Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Why would someone who is on record for wanting to see the world's population reduced devote so much energy into keeping these numbers up?

    So you can't see a difference between wanting to lower the number of children born into poverty and wanting to prevent the unnecessary death of those already in poverty?

    Why would someone so altruistic and ethically guided have significant investments in Monsanto, BP, Coca-Cola and McDonalds?

    As a successful business man he isn't naive enough to believe that this area is so black and white.

    money will eventually run out forcing these poor nations to pick up the ongoing vaccine bills, bills that must be paid to the giant pharma companies..........Would this money be better spent on education, nutrition, clean water, health care workers and so on?

    Initial start up costs would be the most prohibitive after that the problem might be more manageable for the nation to fund themselves. Less sick people equals less strain on the health system also. Maybe he found this area was underfunded compared to the other areas you mention.


  • Options
    #273
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    1) Why would someone who is on record for wanting to see the world's population reduced devote so much energy into keeping these numbers up?
    Because, as he details in the video I posted, better medical care and lower rates of infant and child death result in a lower birth rate in the long run.
    When children and adults are less likely to die early, the isn't as much of a need to produce more children.
    This is evidenced by the drop in birthrates in places like Ireland for instance.

    So why would he admit to wanting to kill so many people if the conspiracy is to be believed?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    2) Why would someone so altruistic and ethically guided have significant investments in Monsanto, BP, Coca-Cola and McDonalds?
    Because (if true) the world isn't black and white. And that those companies probably aren't as pure evil as some would like to claim.

    [
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    He provides the seed money for poor nations to setup vaccine programmes and this money will eventually run out forcing these poor nations to pick up the ongoing vaccine bills, bills that must be paid to the giant pharma companies, which gates has significant investments in. Would this money be better spent on education, nutrition, clean water, health care workers and so on?
    See an article by Thomas Mountain from Eritrea on this (and all matters relating to the US/Ethiopia/Somalia and Eritrea, if anyone is interested).
    So he's giving away his money to earn money for his conspirators in Big Pharma?
    Why not just skip a step and just give them the money?

    If he's doing it to make money, assuming he has these significant investments. Why give it away and not just keep it and invest in something that would make money more effieciently?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    4) Is he using the third world as a giant laboratory and it's undeducated, poverty-stricken people as lab rats?
    No. As shown in the video he is among other things providing the needed supplies, equipment and infrastructure that is asked for by the educated healthcare professionals in those countries.


  • Options
    #274
    jeanrose770
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭jeanrose770


    Thats the whole point of vaccines. To reduce the human population. Same with healthcare and pharmaceuticals.
    They are doing a really good good too.


  • Options
    #275
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    jeanrose770 wrote: »
    Thats the whole point of vaccines. To reduce the human population. Same with healthcare and pharmaceuticals.
    They are doing a really good good too.

    explain how vaccines that prevent fatal diseases reduce the human population?


  • Options
    #276
    Hoop66
    Registered Users Posts: 2,299 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    jeanrose770 wrote: »
    Thats the whole point of vaccines. To reduce the human population. Same with healthcare and pharmaceuticals.
    They are doing a really good good too.

    Can you show us some figures to back up this claim? Figures that show vaccines are actively killing more people than they save?

    Would you like to make this point to someone who is undergoing chemotherapy with horrible side-effects in order to try and survive cancer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Well there is that SV40 polio vaccine debacle

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130522091608/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm


  • Options
    #278
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    Well there is that SV40 polio vaccine debacle

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130522091608/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm



    I think you need to read your own link.
    Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer.

    and the suggestion in this thread has been that vaccines have been deliberately used to kill people. there was no intent to kill. and there was no killing. Unless you think that all the studies are flawed and that the contaminated vaccine caused millions of deaths and that the contamination was done deliberately?


  • Options
    #279
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    I think you need to read your own link.

    I did read my own link .. Thank you ... Hard to find as it was removed from the main site

    Would you have voluntary taken that vaccine knowing that some evidence suggested it causes cancer ? Or would you have opted out ?
    Beano wrote: »
    and the suggestion in this thread has been that vaccines have been deliberately used to kill people. there was no intent to kill. and there was no killing. Unless you think that all the studies are flawed and that the contaminated vaccine caused millions of deaths and that the contamination was done deliberately?

    How would you know it was not done deliberately ? ...


  • Options
    #280
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    I did read my own link .. Thank you ... Hard to find as it was removed from the main site

    Would you have voluntary taken that vaccine knowing that some evidence suggested it causes cancer ? Or would you have opted out ?

    But there is no evidence that is causes cancer. Or at least none that would worry me unduly. Worrying that it could give you cancer is more likely to give you cancer than the vaccine itself.
    Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer.


    weisses wrote: »

    How would you know it was not done deliberately ? ...


