Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy

Originally posted by ouvertaverite

Originally posted by crankyoldman

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

People who say that vaccines are used to spread something are right - they spread LIFE. Those who say they "might" be part of some grand conspiracy are speculating without evidence, and making mischief for reasons only they can tell you.

edit on 4-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

That's an interesting statement of PR but it isn't really the entire truth. You have no way of knowing, none, zero, what is in any given vaccine. You are not to see the ingredients as they are proprietary, you are not allowed to see the factory, as it is proprietary, you cannot sue the companies that make the stuff (by law) and you are not allowed to be involved in any single aspect of the process accept to take the stab.

That said, it has been proven over and over again that big pharma lies, a lot, nearly all the time - vioxx is a fun one, but there are many, many other examples.

Now, we know they lie, we know we cannot educate ourselves with information outside their PR system, and, through some very interesting statements we know the vaccines carry all manner of virus' including cancer virus' and the mfg's are not really interested in either revealing that or changing that.

Given the facts that surround the supreme mystery that is the jab, how can one honestly say, "they bring life?" I would contend that many would agree the population is hardly operating at its maximum, either emotionally or spiritually and some of us can track the contribution of the jab energy. I would contend that there are those of us that can "see" the energy that makes up these jabs and it is some very, very awful stuff that does some very disturbing things to the energy of the humans who inject themselves.

Resources are not scarce, they are hoarded, made scarce, through artificially created distribution problems and other forms of manipulation. "Over population" is not the reason there is scarcity of resources or poverty. Poverty results, largely because of fiat currency debt/interest. Because only a limited number of debt notes are printed means the "interest" must be taken from some one other then the debtor - another country, and those countries have their resources taken to pay off compound interest debt. Because there aren't enough debt notes in America to pay off your mortgage debt (you borrowed 100k and it was printed on the spot but the 300k you owe isn't printed at all), you need to get your debt notes from someone else, and so on, the poverty countries are the end of the line. If the overlords wanted people dead, this is easily done, what they want is to have them broken, spiritually dead, addicted to pharma meds, tv, and desperation with no time to truly evaluate the reality they live in - enslavement perfection is a slave who won't run given the chance. The jab is a tool to keep the illusion of this system alive and to makes sure the slave will not only not run, but won't even fight back against the slave masters.

great post--too bad it got miniaturized!

yeah but at least it was readable before You got Your filthy hands on it and...oh crap, what've I done!

seriously though, Children, calm down! Some people think differently and things will always be that way. At least, until the HiveMind Infestation of 2013 infects us all... O.O

Originally posted by Wonderer2012


As a theory, yes.

But it goes back to the wider conspiracy, why are people in Africa so poor and starving in the first place?

I do understand how it is happening and this is where things need to change....

The leaders of these Nations are keeping the cash for themselves and their Armies and/or Supporters.... they don't have any kind of system in place which could help the poorest and they don't wish to help them by what i've seen over the last 30 odd years!!

It is sad to know their are people in this World who get into power but don't give a Sh it about the people.

So, we have to start by kicking those in charge out to Educate those who have been kept in desolate situations!!

Sadly that usually means by force which usually means by War!

reply to post by Wonderer2012


The HPV vaccine...(much information as to the deaths and purposes)

I believe the virus itself is doing reduction, The virus is HIV

34 million people have it, 30 million people have allready died into it. Almost 2 million people get it every year.

Global 2000 is in full swing.

Ill be making a closely related thread in a little while

Why dont they just create jobs in Africa. I bet that reduces the amount of people faster than any kind of vaccin. More money= more education= less babys. Its as easy as that.

Too bad the real elite are a greedy bunch of people who dont have souls. Cause hey who doesnt need a 150 meter yaught, too much real estate to count, 3 planes and a submarine.

Report directly from World Bank:
www-wds.worldbank.org...

To improve the method mix of programs, male and female sterilization and IUDS can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic "camps" (such as vasectomy and tubectomy camps in India and IUD "safaris" in Indonesia).

You are delusional if, after reading that statement from 1984, you think the World Bank is pushing vaccination campaigns to do anything but sterilize people.
There's plenty of independent studies showing direct correlations between vaccination programs and infant mortality, sterilization, and extreme adverse side effects that result in death or paralysis. In India last year the WHO and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation used untested polio vaccines. That same year 49,000 people suffered from "acute flaccid paralysis". A 3,000% increase.

I am a bit confused. You say this is population reduction, and also ask if they would do this to their own children. I was under the impression that they are not proposing eradicating existing people, but controlling birth rates. Hence what is it that they are actually doing to living people? Is it the vaccinations that are supposed to lower the birth rates? I think I am just missing something, as I only read the quoted portions of the article. I would rather someone explain it, and others will probably appreciate this as well.

Whilst I do think that some of the vaccines being pushed by the big pharmaceutical corporations are doing a lot of harm, I still think the biggest danger comes from tinkering with the food supply. After all, if one were to push new crops onto third world populations, in the name of charity of course, that due to the tinkering at a genetic level sterilised most of the population, then bingo!.... fewer useless eaters sitting on the resources you want.

However, what if those crops polluted naturally occuring foods back in your own back yard? Unintended consequences doesn't quite cut it and we could be faced with a planet-wide devastation.

The link to the news piece below makes interesting, if rather hoffific reading.

www.truthistreason.net...

One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, they have produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption.

Just think about all that for a minute, and the consequences of contamination of other seeds. In effect, they could, through their own arrogance and self importance, bring about the extinction of the human race.
I often wonder if corporations such as Monsanto are started with seed money (pun intended) from those who, both overtly and covertly, push for eugenics and population reduction? It would certainly make sense, and explain their ability to ride roughshod, with full government backing, over everyone who tries to stand up to them.

reply to post by roblot


It doesn't matter the amount of land there is per person. Its about the resources which matters. We're running out of fresh water, oil, farming land and what not. I'm not in for direct population control. I think people need to be educated. Education always leads to prosperity. As of right now we have more than enough resources for everyone in the world, the problem is how to spread it. And in the long term, to look at sustainability.....doesn't take a genius to figure out that we polluted our world.

