Richford, New York, he was the second of six children to William Avery Rockefeller and Eliza Davison Rockefeller. His father, known as “Devil Bill,” was a con artist who supported the family by masquerading as a doctor and selling snake oil, opium elixirs, patent medications, and other cures. 

 

The family relocated frequently during his early years, eventually settling in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1853. There, Rockefeller attended Central High School and became an active member of the Erie Street Baptist Church, serving as a trustee by age 21.

 

In 1855, Rockefeller left high school to enroll in a business course at Folsom Mercantile College, which he completed in three months. He then secured a position as an assistant bookkeeper with Hewitt & Tuttle, a small firm of commission merchants and produce shippers. 

 

By 1859, with $1,000 in savings and an additional $1,000 loan from his father, he partnered with Maurice B. Clark to establish a commission business. That same year, the first American oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, marking the inception of the US petroleum industry.

 

Recognizing the immense opportunities in oil, Rockefeller and Clark, along with chemist Samuel Andrews, ventured into oil refining in 1863, forming Andrews, Clark & Co. In 1865, after disagreements among the partners, Rockefeller bought out Clark’s interest for $72,500 and established Rockefeller & Andrews. His strategic vision and business acumen led to rapid expansion, and in 1870, he co-founded the Standard Oil Company with his brother William, Henry M. Flagler, and others, capitalized at $1 million.

 

By 1872, Standard Oil had acquired nearly all refining firms in Cleveland and expanded into New York, refining 29,000 barrels of crude oil daily. The company integrated operations by manufacturing its own barrels, maintaining extensive storage facilities, and producing related products such as paints and glue. 

 

In 1882, these assets were consolidated into the Standard Oil Trust, with an initial capital of $70 million and 42 certificate holders. However, in 1892, the Ohio Supreme Court dissolved the trust for violating state antitrust laws, leading to its reorganization as a holding company—we’ll touch on this more in the next section.

 

Beyond his business endeavors, many still celebrate Rockefeller as a pioneering philanthropist due to his establishment of several foundations and personal donations of approximately $540 million to various causes, including education, public health, and scientific research.  

 

He married Laura Celestia “Cettie” Spelman in 1864, and they had five children. His son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., worked closely with him in the development of several philanthropic organizations. His grandson, John D. Rockefeller III, along with other family members, continued the family’s work. Rockefeller passed away on May 23, 1937, in Ormond Beach, Florida, at the age of 97.

 

Rockefeller’s Monopoly and Labor Practices

Now that we’ve explored Rockefeller’s rise from modest beginnings to his monumental success as the founder of Standard Oil, let’s begin uncovering the dark practices he utilized. Standard Oil’s dominance and Rockefeller’s business strategies became the foundation of one of the most powerful monopolies in history, eventually prompting landmark legal actions and setting a precedent for corporate regulation. 

 

Beyond his corporate practices, Rockefeller’s legacy is also marred by harsh labor practices, including violent confrontations with workers.

 

The Standard Oil Monopoly

 

 

Standard Oil was a vertical and horizontal integration model that allowed Rockefeller to dominate the oil industry. By the early 1900s, the company controlled roughly 90% of the oil refining, transportation, and distribution in the United States. 

 

Through strategies such as predatory pricing, secret rebates with railroads, and the acquisition of competitors, Rockefeller eliminated competition and solidified Standard Oil’s monopoly.

 

Timeline of Events (1901–1911):

 

• 1901: Standard Oil continued its aggressive expansion, buying out smaller competitors and negotiating exclusive contracts that prevented rival companies from gaining a foothold in the market.
• 1904: A federal investigation revealed the company’s monopolistic practices, including agreements with railroads to undercut competitors. The findings intensified public scrutiny.
• 1906: President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, committed to trust-busting and filed an antitrust lawsuit against Standard Oil under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
• 1909: The case reached the US Supreme Court, where evidence of Standard Oil’s monopolistic practices, including price-fixing and elimination of competition, was laid bare.
• 1911: The Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The company was ordered to dissolve into 34 smaller companies, including notable entities such as Exxon (originally Standard Oil of New Jersey) and Mobil (Standard Oil of New York).

 

The dissolution of Standard Oil was a watershed moment in US corporate law, establishing the federal government’s authority to regulate monopolies. Despite the breakup, Rockefeller profited immensely, as shares in the resulting companies skyrocketed in value. This left him wealthier than ever, even as his monopoly was dismantled.

 

Labor Practices

Rockefeller’s company became symbolic of the Gilded Age’s industrial expansion, characterized by aggressive business tactics that often marginalized competitors and exploited workers. Journalist Ida M. Tarbell’s investigative series, published between 1902 and 1904, meticulously detailed Standard Oil’s ruthless strategies, including predatory pricing, secret deals with railroads, and the systematic dismantling of rival businesses. Tarbell’s work illuminated the company’s monopoly and labor practices. 

 

Standard Oil’s labor practices added another dimension to Rockefeller’s controversial legacy. The company was notorious for its harsh treatment of workers, prioritizing profits over employee welfare. Workers faced long hours, dangerous conditions, and low wages, while the company actively suppressed labor unions to maintain control over its workforce.

 

The Ludlow Massacre

 

 

One of the darkest episodes associated with Rockefeller’s labor practices was the Ludlow Massacre in 1914. The incident occurred at a coal mine in Ludlow, Colorado, owned by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, a Rockefeller-controlled entity. Miners, many of whom were immigrants, had gone on strike to demand better pay, safer working conditions, and recognition of their union.

 

Tensions escalated when the company hired armed guards to break the strike, and the Colorado National Guard was brought in. On April 20, 1914, violence erupted when guards attacked a tent colony of striking workers and their families. The assault left over 20 people dead, including women and children who were burned and suffocated in a cellar dug underneath their tents. 

 

In the aftermath of the Ludlow Massacre, miners retaliated by attacking anti-union officials, strikebreakers, and mines, resulting in about 50 deaths and escalating tensions. President Woodrow Wilson intervened by deploying impartial federal troops, who restored order and prevented further violence. Although the strike ended with few tangible benefits for the workers, it significantly bolstered union membership, with the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) gaining 4,000 new members.

 

News of the Ludlow Massacre shocked the nation, leading to widespread criticism of Rockefeller and Standard Oil. He initially released a memorandum denying that there was a massacre and instead provided a long technical explanation of how the deaths resulted, stating, “the defenders of law and property… were in no slightest way responsible for it.” 

 

However, under immense pressure, Rockefeller hired public relations (PR) experts to rehabilitate his image and issued statements expressing regret while maintaining distance from the actions of his subsidiary. He later initiated reforms, including increased funding for worker housing and safety programs, but these efforts were widely viewed as too little, too late.

 

Legacy of Exploitation

Rockefeller’s labor practices reflected the broader industrial practices of the time, where workers were often viewed as expendable. However, the Ludlow Massacre and other incidents remain significant in the history of labor rights, serving as grim reminders of the human cost of corporate greed and the exploitation of power.

 

Together, Standard Oil’s monopoly and Rockefeller’s labor practices reveal a troubling side of his legacy—one characterized by the pursuit of dominance at the expense of fair competition and worker welfare. 

 

As we dive deeper into Rockefeller’s impact, these events serve as stark reminders of the ethical complexities behind his immense success.

 

From Oil to Other Industries

Rockefeller’s monopolistic practices and profit-driven mindset were not confined to the oil industry—they became a blueprint for his ventures into other sectors, leaving a lasting impact across American industry and the world at large. 

 

From education to healthcare, agriculture to banking, Rockefeller’s influence extended far beyond Standard Oil, reshaping the foundations of these systems to support his vision of centralized control and profit maximization. 

 

Many remain unaware of the extent to which his strategies shaped these industries, creating structures that continue to influence society and the economy today. Let’s explore how Rockefeller’s reach extended into these diverse sectors.

 

Rockefeller’s Revolutionary PR Strategy and Subsequent News Capture

The Ludlow Massacre in 1914 marked a turning point in Rockefeller’s public image. The violent clash between striking miners and company-controlled forces left Rockefeller’s reputation in tatters, portraying him as a ruthless industrialist indifferent to worker suffering. 

