Bill Gates: Lower World Population with Vaccines

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

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

I didn't say it was a "press release", just that it's a public release, which is it. Look at the title: "Endocrine Society Scientific Statement". This article is a stement of purpose, meant to demonstrate (most likely to an institution financial committee) what the group is proposing to study. These are common in research, and are often published in broad journals (like this one, being published in "Endocrine Reviews" whichi s used mostly for broad, ground level articles) as a means of encouraging communication between possible collaborators.

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.

Most public libraries offer free access through an e-journal link on their website, so long as you have a free library card.

Be careful of sounding elite-like.

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

I'm neither Greek, male, or elite. I provided you with basic science that disproves your claims, and you, in turn, suggest that I'm being "elitist" by doing so. Now who's name calling?

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]

Again, a great deal of research is freely available through public libraries or PubMed.gov. In fact, if you use PubMed, you can specify your results to include only those articles that do not require a subscription, which is about half to two-thirds in my experience.



[edit on 3/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by pumpkinorange

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"?

I did not say that there are too many people. My point was that continual population growth is unsustainable. In essence Thomas Malthus predicted that population would always grow to match food supply, therefore most people would be doomed to subsistence poverty levels indefinitely. What Malthus could not have known was how much more food technological advances and increases in productivity would bring us. But those advances can not continue indefinitely, and in fact we may have to accept less productivity in the future in order to "green" the agricultural industry. But population keeps growing.

You want to blame someone for genocide? Blame the Catholic Church and others who always encourage more babies, more babies, more babies.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I did no name calling. I know what exactly an ad hominem is, and know when it crosses the line and stop.

I just reacted to this statement by you, with the specific parts bolded:

"One is a general term used for uneducated audiences, one is the recognized scientific term used in mature, logical debate."

if this does not look a little elite, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I did no name calling. I know what exactly an ad hominem is, and know when it crosses the line and stop.

I just reacted to this statement by you, with the specific parts bolded:

"One is a general term used for uneducated audiences, one is the recognized scientific term used in mature, logical debate."

if this does not look a little elite, I don't know what is.

I used the phrase "mature debate" because those were YOUR words in a previous post in this thread. I'm saddened the irony was lost on you.

As for the "uneducated audience" phrase, most people on this thread ARE uneducated when it comes to medical science. That's not a slight against them, it's just a statement of fact. That's not to say those people aren't useful, they just haven't acquired the jargon that comes with such education, which is why that review release is written the way ti is. I was just trying to explain something you obviously didn't get.

This sounds disturbing.

Why does Bill Gates care about human population?

Who gets to buy his computers?

Tell you the truth, i think he's mixing in with the government, in a bad way

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Well, not really.

The member "BlackJackal" is the one who used the word "mature/mature debate".

Now getting more on topic.

A while back a news report stated some researchers used mosquitoes as an ambulant needle acting as a mobile vaccine in an experiment.

Be wary of mosquitoes, you might just be vaccinated in the near future without your knowledge("informed consent").

Whatever happened to ethics in today's world? Water fluoridation is already an enormous breach of it.

If "informed consent" is no longer upheld, what did the Nuremberg and Helsinki agreements accomplish?

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Well, not really.

The member "BlackJackal" is the one who used the word "mature/mature debate".

Ack! You're completely right, I apologize.

Originally posted by jjjtir
Now getting more on topic.

A while back a news report stated some researchers used mosquitoes as an ambulant needle acting as a mobile vaccine in an experiment.

Be wary of mosquitoes, you might just be vaccinated in the near future without your knowledge("informed consent").

A mosquito is not a closed system, meaning it's an ineffective means of spreading a vaccine (due to biologic activity on the vaccine's material).

I would need to see an article on this being used to even believe that such a thing has ever been accomplished with any real results.

Whatever happened to ethics in today's world? Water fluoridation is already an enormous breach of it.

If "informed consent" is no longer upheld, what did the Nuremberg and Helsinki agreements accomplish?

Informed conset is absolutely still being upheld. Water fluoridation hasn't been show, in any scientific study of merit, to be harmful. the usual myths, that it can cause brittle bones, has been debunked for decades. The only downside I know of that actually DOES occur is a slight discoloration of the teeth, if you drink a lot of tapwater, though I've never seen someone with the mottled teeth appearance who also claims to brush daily, personally.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


It was a double blind study trying to vaccinate humans against malaria.

They used a weakened parasite restricted only to the liver biological cycle, and administered chloroquine during the entire 3 months, during which the subjects received hundreds of bites.

In the end, the vaccinated group was completely vaccinated with antibodies, after a challenge when chloroquine use ceased.

As the news said, it is a completely different scenario in real life, as it stands, impossible to do.

But the possibility always remain of a shady unpredictable corporation trying to perfect for real life, the reason why I said "near future", who knows what corps like Monsanto think these days...

One of the news reporting it, Discovery Channel.
Mosquito Bites Used to Deliver Malaria 'Vaccine'

The free full text of the aforementioned NEJM study.
Protection against a Malaria Challenge by Sporozoite Inoculation

And as to fluoridation, this is for another thread, it would be considered offtopic, I just gave it as an example.

I think it's not that black&white as you say. Even Scientific American reported the brittle bone effect a few years ago.

reply to post by jjjtir


The *concept* of using mosquitoes would certainly be efficient, however, as even you stated, real world application is another story. It would be next to impossible, in my mind, to use anything like this in the real world, as the modifications needed to make it possible to transport a weakened parasite would kill the parasites in the longtem.

Im not a great believer in the overpopulation myth, allocating resources fairly and widespread use of new technologies could quite comfortably support an even larger population than now. And like someone else said, birth rate is usually linked to wealth. But say i did believe in overpopulation and the resource strain it creates, we should start closer to home ie Europe and the USA. Gradually cutting our own populations over the decades by say 25 or 30% would be a start. Lead by example. As for Bill Gates, i don't like the man but this was obviously a mix up of words in his speech and not an admission that vaccines kill people or what have you.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Solomons]

Before you know it B.G. is gonna be running for senate or the Big Kahoona or something.... he is not a bad guy really, I don't think that's even his real name. And he doesn't Pown Microsoft anymore....

I'd take the injection...... not! My package works fine and if making babies is what is was made for, making babies is what it will do.

bow chika wowow!

Before you know it B.G. is gonna be running for senate or the Big Kahoona or something.... he is not a bad guy really, I don't think that's even his real name. And he doesn't Pown Microsoft anymore....

I'd take the injection...... not! My package works fine and if making babies is what is was made for, making babies is what it will do.

bow chika wowow!

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Informed conset is absolutely still being upheld. Water fluoridation hasn't been show, in any scientific study of merit, to be harmful.

maybe give fluorine pills away for free instead so we can actually choose? it's more efficient, too but that's not in any way relevant. who has the right to mass medicate? will we have to wait until something is harmful to object and if so, how harmful, may i ask?

besides dental fluorosis is very much a sign of harm no matter how you slice it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the basis of water fluoridation is not very convincing, since the effect is supposed to be accomplished by rinsing rather than ingestion and we already have toothpaste, right? not to mention that using fluoridated water for food processing will result in astronomical levels.

www.fortcollinscwa.org...

iow, the amount of fluorine intake is pretty much uncontrollable and therefore a hazard.

[edit on 2010.3.4 by Long Lance]

S & F
As mentioned on my thread: You are completely right, the details on this article are a bit expanded.
I have searched the threads before I post mine in order not to post double things. I will check your post right now dude.
However, this is a very important subject and it should have more than 2 posts, it needs more awareness to fight global control.

Anyway, FYI:
An additional thread about Bill Gates Vaccines