    How could it have been deliberately contaminated with something that they didnt know exist?
    In the 1950s, rhesus monkey kidney cells, which contain SV40 if the animal is infected, were used in preparing polio vaccines. Because SV40 was not discovered until 1960, no one was aware in the 1950s that polio vaccine could be contaminated.


  • Options
    #281
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    But there is no evidence that is causes cancer. Or at least none that would worry me unduly. Worrying that it could give you cancer is more likely to give you cancer than the vaccine itself.
    Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer

    It is evidence that suggests this ... not a hunch or epiphany
    Beano wrote: »
    How could it have been deliberately contaminated with something that they didnt know exist?


    Good point

    Although they kept using it until 1963, with at that point the knowledge of using a contaminated polio vaccine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    It is evidence that suggests this ... not a hunch or epiphany
    The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer

    The preponderance of evidence suggested that it didnt.
    weisses wrote: »

    Good point

    Although they kept using it until 1963, with at that point the knowledge of using a contaminated polio vaccine.

    There is no indication on that page they continued to use contaminated samples after they were aware of it and could test for it. SV40 was only discovered in 1960. I doubt they became immediately aware of its consequences until later. Science takes time. Again there is nothing to show that this was done deliberately.


  • Options
    #283
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    The preponderance of evidence suggested that it didnt.

    Doesn't matter ... Its still evidence so it got to have some merit
    In 2002, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee considered that the available data was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine may have caused cancer.

    Because there is biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommended continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
    Beano wrote: »
    There is no indication on that page they continued to use contaminated samples after they were aware of it and could test for it. SV40 was only discovered in 1960. .

    They continued using the vaccine till 63
    It is estimated that over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine during the period of 1955-1963.
    Beano wrote: »
    I doubt they became immediately aware of its consequences until later. Science takes time. Again there is nothing to show that this was done deliberately.

    That only something you can assume


    http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/iom-reports/sv40-contamination-polio-vaccine-and-cancer

    And to ad
    Our analysis indicates increased rates of ependymomas (37%), osteogenic sarcomas (26%), other bone tumors (34%) and mesothelioma (90%) among those in the exposed as compared to the unexposed birth cohort.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    These data suggest that there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S.; further investigations are clearly justified.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

    Which could answer your initial quote
    Beano wrote: »
    explain how vaccines that prevent fatal diseases reduce the human population?


  • Options
    #284
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    Can you show us some figures to back up this claim? Figures that show vaccines are actively killing more people than they save?
    What are you talking about? It should be blindingly obvious to all that massively reducing (or eliminating) deaths from smallpox, polio, tetanus, measles, diphtheria, etc is the best way of killing masses of people.


  • Options
    #285
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Reekwind wrote: »
    What are you talking about? It should be blindingly obvious to all that massively reducing (or eliminating) deaths from smallpox, polio, tetanus, measles, diphtheria, etc is the best way of killing masses of people.

    reducing deaths from diseases is the best way of killing masses of people? I think you have missed something from your sentence.


  • Options
    #286
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    Doesn't matter ... Its still evidence so it got to have some merit





    They continued using the vaccine till 63





    That only something you can assume


    http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/iom-reports/sv40-contamination-polio-vaccine-and-cancer

    And to ad



    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

    Which could answer your initial quote


    You still havent come ANYWHERE close to answering the question. Any deaths that resulted from the polio vaccine (and the jury is still out on whether there are any) are a result of a contamination of the virus. a contamination that was removed when it was discovered. they were not a result of the vaccine itself. you dont seem to make this distinction. There is also the question of intent. You have admitted yourself that there was no intent to kill millions of people with the polio vaccine. You have not shown that there was an intent to kill millions of people with any vaccine. Or that millions of people have died from any vaccine.


  • Options
    #287
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Beano wrote: »
    reducing deaths from diseases is the best way of killing masses of people? I think you have missed something from your sentence.
    No... I don't think I'm the one who's missed something.


  • Options
    #288
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    You still havent come ANYWHERE close to answering the question. Any deaths that resulted from the polio vaccine (and the jury is still out on whether there are any) are a result of a contamination of the virus. a contamination that was removed when it was discovered. they were not a result of the vaccine itself. you dont seem to make this distinction. There is also the question of intent. You have admitted yourself that there was no intent to kill millions of people with the polio vaccine. You have not shown that there was an intent to kill millions of people with any vaccine. Or that millions of people have died from any vaccine.

    It was discovered in 1960 and children still got vaccinated with it in 1963

    One can only assume why they kept vaccinating.

    The CT could be it was deliberately contaminated, far fetched but a theory nonetheless


  • Options
    #289
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    It was discovered in 1960 and children still got vaccinated with it in 1963

    One can only assume why they kept vaccinating.

