Bill Gates: Lower World Population with Vaccines

www.gavialliance.org...

Nothing sinister here. Good

The idea is that higher living standards will generally lower birthrate. As an example, developed nations have significantly lower birthrates as compared to developing nations. Bill Gates is correct. Furthermore, let's not take what he said out of context. Given his philanthropy history, it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that he would be for death and destruction.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by C0bzz]

Really and you know this how??

your not a scientist and cant even fathom what their business model is for development. I suggest you read their mission statement before you go making things up. your entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The facts are right there in black and white I suggest if you care about it enough to make a thread you visit their site, contact their people and perhaps seek volunteer opportunities to assist them in making this world we live in a better place.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
Really and you know this how??

your not a scientist and cant even fathom what their business model is for development. I suggest you read their mission statement before you go making things up. your entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The facts are right there in black and white I suggest if you care about it enough to make a thread you visit their site, contact their people and perhaps seek volunteer opportunities to assist them in making this world we live in a better place.

Who are you responding to?


There's a quote button (and also a reply button also).

Sterilization through vaccination is not new. Back in the 1990's WHO provided a "tetanus vaccine" to girls in the Philippines. The vaccines contained Human
Chorionic Gonadotrophin which prevented pregnancies. Read more here

Link

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Sterilization through vaccination is not new. Back in the 1990's WHO provided a "tetanus vaccine" to girls in the Philippines. The vaccines contained Human
Chorionic Gonadotrophin which prevented pregnancies. Read more here

Link

The link you've provided references "statements" and "excuses" by WHO, but doesn't provide a link or direct quotes. I'm unable to find any statement by the WHO regarding B-hCG being found in tetanus vaccines. Please provide proper information before fearmongering.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

The link you've provided references "statements" and "excuses" by WHO, but doesn't provide a link or direct quotes. I'm unable to find any statement by the WHO regarding B-hCG being found in tetanus vaccines. Please provide proper information before fearmongering.

First let me apologize about being late in replying to this thread. I have been a little busy with a project at work and unable to get on as much as I would like.

Yes, the link I provided does reference other articles that no hyperlinks are provided for. However, at the end of the page you will find a Bibliography section that contains the sources quoted. This information came out in the mid 90's, prior to the internet becoming a major source of information, therefore the articles are only available in written text. A librarian may be able to educate you on how to look them up.

I apologize that you feel I didn't provide you with enough information. However this is a conspiracy forum, and most conspiracies don't have wiki articles about them. In order to get to the bottom of a conspiracy you have to read between the lines and look deeper than just a google search.

It is the purpose of these forums to discuss topics and to determine their merit in a mature and educated fashion. You are more than welcome to disagree with my topic, but name calling makes you look immature.

More Links

Link 1
Li nk 2 - Discussing the creation of a Anti-Pregnancy Vaccine in the 80's
Link 3
Link 4

Originally posted by SaturnFX
how I read it is the reproductive services will lower birthrates...aka, teaching them about condoms, giving the pill, the implants, etc...which frankly, is a good thing. Poor people having lots of children simply make poor children in disaster areas...which in turn leads to starvation, humanity crisis, etc.

I support that aspect of it.

I also support those methods. Very well spoken.

However, it is just kind of odd that Bill slipped vaccinations into his discussion about population control. Vaccinations deal with extending life and is opposed to the idea of population control.

It is very possible Bill made a slip of the tongue here but, maybe there is something to it. Thats the reason I brought it up.

reply to post by BlackJackal


I think it's a great idea and should have been done many years ago to stop all the suffering of babies in certain parts of the World... i mean the parents of these poor kids can hardly look after themselves so bringing kids into the World only to die of starvation or some disease isn't really a great life...

We spend all this cash on wars when this is happening in front of our eyes... what is more worth it? Stopping kids from being born who were gonna die anyway or building mass weapons and going to war?

Ok, maybe some wars need to be fought but you know what i'm saying

Clearly he mispoke. But...

Population is THE problem in the world. If we were to adopt entirely sustainable farming practices, half the world population would starve. This implies that only through further environmental destruction can we continue to feed most of the people on earth from year to year.

I still think Malthus was right.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Yes, the link I provided does reference other articles that no hyperlinks are provided for. However, at the end of the page you will find a Bibliography section that contains the sources quoted. This information came out in the mid 90's, prior to the internet becoming a major source of information, therefore the articles are only available in written text. A librarian may be able to educate you on how to look them up.

The WHO website has an archive of nearly all statements, press releases, and articles they have ever released. Saying that something was released "before the internet was a major source of information" is a null argument and quite simply, reeks of an excuse for not doing your research.

I apologize that you feel I didn't provide you with enough information. However this is a conspiracy forum, and most conspiracies don't have wiki articles about them. In order to get to the bottom of a conspiracy you have to read between the lines and look deeper than just a google search.

Reading "between the lines" still requires confirming your information in SOME way other than misreading scientific data. See my points below for this one.

