Patent #060606

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Trueman

You "don't think .... ". Not a fact. Opinion only.

Gosh. You are smart.

Can you show me where he did say it?

Nope, can you confirm that he didn't say it ?

a reply to: Trueman

No. That's why I said "I think."

I also don't think unicorns exist.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Trueman

No. That's why I said "I think."

I also don't think unicorns exist.

But you called your whole reply a "fact" first. Checkmate.

a reply to: Trueman

But you called your whole reply a "fact" first.

Where? Yes, Gates has espoused reducing the rate of population growth in underdeveloped nations.
www.gatesnotes.com...

Checkmate.

Incorrect.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith
I provided a link. Try looking at it.

Application as in applying for a patent. He's making a claim. And it is exactly as described by the Doctor (which you aren't) in the 3rd link in my opening post.

Whether or not it is exactly a patent doesn't matter.

This is the patent family.

1. WO2020060606 - CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY ACTIVITY DATA

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Trueman

If you consider stating facts to be "defense", so be it.

There.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Whether or not it is exactly a patent doesn't matter.

Except that it makes your OP a lie.
Twice a lie. No patent and the application has nothing to do with vaccines.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Whether or not it is exactly a patent doesn't matter.

Except that it makes your OP a lie.
Twice a lie. No patent and the application has nothing to do with vaccines.

Wrong again.

originally posted by: Phage
I don't think he's actually said that.

No, he actually has said that.
www.ted.com...

First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.

The really cryptic part of the above direct quote from Gates is how only 1 of those 3 issues actually lower population growth rates if understood in a logical manner... yet he cites all 3. New vaccines and health care, IF both are utilized as traditionally understood to lengthen lifespans and save lives would lead to increasing population growth rates. Yet here's Gates 11 years ago claiming both will lower growth rates (reduce the number of humans) in his vision.

Creepy-ass mofo right there, I tell you. Not a trustworthy individual in any way, especially seeing his deep involvement with this magical COVID vaccination that isn't even a vaccination in the first place.

ETA: and whether you give a hashtag about the Bible or not really doesn't mean jack squat. The document was unarguably written centuries ago and cited a number "666" alongside a prediction of great upheaval associated with said number. The fact that we're seeing a patent for a human body implementable microchip with that number as it's patent application is curious whether you believe in the Bible or not... either you believe it is very specifically coincidental or not, but the fact that it connects closely to such an old document is noteworthy to anyone who has ever studied probability and understands how low the odds are of such a coincidence happening at this particular point in time.

REMOVED.
Sorry Phage, I misread something and will wear the ass ears on it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, he actually has said that.

Yes, he did. Reducing 9 billion by 15% means a population of 7.65 billion. That is not a reduction of "the number of humans on the planet" from 6.8 billion, it is an increase in population.

IF both are utilized as traditionally understood to lengthen lifespans and save lives would lead to increasing population growth rates.

Incorrect. Improved health care reduces population growth because people tend to have fewer children in places with better health care.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
You mean this: "The vaccine will be used to monitor your bodies information and send it into the "cloud".

Maybe the link to "VACCINE PATENT 060606: LUCIFERASE & RNA GAME CHANGER"?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It’s in the diseases and pandemics forum.

Quick, move it to another forum, you have the power.

Seems too many here are waaaaay too comfortable in their echo chamber that when something is challenged, they just can’t handle it. I guess they’re not really used to an opposing opinion these days...

originally posted by: Phage
Yes, he did. Reducing 9 billion by 15% means a population of 7.65 billion. That is not a reduction of "the number of humans on the planet" it is an increase in population.

This is one of those semantics issues that we say playing politics constantly. Look, if the media and politicians can portray a law that lowers the growth rate of corporate taxes while also providing an increase in total tax dollars collected versus today as a "tax cut" then I feel accurate in presenting Bill Gates' plan to do exactly the same damn thing where human population numbers are concerned as a "population cut."

a reply to: burdman30ott6

This is one of those semantics issues that we say playing politics constantly.

No it isn't. But some boneheads can't tell the difference between a reduction in rate of growth and a reduction in population.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, it is. Bottom line, if you are looking at a point down the road in which you'd have 'X' number of something and you enact a plan which will reduce it by 10-15%, you are reducing the number of whatever you're dealing with. It doesn't gel. How can someone claim Earth is overpopulated or identify a growing population as a problem in 2010 expressing a desire to reduce that future population figure and then 10 years later be a champion of saving humanity from a virus that has a toll of less than 2% of the population?

ITT: VaCcInEs ArE eViL

a reply to: burdman30ott6

then 10 years later be a champion of saving humanity from a virus that has a toll of less than 2% of the population?

Who has said that COVID is a threat to population growth?

Preventing infection helps to prevent human misery and death. As does reducing population growth in underdeveloped nations. Same side of the coin.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

then 10 years later be a champion of saving humanity from a virus that has a toll of less than 2% of the population?

Who has said that COVID is a threat to population growth?

Seriously? The number crunchers haven't chimed in yet as the data is incomplete, but basic logic states that we will see a hole form as long as COVID is a thing. For starters, 2021 is seeing a decrease in birth rates. 2020 saw very, very little migration between countries and we know for a fact that a lot of folks have families after they migrate to a new country because their conditions are improved. Throw in the scare mongering BS about COVID causing crippling ED and impacting fertility in men (which I am sure you believe considering I have yet to see you question any of the official COVID narratives coming out of folks like Fauci... even when he does a 180-degree shift mid stream) and it's obvious that COVID is going to negatively impact population growth.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Throw in the scare mongering BS about COVID causing crippling ED and impacting fertility in men

I haven't seen much to indicate that COVID will result in a significant reduction of birthrates. The US (and other developed nations) were already on a downward trend before the pandemic started.

and it's obvious that COVID is going to negatively impact population growth.

Maybe. But probably not by a significant amount. The flu pandemic of 1918 sure didn't seem to, though it did result in a big dip in life expectancy. That reversed itself pretty quickly though.