I just stumbled onto one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in a long time.�� Apparently it’s believed that Bill Gates, who has, though his foundation, contributed hundreds of millions to global vaccine efforts said something which some believe was an admission that vaccines are killing everyone and that his contributions are entirely aimed at reducing world population by destroying the health and reducing the lives of people who are vaccinated.
Via “World Truth TV”:

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People S = Services per person E = Energy per service C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.�

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people� that’s headed up to about 9 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.�

You can watch this yourself at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A�
Reducing the world Population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says “if we do a really great job on new vaccines� we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?�

Perhaps that’s the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v�), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A�
How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let’s conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn’t be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can’t just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the FLU shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be “effective� from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowlyin a way that’s unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 – 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This “soft kill� method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don’t quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v�).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This “bioweapon� approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

Ohhhh kay…

Perhaps a little out of context? Note for example that he does not mention vaccines alone but rather in the context of healthcare and reproductive services.

It should be noted that in general, killing a lot of people in an epidemic or war is not a very effective means of population growth. Unless the stress on the population is continuous, it will bounce back remarkably fast. Beyond that, the idea of reducing human lifespans or increasing early deaths is also repugnant and something that most won’t take very kindly to. (But that’s apparently no problem for the evil conspirators)

The best way to reduce population growth is by increasing standards of living and healthcare, especially reproductive care and contraception. As a general rule, the better educated, the more industrialized and the greater the standard of living of a society, the lower the rate of population growth. This is where vaccination comes in, because vaccines don’t just directly save lives, but also result in a lot less people suffering from non-fatal, but extremely unpleasant illness. Diseases are very expensive for a society. Every time someone gets sick they can’t work to their full capacity or can’t work at all. They may be occupying a hospital bed and the time of a physician, which could have been used to care for someone else.

Therefore:
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less stress on the healthcare system -> better healthcare
and
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less economic loss from disease -> better economics
and
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less people suffering, less disabled persons, less pain -> higher average standard of living

All of the above contribute to reduced birth rates.

The reasons are varied and complex. Many births are unplanned and those who have the knowledge of birth control and access to it will therefore take the steps necessary to prevent it. Substance agriculture can result in pressure to produce more, not less children because of their value as workers. When disease is rampant, increased birth rates may be valued as a way of insuring at least some of the offspring survive. In impoverished areas, women may have no choice but to submit to unprotected sex and thus get pregnant.

This is why in India, where most live in very poor conditions, the population is exploding and yet in Japan, where most live in a highly industrial and comfortable urban setting, birth rates are so low there is concern that population reduction is leaving the country with two few elderly and not enough young people to care for them.

Vaccines, of course, can’t do it alone and were not mentioned alone. In the short term, they may even result in a small increase in population growth by reducing death rates, but not enough to make a huge difference. In the long run, vaccines are part of a broader effort to improve life and increase economic development and healthcare quality. That can and will reduce population growth.

(Note: I actually disagree with Bill Gates on his CO2 formula. Energy does not need to be CO2 intensive. But that’s beyond the point.)

---

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 12:56 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Just LAME, Quackery, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

---

View blog reactions