It is the purpose of these forums to discuss topics and to determine their merit in a mature and educated fashion. You are more than welcome to disagree with my topic, but name calling makes you look immature.

I've done no namecalling. You are posting outrageous claims with no evidence. That is fearmongering at a Bush-like level.

More Links

Link 1

Look at his endnotes. One of hsi main sources is "a call he placed to the MD health department". Yep, no fabrication, exaggeration, or misrepresentation posible there. Also, note that he misquotes the Lancet article that he lists in his sources. Why would you trust someone who blatantly lies to you?

Link 2 - Discussing the creation of a Anti-Pregnancy Vaccine in the 80's

The vaccine mentioned in this article is what we currently use as the 3-month birth control shot. It doesn't render a woman "infertile", as you claim the WHO vaccine does. The effects of the vaccine last only a few months and then wear off, leaving the woman no different than she was before. How is this some sort of sinister "population control"? Do you think the WHO was going to return and vaccinate all the women of the Phillipines every three months?

Link 3

This article falsely claims (again, through anecdote rather than science) that getting a vaccine with hCG causes "high hCG levels". This is actually the opposite of what would happen were you to create hCG antibodies. I can't trust a source who would get such a basic, basic physiological diea completely wrong and then use that false assumption as a basis for ridiculous claims.

Link 4

More anecdotes and referring to "statements" and "studies" without any quotes or data.

Look, here's my issue with all of this: it contradicts basic medical science, as well as scientific theory. I don't want ancedotes, I don't want vague references to unpublished statements or phone calls. I want data. I want lab results (the ones they supposedly have seen in three or so of the articles you've posted). I want SOMETHING other than ancedotes.

The idea that an hCG vaccine, especially back in the 1990s, was beign used as a means of causing permanent infertility and spontaneous abortion defies physiological science. The hCG shot is a wonderful, TEMPORARY, contraceptive used by many women now, but it lasts only three months. In fact, pregnancy is possibly during the first and last two weeks, so it really only lasts about 2 months total. Also, many women don't have a strong enough immune response for it to even work AT ALL.

Here are some studies (with ACTUAL data, oh wow!) that show hCG vaccines and antibodies in action, producing neither permanent infertility or spontaneous abortion (you may need to bother that librarian you mentioned above to see some of them if you don't work at a hospital/university. I'm not able to see what is free versus what costs due to my location):

Efficacy of antihCG antibodies - 1987

Immunocontracepti ves are reversible and temporary - 2002

Immunocontracept ive effective but reversible - 2001

Pregnancy with low-titer hCG antibodies has no effect on progeny - 1998

[edit on 3/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by Grumble


Malthus just happened to live in a time when to world population was less than one billion, yet he firmly believed it was too high back then, what does that tell you?


sustainable practice, well, cut down synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and then watch breeding techniques adapt. the Celts for one had higher yiled per area then we do. polyculture helps too and it's quite likely that the amount of meat consumed today would be severely reduced if that happened.... you can guess what i'm getting at, adaption really does work, despite several million doomsday predictions (or more?) since the invention of writing.

furthermore there are projections which put 'peak humanity' in within the next 10 to 40 years

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, something similar is happening in developing countries. Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.


the club of Rome's predictions were all off and i'll just say that if the theory on laced vaccines contains even a grain of truth, the repercussions will be severe, simply because it can't possibly be denied for ever and below threshold effects of such a black op could range from higher cancer rates to unviable offspring. if the luck holds, though nothing will happen, but i feel that luck won't hold forever.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
The WHO website has an archive of nearly all statements, press releases, and articles they have ever released. Saying that something was released "before the internet was a major source of information" is a null argument and quite simply, reeks of an excuse for not doing your research.

You said earlier you couldn't find where WHO made excuses, etc. Since you seem to need me to do your research for you I found what you were looking for:

WHO

Page. 60

WHO and UNICEF have strongly rebutted claims by some anti-abortion groups that women in Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Tanzania were given tetanus toxoid vaccine with an added component that can reduce fertility.

In addition, not being able to find a reference in the form of a internet link is completely valid. Unless, of course, you can show me where every periodical and book has been published online.

Reading "between the lines" still requires confirming your information in SOME way other than misreading scientific data. See my points below for this one.

What scientific data did I misread? I am simply reacting to published reports.

I've done no namecalling. You are posting outrageous claims with no evidence. That is fearmongering at a Bush-like level.

You're right, accusing someone of fear mongering isn't name calling, I'm Sorry.

Look, here's my issue with all of this: it contradicts basic medical science, as well as scientific theory. I don't want ancedotes, I don't want vague references to unpublished statements or phone calls. I want data. I want lab results (the ones they supposedly have seen in three or so of the articles you've posted). I want SOMETHING other than ancedotes.

It seems that you and I are at an impasse. There is no way I can prove definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WHO were up to something in the 90's and there is no way you are going to believe they were unless someone slaps a syringe of the vaccine and a paper detailing the 6 year study on its effects on fertility in front of you.