 

Recognizing the growing public outrage, Rockefeller pioneered an innovative public relations strategy to repair his image and regain public favor. This strategy salvaged his reputation and also set the stage for modern corporate PR practices, embedding a template for media manipulation and narrative control.

 

In the aftermath of the massacre, Rockefeller hired Joseph Clarke, a full-time press agent and former editor of the New York Herald. This move was highly unusual for the time, as industrial magnates rarely engaged directly with the press. Clarke’s primary task was to manage Rockefeller’s media interactions, “buttering up” reporters by building rapport and crafting favorable narratives before they interviewed Rockefeller. 

 

Additionally, Rockefeller began using press releases to directly address criticisms of the Ludlow Massacre, reframing the incident and attempting to shift the focus to his philanthropic activities.

 

The Role of Ivy Lee

 

 

Ivy Lee, often called the father of modern public relations, was later brought on to refine and expand Rockefeller’s PR strategy. Lee implemented groundbreaking practices, including the concept of “publicity with a purpose,” which sought to humanize Rockefeller and his business empire. 

 

Lee’s strategy supported direct engagement with journalists, ensuring Rockefeller appeared accessible and compassionate. He orchestrated carefully curated public appearances, including photo opportunities of Rockefeller handing out dimes to children, to curate an image of benevolence. These efforts were meant to transform Rockefeller’s public persona from that of a cold industrialist to a generous philanthropist committed to public welfare.

 

Lee’s collaboration with the Rockefeller family extended beyond immediate public relations crises, significantly influencing the family’s long-term philanthropic and business strategies. He played a crucial role in the development of Rockefeller Center, advising Rockefeller Jr. to name the complex after the family, thereby cementing their legacy in New York City’s architectural and cultural landscape. 

 

Lee’s influence also reached into the family’s philanthropic endeavors. He was instrumental in establishing the American Petroleum Institute in 1919, the first industry-wide PR group, which helped shape public perception of the oil industry.

 

Lee’s work with IG Farben, a German chemical company, and his interactions with Nazi officials in the 1930s raised ethical concerns. He advised the Nazi regime on public relations, suggesting they build relationships with the foreign press. This led to his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1934, scrutinizing his involvement in Nazi propaganda. We’ll touch on this more later as Lee’s relationship with IG Farben was strategically a part of Rockefeller’s partnership with the chemical company. 

 

Through his extensive work with the Rockefellers, Lee also laid the groundwork for modern public relations practices. His strategies in crisis management, supposed corporate transparency, and media engagement have become foundational elements in the field of public relations.

 

Criticisms of Rockefeller’s PR Strategy

This PR campaign was not without criticism. Many viewed it as manipulative and insincere, a calculated effort to distract from the harsh realities of Rockefeller’s labor practices and monopolistic tactics. Critics argued that while Rockefeller’s image softened in the public eye, the underlying systems of exploitation and corporate control remained unchanged. 

 

Additionally, his influence over media narratives raised concerns about the broader implications of corporate involvement in journalism, with accusations of news capture as Rockefeller’s financial power enabled him to continually shape press coverage to his advantage.

 

The historical significance of Rockefeller’s PR strategy extends far beyond his lifetime. His revolutionary approach to managing public opinion became a blueprint for corporate communications in progressive America, paving the way for companies to control their narratives and mitigate public backlash through strategic PR efforts. 

 

However, this legacy is a double-edged sword, as it highlights how corporations can manipulate public perception, often at the expense of transparency and accountability. Rockefeller’s venture into public relations both reshaped his image and established a playbook that corporations continue to use to influence public discourse and media narratives today.

 

How Rockefeller Shaped the American Educational System

One of the cornerstone elements of Rockefeller’s PR strategy was the focus on his philanthropic contributions, particularly in education. Through showcasing his role in funding and reforming educational institutions, Rockefeller sought to redirect public attention from the controversies surrounding his business practices to his investments in societal progress. However, these educational initiatives were not without deeper motivations.

 

The General Education Board

 

 

Rockefeller’s influence on the American educational system has been a subject of extensive analysis and debate. While his philanthropic efforts, particularly through the General Education Board (GEB), were marketed to advance education across the United States, they also reflected the industrialist’s vision of a workforce tailored to the needs of a rapidly industrializing nation.

 

The GEB, established in 1902 with substantial funding from Rockefeller, sought to promote education “without distinction of race, sex, or creed.” However, the Board’s approach often prioritized vocational training over liberal arts education, especially in rural and underserved areas. This focus was aligned with the industrial era’s demand for a disciplined and skilled labor force, potentially at the expense of fostering critical thinking and intellectual exploration.

 

Through the GEB, he implemented a standardized model of education that, while efficient on the surface, likely carried a deeper agenda.

 

The Standardized Education Model

 

 

While this standardization was marketed to improve efficiency and progress, it prioritized rote memorization over critical thinking, producing compliant and obedient workers suited for factory jobs. This system suppressed creativity and intellectual independence, effectively limiting innovation and the development of independent thought.

 

Beyond standardization, Rockefeller’s influence actively silenced alternative educational models that encouraged critical thinking and individualism. Progressive approaches that fostered autonomy were sidelined in favor of a curriculum that supported industrial interests. 

 

Rockefeller’s investment in education appears to be a calculated move to ensure his economic dominance by shaping a workforce that would fuel his industries without questioning the status quo. 

 

This strategic approach ensured a steady labor force that remained dependent on the industrial system, reinforcing Rockefeller’s economic empire. Far from empowering individuals, his reforms helped maintain control over society by shaping education to serve the interests of the industrial elite rather than the broader public.

 

Frederick T. Gates, a key advisor to Rockefeller and a prominent member of the GEB, articulated this philosophy in “The Country School of To-Morrow,” stating:

 

” In our dream, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from their minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply…The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are… So we will organize our children into a little community and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.” (You can read the full page here.)

 

This perspective supports the intent to shape education in a way that prepares individuals for specific roles within the existing social and economic order, rather than encouraging broad intellectual development.

 

Criticisms of the Standardized Education Model

 

 

It is argued that such an educational model stifles creativity and critical thinking, producing individuals suited for repetitive tasks rather than innovative endeavors. 

 

One of the most widely circulated quotes attributed to Rockefeller is, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” This statement is often used to illustrate Rockefeller’s alleged intention to shape the American educational system into one that prioritized creating a compliant workforce over fostering intellectual independence. The quote gained prominence when Jim Marrs, an investigative journalist, cited it in the 2006 documentary One Nation Under Siege.

 

However, it’s important to note that no primary source or verifiable record has been found to corroborate or dismiss Rockefeller making this statement. 

 

Even without definitive proof of the quote’s origins, its association with Rockefeller illuminates ongoing critiques of his role in shaping the educational system. Through the GEB and other philanthropic efforts, Rockefeller promoted a model of education that focused solely on the vocational training and development of a disciplined workforce, which may have made sense at the time for the industrial economy’s needs. 

 

While Rockefeller’s contributions may have led to advancements in educational infrastructure and access, particularly in underserved regions, they also reinforced a system that prioritized industrial efficiency over individual intellectual growth. 

 

Rockefeller’s Vision for Medical Education

What’s most troubling is that knowing Rockefeller’s past with exploitative labor practices and the Ludlow Massacre, he extended his reformist vision into the medical field under the guise of standardizing and improving medical education across the United States. Through the GEB, Rockefeller allegedly sought to address the inconsistencies and deficiencies prevalent in medical training during the early 20th century. 

 

However, Rockefeller leveraged his wealth and influence to transform medicine into a profit-driven industry, marginalizing natural healing practices in favor of pharmaceuticals. At the time, holistic and natural remedies were widespread and had been used for thousands of years, offering low-cost and accessible treatments. Nonetheless, these modalities were incompatible with Rockefeller’s vision of a patented, profit-centered medical system.

 

In addition to Rockefeller’s substantial personal donations to the GEB, he simultaneously provided significant grants to scientists for identifying active chemicals in disease-curing plants utilized by the traditional doctors that his initiatives removed from practice. Rockefeller chemists could then synthesize and patent petrochemical versions of these molecules. 