    The CT could be it was deliberately contaminated, far fetched but a theory nonetheless

    How is it possible to deliberately contaminate a vaccine with something that nobody knew existed??


  • Options
    #290
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    How is it possible to deliberately contaminate a vaccine with something that nobody knew existed??

    The part that they didn't know comes from one source ... Maybe someone knew

    More worrying is what they did when they found out

    Theory is they knew earlier because, Hilleman allegedly said
    these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.”


  • Options
    #291
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    The part that they didn't know comes from one source ... Maybe someone knew

    More worrying is what they did when they found out

    Theory is they knew earlier because, Hilleman allegedly said

    Your theory ignores the biology of the viral contamination, they would have struggled to load a lab rat with tumors so even if they had intent (not that i believe they did) why continue if unsuccessful in the lab?.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Your theory ignores the biology of the viral contamination, they would have struggled to load a lab rat with tumors so even if they had intent (not that i believe they did) they didn't have the right method.

    My theory ignores nothing

    You are stacking assumption upon assumption to reach your conclusion.

    I quoted the guy who made the vaccine, don't know how valid it is but its a quote nonetheless

    They had no trouble creating tumors in Hamsters
    An analysis presented at the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference in 2004[27] suggested that vaccines used in the former Soviet bloc countries, China, Japan, and Africa, could have been contaminated up to 1980, meaning that hundreds of millions more could have been exposed to the virus unknowingly

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40


  • Options
    #293
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    My theory ignores nothing

    You are stacking assumption upon assumption to reach your conclusion.

    I quoted the guy who made the vaccine, don't know how valid it is but its a quote nonetheless

    They had no trouble creating tumors in Hamsters



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40

    But your theory only works if they were aware of the impact the SC40 contamination might have prior to the initial contamination.

    What did the studies show on SV40 and cancer prior to 1963?

    You could say the SV40 contamination was initially a genuine mistake that was later taken advantage of up to 1980 i suppose.


  • Options
    #294
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Reekwind wrote: »
    No... I don't think I'm the one who's missed something.

    so less people dying from disease is the best way of killing masses of people? this must be a troll.


  • Options
    #295
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    The part that they didn't know comes from one source ... Maybe someone knew

    More worrying is what they did when they found out

    Theory is they knew earlier because, Hilleman allegedly said


    maybe someone knew? and you complain about other people making assumptions

    And if it was introduced deliberately why take it out as soon as sv40 is discovered?


  • Options
    #296
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    maybe someone knew? and you complain about other people making assumptions

    I also presented a source

    assuming certain things to reach a conclusion apparently debunking a theory is different then assuming certain things to present a Theory ...
    Beano wrote: »
    And if it was introduced deliberately why take it out as soon as sv40 is discovered?

    I also quoted a wiki stating it could be used into the eighties

    and it was definitely used for 3 more years after it was discovered


  • Options
    #297
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Beano wrote: »
    so less people dying from disease is the best way of killing masses of people? this must be a troll.
    Yeah, it must be. Either that or sarcasm. Which could it be? Let's examine this in your own words:

    Less people die from a disease [through vaccinations] is the best way of killing masses of people. Hmm... It's almost as if I'm using sarcasm to belittle the very concept of vaccinations (which by their nature have saved countless millions) being used as instruments of mass murder. What a pickle.

    [Hint: I'm doing it again]


  • Options
    #298
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    I also presented a source

    assuming certain things to reach a conclusion apparently debunking a theory is different then assuming certain things to present a Theory ...



    I also quoted a wiki stating it could be used into the eighties

    and it was definitely used for 3 more years after it was discovered

    it was used for 3 more years after sv40 was discovered. not 3 more years after sv40 was discovered in the vaccine.


  • Options
    #299
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Yeah, it must be. Either that or sarcasm. Which could it be? Let's examine this in your own words:

    Less people die from a disease [through vaccinations] is the best way of killing masses of people. Hmm... It's almost as if I'm using sarcasm to belittle the very concept of vaccinations (which by their nature have saved countless millions) being used as instruments of mass murder. What a pickle.

    [Hint: I'm doing it again]

    Sarcasm doesnt work in the CT forum. Its impossible to tell it apart from genuine posts.


  • Options
    #300
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    it was used for 3 more years after sv40 was discovered. not 3 more years after sv40 was discovered in the vaccine.

    source ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Yeah, it must be. Either that or sarcasm. Which could it be? Let's examine this in your own words:

    Less people die from a disease [through vaccinations] is the best way of killing masses of people. Hmm... It's almost as if I'm using sarcasm to belittle the very concept of vaccinations (which by their nature have saved countless millions) being used as instruments of mass murder. What a pickle.

    [Hint: I'm doing it again]

    Ohh god ur funny





    Sarcasm does work


Advertisement