Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gates did not say what the anti-vaccinationists claim he did.
He most certainly did say these things,.... I've WATCHED HIM SAY IT.
In the same presentation, he also elaborated on CO2, and how we need to reduce man made CO2 levels to "near zero". Of course, to accomplish that goal, you'd necessarily have to eliminate a whole lot of those useless eaters, because as you should have been taught in biology class, humans exhale CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
His point is that by reducing deaths from infectious disease, through vaccination, it is possible for people to voluntarily decrease family size, because they no longer need to have a dozen children in hopes two or three will survive to adulthood. Somehow, the people who are against vaccines to not see that as an admirable goal. For them, dead kids are to be expected.
That is not what he said. He didn't elaborate on how vaccines would reduce population growth, bt a more plausible explanation than this contrived one might include the reduction in fertility as a result of these vaccines.
Which is why comparing and basing opinions on statistics is a fools errand.
One would think that all anyone would need is a consistent definition of "infant" since there should be no divergence in what "mortality" means.
But while on the subject of infant mortality rates ... why is the US rate rising, given all of the wonderous pharmaceutical interventions that are supposed to be lowing that rate?
The answer is obvious .. isn't it suzy? Oh yes indeedy .. and it fits the Bill Gates method of reducing population doesn't it? Oh yes it does.
An article from the Scientific American shows respected researchers who are questioning the past studies and the efficacy of the flu vaccine, particularly in the elderly and in young children.
He most certainly did say these things,.... I've WATCHED HIM SAY IT.
In the same presentation, he also elaborated on CO2, and how we need to reduce man made CO2 levels to "near zero". Of course, to accomplish that goal, you'd necessarily have to eliminate a whole lot of those useless eaters, because as you should have been taught in biology class, humans exhale CO2.
That is not what he said. He didn't elaborate on how vaccines would reduce population growth, bt a more plausible explanation than this contrived one might include the reduction in fertility as a result of these vaccines.
No, the anti-vax contingent has attempted to put a spin on the comments Gates made that he neither explicitly said nor implied. This is a common tactic. Since there is no evidence that vaccines are as dangerous as the anti-vaxers want you to believe, they have to struggle to find new ways to discredit them. That means distortion and flat out lies.
Do you have any evidence that vaccines affect fertility in any way? Except by preventing children from dying before they are old enough to reproduce, perhaps?
An article from the Scientific American shows respected researchers who are questioning the past studies and the efficacy of the flu vaccine, particularly in the elderly and in young children.
What the article actually says is that we need more information on effectiveness. The fact that the effectiveness of flu vaccine varies from year to year and in different populations is well known. That does not mean that it is totally ineffective.
But while on the subject of infant mortality rates ... why is the US rate rising, given all of the wonderous pharmaceutical interventions that are supposed to be lowing that rate?
The answer is obvious .. isn't it suzy? Oh yes indeedy .. and it fits the Bill Gates method of reducing population doesn't it? Oh yes it does.
The rate is not rising, it's declining, but don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
What the article actually says is that we need more information on effectiveness. The fact that the effectiveness of flu vaccine varies from year to year and in different populations is well known. That does not mean that it is totally ineffective.
The article talks about the flawed methodology that has led to overstatements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine as well as fallacies in the data. The researchers from the article have found that there have been no clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the elderly. They also found fallacies in long accepted data about how many seniors lives have been saved from the vaccine.
The researchers concluded after a systematic review that for kids under the age of two, the currently licensed vaccines “are not significantly more efficacious than placebo". They found that the shot reduces the absolute risk that a child over the age of 2 will catch the flu by about 3.6 percent. In healthy adults, those with the vaccine have about a 1% chance of catching the flu while unvaccinated adults have about a 4% chance of catching the flu. They do note that the live mist vaccine is more effective in reducing one's risk to 17% from 4% without the vaccine.
With that said, there is absolutely no evidence supporting flu vaccination for children under the age of two which is a part of the Bloomberg mandate. They have no idea at all if the vaccine works for the elderly and it provides a small benefit to everyone else. The takeaway from the article is that the benefits of the flu vaccine have been overstated. I strongly believe that mandating a vaccine is completely and totally wrong and doing so with a vaccine with such a low( and even unknown in some cases) efficacy rate just makes the whole thing that much more ridiculous.
Do you have any evidence that vaccines affect fertility in any way?
There are hundreds of research papers like this one, and there are millions of aluminum-balled, hypersensitive metrosexuals eating cake each and every day. They can't remember where they left their cake because they ate it.
"High Al contents in human testes, Leydig cells, spermatozoa, seminal plasma, blood and urine, were associated with impaired sperm quality and viability [22, 13, 7]. The suppressed spermatogonial cells, testosterone production, sexual behavior and fertility, and abnormal metabolism of certain trace elements were also observed in Al-treated animals [9-11, 26,27]."
The only FACTS i need are talking with medical professionals in hospitals who tell me "they never have and never will
get a flu vaccination" and neither have I. My immune system works just well thanks, and will let it continue too work on it's
own..
Bloomberg ehhh more like Bloombutt! Good riddance!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