 

Faced with these innovations along with an overabundance of petrochemical byproducts from his oil empire, Rockefeller saw an opportunity to repurpose industrial waste into many consumer products including pharmaceuticals, creating an entirely new industry. 

 

To cement this shift, he commissioned the Flexner Report in 1910, a document that drastically redefined American medicine. 

 

To further advance his philanthrocapitalist initiatives, Rockefeller and his family founded the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913. The Rockefeller Foundation’s early work enabled his vision through calculated donations and is still a significant, active contributor in the space today.

 

The Flexner Report

 

 

Rockefeller’s vision for medical education was closely tied to the controversial 1910 Flexner Report, a project funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie Foundation, founded by steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, was a precursor to the Rockefeller Foundation in philanthropic efforts with ties to reforming key societal structures. 

 

Like Rockefeller, Carnegie faced criticism for his business practices, including his anti-union stance, harsh treatment of workers, and promotion of social Darwinism, which justified socioeconomic inequality as a natural order. His philanthropy and paternalistic approach were often seen as efforts to consolidate his legacy while masking the exploitative aspects of his business empire.

 

The Carnegie Foundation’s president, Henry Pritchett, commissioned Abraham Flexner, a former operator of a for-profit school with no formal medical, scientific, or educational training, to conduct a comprehensive review of medical education in North America. Despite holding only a Bachelor of Arts degree, Flexner was tasked with visiting all 155 medical schools in operation and was expected to evaluate them with authority and accuracy.

 

His mission was to assess how these schools differed in curricula, admission standards, methods of teaching, and graduation requirements. Despite his lack of qualifications, Flexner’s work resulted in a report that profoundly reshaped the medical field.

 

Criticisms of the Flexner Report

The Flexner Report, officially titled Medical Education in the United States and Canada, supposedly endorsed a highly scientific, research-based model of medical education. Schools that adhered to rigorous academic standards, particularly those affiliated with universities, were praised, while others—especially smaller, alternative medicine schools—were labeled as substandard and unscientific. The report’s recommendations called for the closure of poorly funded institutions, many of which catered to women, minorities, and alternative medicine practitioners.

 

The Flexner Report reshaped medical education and facilitated a broader impact of healthcare into a pharmaceutical-centered industry dominated by petrochemical giants. The Rockefeller family strategically directed funding to universities and medical schools that solely prioritized drug-based research, ensuring these institutions supported their vision of a profit-driven healthcare system.

 

 

The report recommended centralizing America’s medical schooling, abolishing miasma theory, instead promoting germ theory—which supported that germs alone cause disease, and focusing on pharmaceutical intervention targeting certain drugs. Miasma theory supports preventing disease by strengthening the immune system through fundamental nutrition practices and reducing exposure to environmental toxins and stresses.

 

 

Establishments that pursued alternative or natural healing methods, often based on miasma theory, were systematically excluded from funding, leading to their dissolution in favor of pharmaceutical-focused facilities. At that time, nearly half the physicians and medical schools in the US practiced holistic or herbal medicine. This policy extended internationally through initiatives such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Education Board, which promoted drug-based research in foreign universities and medical schools.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation played a crucial role in implementing the Flexner Report’s recommendations. As the largest donor, the Rockefeller Foundation raised over $500 million to support the establishment and growth of scientific medical schools that aligned with Flexner’s vision. 

 

This funding enabled these schools to modernize their facilities, hire faculty trained in germ theory scientific methods, and adopt the recommendations Flexner had championed. However, this financial backing also solidified Rockefeller’s influence over the medical field, ensuring it supported his vision of a profit-driven, allopathic medical system.

 

The Impact on Alternative Healthcare

By focusing solely on its self-proposed guidelines for scientific research and clinical practice, the report marginalized alternative medicine practices, which Flexner referred to as “vigorous competition” to modern medicine.

 

These included osteopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, electrotherapy, eclectic medicine, naturopathy, and homeopathy. As a result, many alternative medicine schools were forced to close, their curricula were banned from mainstream medical schools, and public perception shifted to view these practices as inferior or fraudulent.

 

With Rockefeller’s support, the report labeled holistic medicine as “unscientific quackery,” leading Congress to reform or shut down medical schools teaching natural practices. Only institutions adopting an allopathic, drug-based curriculum received Rockefeller’s funding, effectively sidelining root-cause healing methods in favor of symptom management through drugs and surgeries.

 

This contributed to the dominance of allopathic medicine and the exclusion of holistic and preventive approaches from the American healthcare system. The report also disproportionately affected medical schools serving marginalized communities, leading to a decline in educational opportunities for women and minorities in medicine. 

 

The Flexner Report and Deweyan Pragmatism

Additionally, Flexner drew heavily on the principles of Deweyan Pragmatism, advocating for a scientific approach that merged theory and practice, uniting physicians and investigators under a shared experimental paradigm. 

 

He envisioned medicine as rooted in continuous inquiry rather than static knowledge, supposedly intended to elevate the role of the physician to one who practices medicine and also contributes to its scientific evolution. However, this point along with the broad philosophical framework have often been overlooked in favor of a narrower administrative interpretation of his reforms.

 

Concerns about Deweyan Pragmatism in the medical system surround the lack of clear criteria for truth, reliance on subjective and immediate experience, and insufficient attention to broader historical and cultural contexts. It also can overlook how existing power structures and dominant ideologies shape social reality, leading to a lack of critical engagement with issues of oppression and inequality. 

 

Dewey’s focus on the unity of inquiry and the application of scientific methods to social and political issues can blur the lines between scientific inquiry and political advocacy, potentially undermining the integrity of both. It is arguable that we are currently experiencing the aftermath of these consequences. 

 

While Flexner’s positioning with Dewey’s principles provided a coherent philosophical underpinning, the practical outcomes of his report often reflected the socioeconomic and institutional power dynamics of his time, contributing to long-lasting disparities in access and representation within the medical profession.

 

How the Flexner Report Still Impacts America Today

 

 

The sidelining of alternative medicine created a system heavily reliant on pharmaceutical treatments and surgical interventions, which is alleged to support Rockefeller’s broader industrial and economic interests.

 

The report’s impact still resonates today, shaping not only how physicians are trained but also the very structure and priorities of the healthcare system. Instead of viewing the body as a whole interconnected system, it led to the compartmentalization of medical practice, with specialists focusing on specific body parts or systems, often neglecting the broader, holistic perspective of health.

 

It has narrowed the scope of acceptable medical practices while dismissing root-cause healing practices, largely imparting the chronic illness epidemic in the US we see today. We’ll touch on this more later on.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation

 

 

The Flexner Report was a catalyst for reshaping medical education in North America, and its success was deeply tied to the GEB. The GEB not only financed Flexner’s groundbreaking work but also brought him on board after the report’s publication, where he became instrumental in guiding education and healthcare reforms. 

 

This connection eventually led to the involvement of the Rockefeller Foundation, which expanded upon the GEB’s mission and provided significant resources to implement Flexner’s recommendations on a broader scale.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation, established in 1913, was the culmination of Rockefeller’s vision for global philanthropy. Its formation reflected Rockefeller’s desire to use his immense wealth to systematically address global challenges, with education and healthcare as primary focus areas. 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation was built upon the groundwork laid by earlier Rockefeller-funded initiatives, such as the GEB and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), which were marketed to prioritize scientific advancement and societal improvement. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was instrumental in pioneering various drugs that would become the foundation of the pharmaceutical industry. 

 

Interestingly, as philanthropic foundations were revolutionary of the era, criticisms of the Rockefeller Foundation often included tax evasion. A congressional investigation described the Rockefeller Foundation as a self-serving artifice presenting “a menace to the future political and economic welfare of the nation.”  

 

Between 1913 and 1929, the GEB allocated millions to 25 medical schools. In its early years, the Rockefeller Foundation also invested heavily in medical education. Outside of the $500 million funding for Flexnor’s vision, the GEB and the Rockefeller Foundation donated an additional $78 million towards supporting scientific medical schools and programs that complied with Flexner’s vision. 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s investments brought about many improvements, including better facilities and, at face value, a focus on evidence-based medicine. 