China's one child per family hasn't really worked, rich people and government people can have multiple children, a lot of children are birthed without notifying the government out of fear. This whole killing daughter's is just stupidity and insanity.


In general, the most prosperous as in highest standard of living have lower fertility rates, while the poorest have high fertility rates.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


EXACTLY

reply to post by bangoli


I don't think the vaccine's just kill you outright lol

Interesting thread and here is one tidbit I read this morning on the news.
www.lfpress.com...

This has been a hot topic in Ontario and I see this coming to a head one way or the other shortly.

The wife teaches Yoga and trained with a nurse and this nurse was (now retired) from the surgical ward and she very directly told my wife not to get vaccinated.

S&F
Iwinder

PS I just posted this on another thread that is also on the front page and I feel the exact same post is suitable for both threads.

It seems to be if evolution is correct that atheists, or at least Darwinian evolutionists shouldn't have to worry about population control. Doesn't blind chance have an "eye" that sees things and adapt so as to survive. This Chance should correct things to keep life alive and adapting and evolving. Why mess with it?

Why put your faith in Darwinian evolution only up to a point and then think you have to step in? Doesn't that really just belie a lack of faith in your dogma to begin with?

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're pretty sure of yourself.

I'm not so sure of you.

The absolutes are a bit too extreme for my taste.

I'll just leave it at that.

Nah, screw it. I'ma stand on this one.

Try this for starters. It only took like one freaking minute to disprove your absolute rubbish:

LInk

edit on 4-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)

Well said,
Dr Sachs never mind the rest, has made 'Dr Strangelove' the real deal. Makes you laugh at all the critics of the 'Dr Srangelove film' No matter, they are most likely all dead by now. Thanks for providing the link BTW.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

S&F!!!

Notice how they call the birth of a child an"infection"?

Now all one needs to do is look up Eugenics, GMO's, Agenda 21 and I am sure there are more I can't think of off the top of my head, but the puzzle starts to take shape!!!

edit on 4-10-2012 by seeker1963 because: spelling

I've heard something similiar before.

Didn't the POTUS call pregnancy a punishment? Different salesman same product.

Originally posted by SubAce
It seems to be if evolution is correct that atheists, or at least Darwinian evolutionists shouldn't have to worry about population control. Doesn't blind chance have an "eye" that sees things and adapt so as to survive. This Chance should correct things to keep life alive and adapting and evolving. Why mess with it?

Why put your faith in Darwinian evolution only up to a point and then think you have to step in? Doesn't that really just belie a lack of faith in your dogma to begin with?

Another good point, although I think Darwin's ideas are a bit linear and singular in nature as regards human beings, given the cyclic nature of Earth itself, 'the survival of the fittest' being the most controversial in the context, with the allusion that it applies in the greatest form to humans AKA us, on the basis I presume, that there is no other known species equal to our progressive qualities, while there are so many known mammalian creatures out there who come so close, hence the 'missing link' is to be a valid mystery. Yet evolving is only pertinent to an existing specie, if that specie say, human beings is to be wiped out by some cataclysm, while other species survive then there would be a new order, a new, but retrograded evolution, but then that could be us??

Since, nobody has actually visited the site, I'll post the 5 videos here, and an excerpt:

Who says there is enough food for everyone?

Both of the world's leading authorities on food distribution (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] and the World Food Programme [WFP]) are very clear: there is more than enough food for everyone on the planet. The FAO neatly summarizes the problem of starvation, saying that "the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it." Food is a lot like money: just because some people have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.


What do you mean when you say we are producing more food on less land?

Exactly that. Thanks to continuing increases in crop yields, the world's farmers are harvesting hundreds of millions of tons more grain each year on tens of millions acres less land than they did in the 1970s and '80s. For instance, according to USDA figures, the world was producing 1.9 million metric tons of grain from 579.1 hectares of land (a hectare is 2.47 acres) in 1976. In 2004, we got 3.1 million metric tons of grain from only 517.9 hectares of land. This is quite a jump.

This is not to say that we won't possibly need to dedicate more land to farming in the future. The point is, a rise in population is not always matched by a rise in the amount of land required to feed that population.

Download the data on world grain production from the FAO website.


The U.S. government pays farmers not to grow food?

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's web site, "the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner." What this means is that the government has created a fund to allow farmers to give their land "time off" from growing crops. This is done by "renting" the land from the farmers, so that things like grass and trees can be planted there instead of crops. This helps prevent soil erosion and encourages wildlife habitats, and reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes.

The upshot of this is that our nation would never be able to afford to do this if we were anywhere near maxing out our food growing capabilities. Our current food surplus means that we are able to give some of our farmland back to the wild, instead of frantically using it all to feed a supposedly exploding population.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program

List of payments to date from the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program

Not everything is a damn conspiracy.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

China has had mandatory population control for decades

This is a myth.

reply to post by SubAce


well us people are smart, and survival of the fittest dosnt really apply to us 100%.

we can not be killed by obvious more powerful predator animals then ourselves. and we can cope in areas that would otherwise drive species extict from changes in nature.
not to mention if we are born with weaknesses; ie: blind, missing limbs, mentally incompetent; we manage to assist each other to survive a full life, when an animal would otherwise be eaten or abandoned very quickly.

As sick as it sounds, we may be coming to a point in the world's growth were we HAVE to take action. im not going to pretend to have any advice on how that should be done...