Is it possible that everything that happened in the 90's was a big misunderstanding, sure. Is it possible that the presence of the hCG wasn't just by accident, I think so.

The difference it seems between the two of us is simple. If someone presents you with a scientific publication you believe it at face value, I on the other hand am skeptical of it. If someone presents you with a non-scientific article you are skeptical of it, I on the other hand am also skeptical of it.

Just because something shows up in Science doesn't make it true and just because its posted on a message board doesn't make it false.

Here are some studies (with ACTUAL data, oh wow!) that show hCG vaccines and antibodies in action, producing neither permanent infertility or spontaneous abortion (you may need to bother that librarian you mentioned above to see some of them if you don't work at a hospital/university. I'm not able to see what is free versus what costs due to my location):

I see what you are getting at here, I do. However, like I said earlier I look between the lines. The vaccines used in the Philippines in the 90's might have been the first crack at a permanent sterilization vaccine.

In all honesty there may be nothing to any of this, but if no one asks the questions no one will ever know.

Originally posted by Grumble

Population is THE problem in the world.
I still think Malthus was right.

I for one, and maybe the only, am SICK of hearing this.
Who exactly gives you or anyone in the PTB the natural right to authoritativley state that there are "too many people"?
'Cause you don't just have this thought as a policy and not expect it to take on some action-meaning.
The moment you bought into this NWO jargon, you become an enemy to the world.
We have seen on many other posts of exactly where such thinking takes one in history....down the road to genocide and eugenics.
Sign up yourself if there is a list for poulation thinning, but leave your hands off other people.

Originally posted by BlackJackal


I see what you are getting at here, I do. However, like I said earlier I look between the lines. The vaccines used in the Philippines in the 90's might have been the first crack at a permanent sterilization vaccine.

In all honesty there may be nothing to any of this, but if no one asks the questions no one will ever know.

See, there's the rub. You're not "asking questions", you're claiming things as fact. I provided you with basic physiology experiments that show, without a doubt, that hCG antibodies CANNOT cause permanent sterilization. For god's sake, I've GIVEN those injections to women, and have seen them have children a few years later once they stop birth control shots (hCG shots).

If the reality of basic science isn't enough to show you that the idea is bunk, the nyou must operate by different logical standards where 2+2=5.

To be fair, if not by vaccines, it will be done by interference in the male sperm.

The male sex is under chemical warfare attack.

The standard average sperm count in the 70s, 80s and 90s was higher than it is today.

The sperm count is definitely falling with each passing decade and the major culprit is endocrine disruptors.

Last year 2 reports on endocrine disruptors came out, one from Europe and another from the USA.

Endocrinologists are beginning to realize something is amiss.

Originally posted by jjjtir

The standard average sperm count in the 70s, 80s and 90s was higher than it is today.

This is confounded by changes in technology, diet, and lifestyle. It's hard to pin it on any singular event.

Last year 2 reports on endocrine disruptors came out, one from Europe and another from the USA.

Endocrinologists are beginning to realize something is amiss.

There's no such thing as an "endocrine disruptor", per se, in medical science. There are hormone agonists, hormone antagonists, and hormonally active agents, but none of these "disrupt" any part of the endocrine system. They simple amplify or inhibit receptors in the endocrine system, which of course can cause adverse effects (or positive effects, if the patient is deficient or hyperactive for a given hormone action, like hyperthyroidism/Grave's disease). "Endocrine disruptor" is a pop-science term used as a catch-all for any substance that falls under the three categories I gave about, and as such, it a very vague way to describe a chemical/protein.

It astounds me that you'll make such radical claims without even understanding the basics of the topic first.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


If it was "pop-science term" then why the USA report by the Endocrine Society, they felt appropriate to use the term?

It seems they were quite happy to embrace the term.

The abstract of the report published on "Endocrine Reviews" is here.

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

If it was "pop-science term" then why the USA report by the Endocrine Society, they felt appropriate to use the term?

It seems they were quite happy to embrace the term.

The abstract of the report published on "Endocrine Reviews" is here.

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement

They use the phrase because this press release is meant for a wide audience that does not have knowledge of endocrinology, hence the use of a pop-science term rather than describing agonists, antagonists, and HACs. It's no different than when I tell a patient they have "shingles" versus "neurotropic herpes zoster". One is a general term used for uneducated audiences, one is the recognized scientific term used in mature, logical debate.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


This isn't a press release, it is a scientific article in an academic journal.

Just try to access the full text from outside a subscribing university institution.

This item requires a subscription to Endocrine Reviews Online.

The price to get it? 25 dollars.

Be careful of sounding elite-like.

Academia has its roots in the Greek elite, male-only misogynist society.

If one wishes to do what Carl Sagan suggested, broadening scientific communication to the public, academia will need to shatter the eliteness inherited from its origins in Greece.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by jjjtir]