 

However, these contributions also cemented Flexner’s philosophies, which carried notable downsides. This shift both marginalized alternative approaches and compartmentalized the body into isolated specialties, fostering a healthcare system heavily reliant on pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions. Preventive care and root-cause healing were sidelined, further distancing medicine from a holistic understanding of health.

 

While his medical education philanthropic efforts have a veneer of positive intent, his influence on the broader healthcare industry challenges these notions.

 

Rockefeller’s Significant Impact on Our Healthcare System and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Rockefeller’s strategic capture of medical education, medical schools, and government healthcare regulation not only secured his financial interests but also laid the groundwork for a global medical model centered on disease management rather than prevention.

 

The Drug Trust Alliance

 

 

In 1939, this pharmaceutical dominance culminated in the formation of a “Drug Trust” alliance between the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben. IG Farben was a German chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate formed in 1925, known for being one of the largest and most powerful corporations of its time. 

 

The company played a significant role in World War II, notorious for its collaboration with the Nazi regime. IG Farben was a key supplier of synthetic fuels, rubber, and chemicals for the German war effort and produced the deadly Zyklon B gas used in Nazi concentration camps. 

 

The corporation profited heavily from forced labor, including prisoners from Auschwitz, where it constructed and operated a massive factory. After the war, IG Farben was dismantled during the Nuremberg Trials due to its complicity in war crimes, but its legacy persisted as its subsidiaries, including Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst (now part of Sanofi), reemerged as independent entities. Alleged connections to IG Farben post-WWII dismantlement also emerged in a network of major corporations, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Procter & Gamble, and continued their partnership with the Rockefellers.

 

Remember Rockefeller’s PR strategist Ivy Lee? 

 

As mentioned previously, Lee was hired by IG Farben in 1929. Lee represented IG Farben’s Berline headquarters with the directive to mitigate anti-German sentiments in the US following the Nazi Party’s rise to power in 1933. Despite his touted commitment to transparency, Lee’s involvement with the Nazi regime positioned him as a covert propagandist, contradicting his own warnings against undisclosed sources. Upon recognizing the implications of his actions, Lee advised IG Farben to sever ties with the Nazi Party.   

 

The Consequences of the Drug Trust Alliance

 

 

The Rockefeller empire, working in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), came to control over half of the US pharmaceutical industry, establishing itself as the largest drug manufacturing entity in the world. David Rockefeller, son of Rockefeller Jr., happened to serve as the chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969 to 1980.  

 

By leveraging media and advertising—dominating 80% of the ad spend for large drug companies as early as 1948—the Rockefeller interests also played a critical role in shaping public perception of healthcare, solidifying the pharmaceutical industry as the second-largest manufacturing sector globally, after arms production. 

 

This legacy of influence showcases the extent to which the Flexner Report and Rockefeller-led initiatives laid the groundwork for a healthcare system centered on pharmaceuticals rather than holistic, preventive care.

 

 

Today, the United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet we have the worst outcomes overall of any high-income nation. Chronic disease is rampant:

 

• 73% of American adults are overweight including 42% who are obese
• 6 in 10 adults have at least one chronic illness
• More than 40% of school-aged children and adolescents have at least one chronic health condition
• Two-thirds of Americans suffer from gut issues
• 48.6% of adults have some form of cardiovascular disease

 

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry, now a $1.6 trillion global behemoth, owes much of its existence to Rockefeller’s early efforts to transform petrochemicals into patented drugs.

 

Petrochemical Byproducts

 

 

Circling back to Rockefeller’s overabundance of petrochemical byproducts, let’s take a closer look at what crude oil and petroleum products are and how these can be problematic for health. 

Crude oil is a liquid fossil fuel composed of hydrocarbons formed from ancient plants and animals over millions of years. Crude oil is the raw material for many fuels and products found in underground reservoirs, sedimentary rocks, and near the surface in tar sands. Petroleum products, derived from crude oil and natural gas, can also be created from coal, natural gas, and biomass.

Once extracted, crude oil is processed in refineries, where it is separated into various usable petroleum products. These include gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, lubricating oils, asphalt, and petrochemical feedstocks. Remarkably, a 42-gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products due to refinery processing gains, similar to how popcorn expands when popped.

Petroleum products are now prevalent in today’s society, and there are over 6,000 everyday products and technologies. They’re utilized for transportation fuels, heating, electricity generation, road construction, processed food ingredients, medications, and manufacturing chemicals and plastics found in everyday items. You can find a list of these everyday products here.

 

The Health Risks of Petrochemicals

 

 

The widespread use of petroleum-based chemicals, which surged during the postwar era, has created a significant and under-acknowledged public health crisis. These petrochemicals, found in everything from plastics to pesticides, cosmetics, food packaging, and even medications, have been linked to an alarming rise in chronic and life-threatening conditions. 

 

A recent review in the New England Journal of Medicine highlighted connections between fossil fuel-derived endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and health issues such as abnormal neurodevelopment, fertility problems, early-onset diabetes, obesity, liver disease, and various cancers. 

 

These chemicals interfere with hormones that regulate critical body functions, and even tiny exposures during key developmental stages can have long-lasting impacts, including congenital birth defects and neurological impairments.

 

As petrochemical production continues to soar—now 15 times higher than in the 1950s—evidence of their harmful effects mounts. Yet, only 5% of the 350,000 chemicals approved for use globally have undergone rigorous safety testing. 

 

Research indicates that chemical pollution from fossil fuels contributes to at least 1.8 million deaths annually worldwide, and rates of diseases such as diabetes, respiratory disorders, and cancer have risen by up to 150% since these chemicals became pervasive.

 

A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of Rockefeller’s overall strategy to gain control over the medical system and dominate the pharmaceutical industry through his Drug Trust Alliance and expansion of petrochemical products into the space lies in his extensive donations and strategic partnerships with public health organizations. 

 

Rockefeller and his family used his existing PR strategies as a blueprint to capture these institutions and manipulate public opinion for his profit.

 

Rockefeller’s Ongoing Relationships With Public Health Organizations and Foundation Initiatives

Through presenting himself as a benefactor dedicated to improving public health, Rockefeller and his empire used its vast wealth to support influential institutions and promote a narrative that touted the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs, petrochemical byproducts, and the new standardized healthcare model made possible by the Flexner Report.

 

Rockefeller Partnerships and Donations

 

 

With the Rockefeller Foundation still active today, its past and present contributions continue to shape our healthcare landscape. Here is an overview of the controversial relationships:

 

National Research Council

The Rockefeller Foundation has donated over $4.5 million since 1919 to the National Research Council (NRC), the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences. While the agency has produced important research, it has also been involved in several controversies, particularly concerning its dietary recommendations. The NRC allegedly sometimes omits evidence that contradicts long-standing nutritional advice, which leads to questions about the objectivity of these guidelines.  

 

The NRC has also been scrutinized for its sodium intake reports and front-of-package labeling. In 2019, the NRD updated the Dietary Reference Intakes for sodium and potassium, encouraging sodium intake to be less than 2300 mg/day. Its recommendation supports the misconception that high sodium directly correlates with high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease from poor epidemiology studies. 

 

The NRC’s recommendations on front-of-package (FOP) nutritional labeling, designed to help consumers make healthier food choices, have often been exploited by food manufacturers. Additionally, these healthy food recommendations are based on corrupt and falsified dietary guidelines.

 

Population Council

In 1958, the Rockefeller Foundation began issuing grants to the Population Council, funding a total of more than $40 million over the next 39 years. The nonprofit organization was founded by John D. Rockefeller III. 

 

The Population Council is known for its contributions to reproductive health, particularly the development of several widely used contraceptives, including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants. While the Council’s innovations have played a significant role in expanding access to birth control globally, its work has not been without controversy.

 

Critics argue that the Population Council has overlooked the health risks and side effects of some contraceptives, leaving many women and healthcare providers underinformed. This lack of patient transparency raises ethical concerns, especially given the widespread use of birth control today.

 

The organization has also faced scrutiny over its funding sources, including support from the Ford Foundation. These financial ties have sparked debates about potential conflicts of interest and the prioritization of population control agendas over individual health and well-being.

 

China Medical Board

The China Medical Board (CMB) was the second major program of the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation granted $10 million to the CMB in 1947 to modernize medical education and improve medical practice in China. 

 

This showcases Rockefeller’s alleged intentions of standardizing his allopathic care model and focuses on germ theory beyond the US and the potential pursuit of his medical industry monopolization globally. 

 

American Cancer Society

Rockefeller Jr. provided the initial funding to form the nonprofit organization the American Cancer Society (ACS). The ACS was founded the same year the Rockefeller Foundation was incorporated in 1913. 

 

The origins and operations of the American Cancer Society (ACS) are closely tied to the influence of the Rockefeller family and the broader pharmaceutical industry. Originally established with a business-driven approach, the ACS has faced criticism for allegedly prioritizing profit over advancing effective cancer treatments. Research indicates that metabolic therapy, particularly with targeted glutamine medications, can be as effective—or even more so—than traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. Yet, there is no mention of these promising metabolic therapy approaches from the American Cancer Society, raising concerns about whether the organization is truly committed to advancing all potential avenues of cancer treatment. This omission has led many to question whether financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry discourage the ACS from promoting therapies that fall outside the scope of conventional, high-revenue treatment models.

 

The ACS’ substantial funding far exceeds that of smaller, independent cancer research organizations, which reportedly achieve much higher cure rates. Questions about the ACS’ impartiality and dedication to exploring non-pharmaceutical cancer treatments have been fueled by its pharmaceutical sponsors, many of whom trace their roots to the Rockefeller legacy. Critics argue that this close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry perpetuates a focus on treatments that generate profit rather than prioritizing innovative or alternative therapies that may offer greater hope for patients.

 

You can read more in-depth about the ACS’s problematic practices in this 100-page report.

 

World Health Organization

The partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) has been a source of significant controversy, particularly regarding the Rockefeller Foundation’s early influence on the WHO’s formation and its ongoing role in shaping the organization’s policies. 

 

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division played a crucial role in establishing the WHO’s approach to disease control. Drawing on its own methods and priorities, the Rockefeller Foundation helped design the WHO’s focus on large-scale vaccination campaigns and disease eradication strategies. This influence set the tone for the WHO’s agenda and also raised concerns about the organization’s independence. Critics argue that the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement heavily aligned the WHO’s objectives with the Rockefeller Foundation’s own global health strategies, potentially limiting the WHO’s ability to develop policies tailored to the unique needs of diverse regions. The overlap between the Rockefeller Foundation’s interests and the WHO’s priorities has led some to believe that the Rockefeller Foundation had an outsized and potentially self-serving role in steering global health policy.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation has provided significant financial support to the WHO, granting more than $25.6 million since 2000, which has sparked criticism about potential conflicts of interest. The Rockefeller Foundation’s deep ties to pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have led to suspicions that its funding may sway the WHO’s policies, particularly in areas such as vaccination programs and global health priorities. Critics argue that this could prioritize corporate interests over equitable healthcare solutions.

 

Compounding these issues is the lack of transparency surrounding the partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the WHO. Limited public disclosure about the nature of their collaboration has fueled skepticism about whether the WHO can act independently of powerful private interests, particularly those with a history of shaping global health agendas to align with their financial and ideological goals.

 

United Nations

The Rockefeller Foundation has maintained a longstanding relationship with the United Nations (UN), dating back to the 1930s. This partnership has seen the Rockefeller Foundation support numerous UN initiatives and programs, including significant contributions to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). While the collaboration has advanced many global development goals, it has also been surrounded by controversies related to the Rockefeller Foundation’s influence over the UN’s agenda and funding priorities.

 

One notable controversy involves the 100 Resilient Cities Program, launched in 2013 with the goal of helping cities build resilience to climate change and other shocks. Critics argue that the program prioritized business-friendly solutions over community-led initiatives, focusing heavily on promoting a climate change narrative while failing to incorporate historical data on global warming into its strategies. These tactics have led to concerns that the program emphasized corporate interests and technical solutions at the expense of addressing the broader social and historical context of urban vulnerabilities.

 

Over the decades, the Rockefeller Foundation has funneled millions into UN initiatives, a commitment exemplified by the 1947 gift of $8.5 million from Rockefeller III to purchase the land for the UN headquarters in New York City. While this and other contributions have supported the UN’s growth and global impact, they have also raised concerns about transparency and the alignment of funding priorities with grassroots needs.

 

The partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the UN has undoubtedly shaped global development agendas, but the lack of openness about decision-making processes and the potential influence of corporate and elite interests continue to fuel skepticism.

 

Children’s Vaccine Initiative

The Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI) is another global health effort in which the Rockefeller Foundation played an instrumental role. The initiative was established to improve access to vaccines for children, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, with the stated goal of increasing immunization rates and developing new vaccines for diseases disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. While the CVI has been credited with advancing vaccine technology and distribution, its association with the Rockefeller Foundation raises concerns.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation has a long history of involvement in vaccine development, including its infamous role in creating the yellow fever vaccine. However, the yellow fever vaccine effort, though widely celebrated, has been criticized for its underlying scandals and the harm it caused—issues we will explore in greater depth later on. 

 

It has also been revealed that the Rockefeller Foundation funded many research projects into the development of anti-fertility vaccines dating back to 1968. Reports have emerged accusing the Rockefeller Foundation, alongside other global organizations, of involvement in vaccine initiatives where women in developing countries unknowingly received tetanus vaccines laced with the anti-fertility hormone hCG. This troubling history casts a shadow over the Rockefeller Foundation’s ongoing involvement in vaccine initiatives.

 

Additionally, the Rockefeller Foundation’s deep ties to pharmaceutical companies, including those involved in vaccine production, add to the skepticism surrounding the CVI. 

 

To provide some perspective regarding some of the vaccine controversies, the US has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates out of any other high-income country despite spending the most on healthcare. The infant mortality rate generally trended downward but increased for the first time in decades in 2022. 

 

Interestingly, prior to this significant increase, the US infant mortality rate briefly decreased between February and August of 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when babies weren’t getting vaccinated because of hospital regulations limiting viral exposure. 

 

There are many possibilities why our infant mortality rates are worse compared to the rest of the world but one probable cause is the increase of childhood vaccines. And while the infant mortality rate trended downward for the previous two decades prior to 2022, our mortality rate was still comparably the worst among high-income countries. Research shows a correlation between increased risk of development delays, asthma, ear infections, and gastrointestinal disorders in vaccinated children between 2005 and 2015. The study also found that the number of vaccines received and vaccination status early in life were related to different acute and chronic conditions. 

 

The childhood vaccine schedule in the US has drastically changed over the last 20 years, with new vaccines added and existing recommendations updated. For example, one of the updates includes a hepatitis B vaccination given within 24 hours of birth despite the fact that hepatitis B is only transmitted through sexual contact, sharing needles, or an infected mother at birth (mothers are pre-screened for hepatitis B during each pregnancy).  

   

The Rockefeller Foundation’s influence in shaping vaccine priorities and its history of pharmaceutical controversies raise questions about the true intent of this partnership. It’s arguable that the initiative could be driven more by corporate and profit-oriented motives than by the altruistic aim of improving global health.

 

Given the Rockefeller empire’s significant control over pharmaceutical research and production, along with its track record of scandals, the CVI has been viewed by some as another potential avenue for consolidating power under the guise of philanthropy.

 

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

 

 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), one of the world’s largest philanthropic organizations, has faced numerous criticisms over its partnerships and initiatives, particularly its long-standing collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation. Since the founding of the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates has been coordinating his own foundation’s initiatives with the Rockefeller Foundation. 

 

Since 2006, the two foundations have partnered on multiple initiatives, most notably the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a controversial effort to increase agricultural productivity through the promotion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial farming methods. While these initiatives claim to address food insecurity and improve livelihoods, they also happen to prioritize corporate interests and technological solutions over sustainable, community-led agricultural practices. 

 

Shared Influence in Global Policies

The Rockefeller Foundation and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wield significant influence in shaping global health and agriculture policies, leveraging their financial power to steer decision-making in their favor. Critics contend that these foundations have blurred the lines between philanthropy and profit, pushing corporate-friendly solutions under the guise of humanitarian aid. 

 

Their partnerships often focus solely on industrial agriculture, patented seeds, and GMOs, which may be viewed as a method of consolidating corporate control over food systems, rather than empowering smallholder farmers or addressing systemic inequities in food production.

 

Controversies Surrounding the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been embroiled in numerous controversies, with many observers arguing that its actions closely mirror those of the Rockefeller Foundation in advancing capitalistic interests disguised as philanthropic efforts. The following are some of the most prominent criticisms:

 

1. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
Despite its massive influence, the Gates Foundation has been criticized for its lack of transparency in funding and decision-making. Its tax-exempt status allows it to operate with minimal oversight while directing billions of dollars toward projects and corporations that align with its goals, raising questions about accountability.

 

2. Corporate Partnerships and Funding Priorities
The Gates Foundation frequently donates large sums to private corporations, including news and media outlets, food companies, and pharmaceutical firms. This practice undermines the independence of these entities and creates conflicts of interest, particularly when these corporations stand to profit from policies and initiatives promoted by the Gates Foundation.

 

3. Influence in Global Health
The Gates Foundation has played a significant role in shaping global health policies, including vaccine distribution programs in partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has been involved in many controversies and criticisms ranging from conflicts of interest due to the presence of vaccine manufacturers on its governance board to its pneumococcal vaccine scandal. However, both Bill and Melinda Gates lack formal expertise in public health, sparking concerns about their authority to set priorities and allocate resources.

 

4. Technological and Market-Based Solutions
The Gates Foundation has been criticized for its heavy focus on technology-driven and market-based solutions, often at the expense of community-based and grassroots approaches. For example, its promotion of GMOs and patented seeds in AGRA has been accused of making farmers dependent on multinational corporations while neglecting traditional and sustainable farming practices.

 

Likely because AGRA happened to rebrand after evidence-based critiques showed that its 15-year effort to expand chemical-dependent, high-input monoculture farming in Africa failed to provide food security, despite billions in funding from government subsidies and private donors. The Gates Foundation was also an early investor in Apeel Sciences, granting $985,161. You can learn more about the controversies around Apeel and why this food preservation technology is problematic here.

 

5. Promotion of Vaccination Programs
Through its partnerships with Gavi and other organizations, the Gates Foundation has been a vocal advocate for global vaccination efforts. However, these programs have faced scrutiny for their implementation and outcomes, with allegations of prioritizing corporate profits over public health, particularly in low-income countries. 

 

Gates is also set to stand trial in the Netherlands for allegedly misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines before securing hundreds of millions of profits from his foundation’s investment in BioNTech—the Pfizer partner for its mRNA COVID shots. This mirrors earlier controversies linked to the Rockefeller Foundation’s vaccine initiatives, raising concerns about a shared agenda.

 

6. Control Over Global Narratives
The Gates Foundation has also been criticized for funding media outlets, which raises many legitimate concerns regarding skewing public narratives to align with the Gates Foundation’s interests. This financial support has sparked debates about whether such contributions compromise journalistic integrity and prevent critical reporting on the Gates Foundation’s initiatives and the figures involved.

 

A Continuation of Rockefeller Influence?

It is believed that Gates established the Gates Foundation and mirrored the Rockefeller Foundation’s playbook to rehabilitate his public image, which had been tarnished by widespread criticism of illegal and unethical business practices, alleged theft, and monopolistic behavior at Microsoft in addition to his questionable personal behavior. 

 

Much like Rockefeller, Gates strategically leveraged significant charitable donations—including media outlets—to shift the narrative, transforming himself from a controversial software magnate into one of the world’s most prominent philanthropists.

 

Many argue that the Gates Foundation builds on the Rockefeller Foundation’s legacy of leveraging philanthropy to advance corporate and capitalistic interests. Both foundations have championed large-scale, top-down initiatives that prioritize technological fixes and industrial solutions, often bypassing the needs and voices of the communities they claim to serve. 

 

This shared modus operandi raises questions about the true intent behind their partnerships and initiatives: are they working for global betterment or corporate consolidation?

 

The partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation is emblematic of modern philanthropic power structures, where enormous financial influence allows these organizations to set global priorities with minimal input from those directly affected. As the Gates Foundation continues to grow its influence, its activities demand greater scrutiny to ensure that its actions genuinely serve the public interest rather than perpetuate cycles of inequality under the guise of philanthropy.

 

American Heart Association

 

 

The American Heart Association (AHA) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1924 with the mission of reducing cardiovascular disease and improving heart health worldwide. The AHA is known for its public health campaigns, research funding, and development of dietary and health guidelines aimed at preventing heart disease and stroke. 

 

While its goals are commendable, the organization’s partnerships and funding sources, particularly with the Rockefeller Foundation, have raised countless concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the commercialization of healthcare.

 

Partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the AHA on numerous initiatives, including the advancement of the Food is Medicine programs, which intends to integrate food prescriptions and medically tailored meals into the healthcare system. These programs utilize nutritional guidelines influenced by corporate and private interests, raising questions about their objectivity and alignment with public health needs.

 

• The Rockefeller Foundation has committed $250 million to support Food is Medicine initiatives.
• The Rockefeller Foundation has also donated $51,057,548 in various grants to the AHA over the years.

 

Criticisms of the AHA–Rockefeller Partnership

The collaboration between the AHA and the Rockefeller Foundation has drawn criticism for potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the integration of food prescriptions into healthcare. These programs promote corporate-driven nutritional guidelines, benefitting food companies and pharmaceutical industries rather than prioritizing patient well-being. Key concerns include:

 

• Commercialization of Healthcare: The integration of food-based prescriptions raises fears that healthcare systems may prioritize partnerships with food and pharmaceutical corporations over evidence-based, community-focused care.
• Conflicts of Interest: The collaboration between healthcare providers, food companies, and pharmaceutical industries may lead to guidelines shaped by profit motives rather than public health priorities.

 

Historical Controversies Surrounding the AHA

The AHA’s history is marred by controversies related to its dietary and nutritional recommendations, raising further doubts about its independence and credibility:

 

1. Saturated Fats and Seed Oils
The AHA has long recommended limiting saturated fats, a stance now questioned due to evidence suggesting corporate influence. In the mid-20th century, the AHA allegedly received funding from Procter & Gamble, a major producer of seed oils, to promote the idea that heart disease was caused by saturated fats rather than seed oils. This shift diverted scrutiny away from seed oils and aligned dietary guidelines with corporate interests.

 

2. Sodium Intake Guidelines
The organization’s recommendations to reduce sodium intake were based on flawed science that has since been widely criticized. Emerging research suggests that sodium reduction guidelines are unfairly blaming salt for this poor correlation with high blood pressure and other health conditions.

 

3. 2017 Hypertension Guidelines
The American College of Cardiology and AHA released new guidelines in 2017 for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure. These guidelines expanded the definition of hypertension, recommending statin use for a significant proportion of healthy individuals. Critics allege that these recommendations were influenced by the AHA’s ties to pharmaceutical companies producing statins.

 

4. Financial Ties to Industry
The AHA has financial relationships with pharmaceutical and food companies, including manufacturers of statins and food corporations that pay for the Heart-Check Mark Certification on their products. This certification has been criticized for allowing highly processed and unhealthy foods to carry the heart-healthy label, undermining public trust in the AHA’s guidelines.

 

Other notable donations have been made by the Rockefeller Foundation to the American Red Cross, National Institute of Health (NIH), Clinton Foundation, National Science Foundation, Pandemic Prevention Institute, and hundreds of other organizations and initiatives.     

 

Rockefeller Foundation Health Initiatives

The Rockefeller Foundation has also had problematic health initiatives often touted and celebrated as philanthropic achievements. However, these programs were complicated with what appears to be ulterior motives and, at the very least, significant malpractice.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Anti-Malarial Program

 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s antimalarial program has been at the center of controversy—it has been concluded that its attention to the malaria program reflected more than mere philanthropic concern.

 

Drawing inspiration from military operations, the Rockefeller Foundation implemented strategies that focused on mapping malaria-prone zones, deploying specialized teams, and using chemical insecticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). While these tactics achieved significant short-term results in eradicating certain mosquito breeds, this focus on eradication vs. control likely contributed to the development of resistance to subsequent control measures. 

 

The program’s reliance on DDT, a well-studied harmful insecticide, led to the widespread use and overuse of the chemical. The overreliance on chemical interventions led to consequences, such as insect resistance and severe environmental damage, which have contributed to the persistence of malaria as a major health crisis.  

 

Despite significant investments and efforts, the program’s impact on malaria incidence was limited. Malaria remains a major public health problem in many areas. The program’s focus on eradication and larval control has also been criticized for likely diverting attention and resources away from preventative measures.  

 

The reiterated focus on germ theory and technical approaches to malaria eradication also fueled demand for medicines, insecticides, and advanced medical technology, contributing to the growth of high-cost medical industries (many of which are a part of the Rockefeller empire). 

 

Lastly, the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts supported US geopolitical goals during the Cold War by stabilizing developing nations and countering Soviet influence, reinforcing American economic dominance in global markets.

 

The Hookworm Campaigns

 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s hookworm eradication campaigns of the early 20th century were intended to address a widespread public health issue, particularly in tropical regions. However, the initiatives were marred by controversy and harm, with devastating consequences for many of the vulnerable populations they targeted. 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Antimalarial Program was a landmark in public health history, but its efforts were filled with controversy. The Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease sent teams of doctors, lab technicians, and inspectors to administer deworming medication across 11 Southern states. 

 

The teams exaggerated the medication’s efficacy while also failing to inform patients or the public of the related regular fatalities. Through Rockefeller’s already-established media capture and existing PR strategies as mentioned earlier, this initiative ignited enough favorable popular interest for the Rockefeller Foundation to justify the proposed expansion throughout the world. 

 

A cornerstone of the campaign was the administration of oil of chenopodium, a vermifuge used to expel hookworms. This treatment was often ineffective and posed significant risks including fatalities. Between 1914 and 1934, the Rockefeller Foundation documented over 200 deaths from chenopodium poisoning, the majority of whom were children under 12. These fatalities showcase a lack of rigorous safety protocols and a disregard for warnings from their own research and field observations.

 

The campaigns were experimental in nature, treating large populations indiscriminately regardless of the severity of their hookworm infection. This resulted in a troubling pattern of overdoses and fatalities. Many of the victims, such as ten-year-old José Vicente Quintero in Colombia, were children who were not critically ill but were subjected to standardized treatments that carried significant risks. 

 

The deaths were often dismissed as isolated incidents or blamed on patient non-compliance, such as failing to fast before treatment. Despite internal investigations and mounting evidence of the treatment’s dangers, the Rockefeller Foundation continued its campaigns with minimal adjustments, prioritizing the eradication of hookworm over the safety of individual patients.

 

Additionally, the medications inadvertently disrupted complex ecological and immunological systems, including the microbiome. Public health officials dewormed populations for hookworm eradication and to improve subsequent vaccine efficacy, yet failed to account for broader consequences, such as the immune system’s inability to adapt to naturally occurring antigens.

 

Another unintended consequence of the hookworm eradication campaign may be the surge in allergies over the last 150 years. Through the elimination of parasitic worms, which historically tempered immune system overreactions, humans lost a natural regulator, potentially leaving an overly aggressive immune system that now targets harmless substances, contributing to the rise in allergies and autoimmune diseases. 

 

This reductionist approach overlooked critical dependencies within biological systems, where removing parasites can destabilize other processes, such as nervous system function, potentially linking interventions to conditions such as multiple sclerosis triggered by viruses like Epstein Barr Virus (EBV).

 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s goal of eradicating hookworm disease, reiterating its germ theory alignment, was unrealistic and likely shifted the focus from preventative efforts towards the campaign’s attempt to eliminate the disease entirely.  

 

While the Rockefeller Foundation claimed to have eradicated the disease from the US in 1926, investigators found that it had persisted and has continued so several decades later.

 

The Yellow Fever Vaccine

 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation played another significant yet controversial role in the development and distribution of the yellow fever vaccine. The Rockefeller Foundation launched a “public-private partnership” with pharmaceutical companies called the International Health Commission to launch its yellow fever vaccine initiative in other countries. 

 

Its campaign to combat yellow fever in countries such as Mexico and Brazil was as much about addressing public health as it was about advancing US economic and political interests. In Mexico, the campaign doubled as diplomatic outreach, allowing the Rockefeller Foundation to curb anti-American sentiment while building the Rockefeller Foundation for modern public health systems. However, concerns emerged over the Rockefeller Foundation’s underlying motives, as these campaigns often supported bolstering US influence in the region.

 

The development of the 17D yellow fever vaccine was touted to have marked a milestone in medical science but was not without significant flaws. In Brazil, researchers discovered that early batches of the vaccine, produced with human serum, caused widespread cases of jaundice and post-vaccine hepatitis. Microbiologists at the Rockefeller Foundation also had concerns about the vaccine’s potential to cause paralysis.  

 

Despite warnings from Brazilian scientists, the Rockefeller Institute virology laboratory in New York ignored these concerns and continued using human serum during the rapid scaling of vaccine production for the US Army during World War II. This oversight led to one of the largest known iatrogenic (harm caused by medical treatment) vaccination incidents, with over 40,000 US soldiers developing vaccine-induced hepatitis.

 

It was discovered that the yellow fever vaccine killed its beneficiaries and failed to prevent yellow fever. The Rockefeller Foundation quietly dropped this vaccine after the Rockefeller Foundation’s star researcher and yellow fever vaccine inventor, Hideyo Noguchi, caught the disease, likely from careless laboratory exposure. 

 

At the time of Noguchi’s death, the New York district attorney was investigating Noguchi for illegally experimenting on New York City orphans with syphilis vaccines without the consent of their legal guardians. 

 

These campaigns often reflected a disregard for localized knowledge and a preference for perceived Western scientific superiority. Brazilian researchers employed detailed follow-up protocols to monitor vaccine recipients and identify adverse effects, yet their findings were dismissed by Rockefeller experts. 

 

This negligence both led to preventable health crises and also revealed the inequities in how scientific contributions from “peripheral” countries were undervalued.

 

The Ongoing HIV/AIDS Research and Initiatives

There is a lot of controversy around HIV and AIDS research. While we won’t get into it here much, the overarching thought is that perhaps the pharmaceutical drug interventions were actually the culprit behind fatalities rather than the actual illness.

 

It is said that Rockefeller’s early and ongoing HIV/AIDS research likely contributed to this, and both Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have an ongoing role in this massive medical media cover-up. The Rockefeller Foundation’s public partnership with the Gates Foundation over various HIV and AIDS initiatives lends more speculation to the Rockefeller empire’s involvement. 

 

Since this is an ongoing present-day issue and some people have lost loved ones to this disease, we’d rather not take away from the larger story of Rockefeller and his empire. But, we strongly encourage looking into the HIV and AIDS research and controversies.

 

The Impact of the Various Rockefeller-Led Health Initiatives

The Rockefeller Foundation’s public health initiatives helped to overshadow the widespread public disdain for abuses associated with the Standard Oil empire. Over the decades, the Rockefeller Foundation grew into a globally influential organization, establishing regional offices in key locations throughout the world.

 

From 1913 to 1951, the Rockefeller Foundation dominated global disease management, wielding more influence than any other nonprofit or government entity in public health. During this period, its International Health Division led tropical disease campaigns across nearly 100 countries and colonies, spending what would today amount to billions of dollars before the division was disbanded in 1951.

 

Today, the Rockefeller Foundation is still seen as a global public health leader and is celebrated by many for its touted ongoing philanthropic efforts.

 

Rockefeller’s Impact on America’s Agricultural and Food Industries

The Rockefeller Foundation has also played a considerable role in shaping the agricultural and food industries, not only in the US but also globally. From funding scientific research to developing agricultural policies, the Rockefeller Foundation has heavily impacted modern farming, food production, and global food systems. 

 

Through various initiatives and partnerships with corporate and governmental entities, the Rockefeller Influence has marketed its intent to revolutionize agricultural productivity and combat food insecurity. However, this involvement has not been without controversy.

 

The Implementation of GMOs in the Food Supply

 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation was essential in introducing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the US and global food supply, shaping the biotechnology revolution from its inception. 

 

This influence began with early funding and strategic support for DNA research in the 1970s and gained momentum in the 1980s when the Rockefeller Foundation, alongside political allies in the US government, facilitated the deregulation of genetic engineering technologies. The Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in advancing GMOs showcases its deep ties to agribusiness giants such as Monsanto (which was acquired by Bayer in 2018) and its long-term strategy to dominate agricultural innovation.

 

The Rockefeller Foundation provided crucial funding for the development of genetic engineering technologies, working alongside biotech companies and government agencies to push GMO crops into the marketplace. 

 

This effort was greatly supported by regulatory decisions during the Reagan and Bush administrations, which adopted the doctrine of “substantial equivalence.” This policy treated GMO crops as equivalent to traditional crops, bypassing rigorous testing and oversight, and granting companies such as Monsanto a near-unregulated pathway to market their products.

 

Important notes regarding the Rockefeller Foundation’s role include:

 

1. Deregulation Advocacy 

The Rockefeller Foundation’s influence extended to shaping US regulatory frameworks that prioritized corporate interests. This facilitated the commercialization of GMO crops with minimal safety assessments, leaving consumers exposed to potential health and environmental risks.

 

2. Corporate Partnerships 

Its collaboration with Monsanto, among others, reflects a deep integration of corporate and nonprofit goals. This partnership allowed agribusiness companies to bypass scrutiny while expanding their control over global food systems.

 

3. Global Expansion of GMOs 

The Rockefeller Foundation supported initiatives that promoted the adoption of GMO crops in developing countries, often under the guise of addressing food security. However, these efforts have been widely criticized for undermining traditional farming practices and raising significant health and environmental concerns. In Carnivore Cure, it is highlighted that GMOs are known to impair the gut microbiome, leading to disruptions in overall health and contributing to chronic illnesses. Studies (and court cases) have linked glyphosate, a chemical commonly used with GMO crops, to serious health risks such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, other cancers, and hormonal disruptions. These health implications share the potential dangers of prioritizing GMO adoption without long-term safety evaluations or consideration of alternative solutions. Critics argue that the push for GMO crops primarily benefits corporations, prioritizing profits over sustainable development and the well-being of local communities.

 

4. Conflict of Interest and Ethical Concerns

The Rockefeller Foundation’s deep ties to agribusiness and its significant funding of GMO research have raised serious questions about the impartiality of its mission. It is argued that its aggressive promotion of GMOs aligns more with corporate interests, particularly those of biotech giants than with the health and well-being of consumers or the environment. The health risks associated with GMOs, as well as their detrimental effects on biodiversity and soil health, point to potential ethical concerns regarding the Rockefeller Foundation’s influence.

 

The proliferation of GMOs, driven in part by the Rockefeller Foundation’s initiatives, has sparked widespread controversy, especially when considered alongside the Rockefeller Foundation’s broader influence on healthcare and other societal structures. This intersection of global health, agriculture, and corporate interests raises important questions about the long-term impact of these initiatives on human health, ecosystems, and food sovereignty.

 

Eat-Lancet Commission and Nutritional Guidelines

 

 

The Rockefeller Foundation has collaborated with the EAT-Lancet Commission on several reports that focus on food systems, health, and sustainability.

 

The 2019 Lancet-EAT Report represents one of the collaborations between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Lancet Commission, a group dedicated to advancing global health and sustainability through evidence-based policies and initiatives. 

 

The Lancet Commission, associated with the medical journal The Lancet, focuses on addressing pressing health, environmental, and societal issues through interdisciplinary approaches. Together, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Lancet Commission have launched multiple initiatives aimed at transforming food systems worldwide, including the release of the 2019 Lancet-EAT Report.

 

The report introduced a proposed global planetary health diet, advocating for a significant reduction in meat consumption and an increased recommendation of plant-based diets. It argued that such dietary changes are necessary to combat non-communicable diseases, environmental degradation, and climate change. The report stated:

 

“The dietary shift towards high consumption of fats and oils, meats (particularly from ruminants), processed foods, and refined carbohydrates—including so-called empty calories—is a major contributor to the non-communicable disease burden, and to greenhouse gas emissions, land-use change, and agrochemical pollution.”

 

While the report received praise from some for its ambitious vision, it has also faced substantial criticism:

 

1. Fraudulent Science and Misleading Claims 

The report’s claims about the environmental impact of livestock are based on flawed science and exaggerated data. We’ve debunked this claim—you can read more about meat and climate change here.

 

2. Meat Demonization and Poor Health Correlations

It also builds upon the broader demonization of meat narrative, largely grounded in flawed epidemiological studies that fail to establish direct causation between meat consumption and poor health outcomes. Additionally, the report’s claims are further complicated by the intentional fraudulent efforts of certain food industry and pharmaceutical corporations, which have historically paid off scientists to shift blame for health issues linked to sugar and processed foods onto meat. You can learn more about why meat is essential here.

 

3. Promotion of Industrial Agriculture

The recommended dietary shift happens to support corporate and industrial agricultural interests rather than sustainable food practices. Recommending plant-based diets reliant on mono-cropped agriculture, the report risks promoting farming practices that contribute to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and agrochemical dependence

 

These recurring themes and increasingly drastic recommendations can be found throughout the Rockefeller Foundation and EAT-Lancet collaborations including the 2021 True Cost of Food Report, the 2023 Global Food Crisis Response Report, and the 2024 Food as Medicine Report.

 

Closing Thoughts on the Rockefeller Empire and its Long-Standing Impact

Judy Cho’s Perspective: 

From Rockefeller’s history, marked by questionable and deceptive characters in his family, including literal con men, to monopolies built on ruthless tactics, and a legacy marred by murders and prioritizing profit over human welfare, one thing remains constant: power often disguises itself under the veil of humanitarian and nonprofit work. (We see charlatans in the wellness space every single day.) 

 

Rockefeller’s ability to pivot from monopolistic control to presenting himself as a benefactor for the poor and unfortunate speaks to a troubling duality—one that has shaped industries, policies, and even global health narratives.

 

Real talk, this article was not easy to research and then write. We found ourselves censoring certain subtopics so we could keep you interested without throwing out the complete article as rubbish (e.g., AIDS research). Our main technical writer, who has endured chronic illness and horrible missteps through standard medical care, found themselves needing to take breaks due to the strong emotions that arose. 

 

While writing this piece stirred anger and frustration at the exploitation of human lives, it also evoked a deep sense of purpose. We have done our best to approach this topic with as little bias as possible, presenting facts and sources you can explore further. The truth is, the reason our functional medicine practice took on this research project is simple: we believe knowledge is power.

 

Mahatma Gandhi once outlined the “Seven Deadly Sins,” which serve as a moral compass for reflection:

 

1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Religion without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle

 

 

These timeless truths resonate deeply in the context of this piece. By understanding the history behind the systems that govern healthcare, agriculture, and public health today, perhaps we can make more thoughtful, informed decisions for ourselves and our loved ones. Whether you’re struggling with chronic illness, navigating how to raise a healthy child, or questioning the narratives surrounding vaccinations and nutrition, understanding the past equips us to make better choices for the future.

 

Through sharing knowledge, we can rise together to demand change. One powerful example is the story of Harvey Washington Wiley, who fought to remove cocaine from Coca-Cola. Recognizing the dangers of the ingredients, he mobilized women to march and advocate for safer food and drink. Their collective voice forced Coca-Cola to reformulate its product, proving that when informed and united, people have the power to reshape even the most dominant industries.

 

As Gandhi also said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” 

 

We hope this article empowers you to question, learn, and make decisions rooted in integrity and wisdom. I firmly believe we can bring about change and make a new path toward a future that prioritizes human welfare over profit, and truth over convenient narratives.

 

“The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” – Mahatma Gandhi

 

“…Strive for full restoration, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.” – 2 Corinthians 13:11

 

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”  – Proverbs 31:8-9

 

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” – Isaiah 1:17