Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population

[Count Olaf]

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."

http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html

[LaurenG]

1. No he said vaccines in the same sentence with reproductive health services.

"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."

[hendo]

93. Good catch, apparently most people missed that

They are all too happy to bash Gates.

[polly7]

2. Vaccines?

That's scary.

I understand providing good birth-control options through health-care and education, but how the heck do vaccines lower population?

[xchrom]

6. People live longer with less need to reproduce. Nt

[polly7]

7. Ok, that makes sense. n/t.

[Count Olaf]

13. This is absurd

You all think this is a better theory?

Please explain.

Young people somehow know unconsciously that they will live longer so they are not going to have as many babies?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Have you ever looked at the birth rates of countries?

And how a longer life expectancy is followed by a lower birth rate?

No, it's not unconscious. It's conscious. People think "my children are far less likely to die, so I don't need to have several just to make sure there's someone to keep me in my old age".

Really, this is basic knowledge of how population works.

[Count Olaf]

19. In Africa?

Vaccines will reduce population because people choose not to have as many kids because they believe they might live longer?

AT first at least, there would be a population boom because more people would live longer but the population would not yet be able to trust that their offspring will live longer so they will continue to have the same amount of children.

But I don't think Africa and their population has anything to do with global warming.

Now Halliburton and all the megacorporations who want Africa's resources, they are the ones polluting. They are also the ones who would like to reduce the population so it would be easier to take Africa's resources from it's people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Yes, in Africa

They have the same basic outlook on life as we do, you know. This is part of the Demographic Transition theory. There already is a population boom in Africa. But when people realise they don't need large families to support them in their old age, they have less children. Eventually, you get birth rates below replacement level, as in Japan, Germany, Italy etc. And that can decrease the world population.

And it also give you a population in which nearly all children survive to adulthood and then old age. Which is a bonus, compared with lots of children dying, isn't it?

[superduperfarleft]

17. The irony of someone who quotes naturalnews calling another theory absurd...

Oh, the delicious irony...

[polly7]

18. This article is featured on other sites as well.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article17644.html

Not quite the same, but contains some disturbing possibilities. I don't blame anyone, including me, for having major trust issues when it comes to large corporations and their intentions for those who have no say in poor nations.

[superduperfarleft]

24. That's the way woo works - it gets repeated on no-name sites all over the place.

Especially ones like the one in your post which are busy hocking gold to the same kind of end times conspiracy kooks who think Alex Jones is perfectly sane and reasonable and that Mercola is the place to go for medical advice.

[polly7]

32. Maybe you do 'woo'. I just read as much as I can and express my own opinion.

What's with all the 'don't read this, don't trust that'?

[superduperfarleft]

40. If the source is not credible, it makes the entire article suspect.

Start a thread in GD where the source is National Review, and you'll get a similar reaction.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. And Engdhal also believes the earth is cooling, and the claims of warming are a plot by the elite

See http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/engdahl/2009/0924.html

And he doesn't think oil is of fossil origin, but is being made at high geological rates right now, and will never run out: http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html

He's a kook. He's the person not to trust. 'Market Oracle' publishes any old stuff, including conspiracy theories.

[polly7]

30. Sorry, I don't know much about Engdahl, it was just one article of

many containing pretty much the same info. History has shown over and over how third-world nations have been used as experimental-groundsm resulting in horrible outcomes. I think complete trust in large corporations is naive, and should be a thing of the past. jmo
It's insulting to believe posters here can't check out many articles and base their personal doubts on what they've concluded themselves reading them. But thanks, anyway ....

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. The OP article claims its the seasonal flu vaccine in developed countries that is the killer

It says that the corrupt US government is targeting anyone stupid enough to get a seasonal flu vaccine, because it wants them dead. This is not just about third-world countries.

[polly7]

34. Which doesn't detract one bit from the possibility of it having horrendous

effects on poor nations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. It detracts from its credibility, that's the point

When the Obama family get their seasonal flu vaccines, are they victims just like everyone else? Or is that a subtle ploy by the 'corrupt government' that he leads, to lure us into getting vaccines, while he doesn't really have the shot?

Basically, do you agree with the Natural News author that Obama's government is corrupt?

[polly7]

43. What are you talking about????

I never mentioned Obama's family. I stated I don't have complete faith in Gates or any large corporation, especially with ties to Monsanto.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. The OP accuses the government who give seasonal flu vaccines of killing people

That, of course, includes Obama's government.

From the Natural News article:

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a "hard kill" pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired... all in the name of health care!
...
Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it's not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don't even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, "unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people" then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)
...
Be healthy and wise, and you'll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments.

So, do you agree with the article in the OP that Obama's government is encouraging people to get the seasonal flu vaccine to kill some of them off?

I mentioned Obama's family because they got the vaccine last year. Either the OP article is full of shit, or Obama is evilly pretending that his family had the flu vaccine, because he's really as evil as Natural News thinks he is. Notice that they tie in health care reform to this - they think it means Obama will want to kill off more people to avoid extra cost.

[HuckleB]

39. Trust issues are one thing. Believing unbelievable fiction-based scares is another.

The research is very clear. The flu vaccine saves lives.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7223

[polly7]

45. I know the flu vaccine saves lives.

I also know the possibility exists for untouchable global giants to misuse them.

[HuckleB]

47. Uh huh.

:eyes:

[polly7]

49. LOL

Uh huh.

Strange how some get upset because others have questions and doubts.

[HuckleB]

50. Strange how your calculation on what to question doesn't care about actual evidence.

[polly7]

52. Haven't got a clue what you're talking about, and really don't care.

Interesting articles, the possibilities for harm do exist. Carry on with your censoring, I'm sure it's somehow more satisfying than allowing others to express fears. Buh bye. :)

[HuckleB]

54. Conspiracy theory propaganda is only interesting when labeled properly: Fiction.

BTW, it's wise to learn some basic science, so you can question the anti-science goons.

This is an interesting article that uses science to deal with all the woo pushing, including from NaturalNews.com, that came with H1N1 last year.

Flu Woo Hodge Podge
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=484

And here is another piece that addresses more wackiness from NaturalNews.com.

There's no such thing as viruses?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/theres_no_such_thing_as_viruses.php

[polly7]

59. I understand basic science, thanks. We were always taught with any

science experiment to question everything. What are your articles supposed to prove? Has anyone here argued the validity of H1N1 shots or that viruses certainly do exist? Nope - population control is what Bill Gates himself was speaking of. It's not the 'science' that brings up questions, at least for me. It's the possibility for misuse on millions of people who may not be able to resist it.

[HuckleB]

62. Your posts, and your defense of anti-science websites, indicate otherwise.

My links show the ludicrous and fictional nature of the websites you are defending. Perhaps your open mind might actually be open to reading them?

BTW, this post of yours actually shows how valuable those two books would be, if you were open-minded enough to read them.

[polly7]

65. Websites? I posted one. Did you see others???

Your posts show how badly you want everyone to accept unconditionally that Gates, Monsanto, anyone - everyone else with that much power has 100% noble intent when it comes to millions with no choice.

[HuckleB]

67. And now you're off in red herring land...

You posted an additional site to the OP. And you claimed that there were other sites carrying this sick trash.

In fact, your fear, in this case, is nothing more than a twist on the perfect solution fallacy. In other words, you are spending your time fearing something that is incredibly unlikely, and, at this point in time, is only a figment of the imagination of a blogger who has a long history of pushing fictional fears on people.

[HuckleB]

56. A couple of good books, I'd recommend.

The Science of Fear: How the Culture of Fear Manipulates Your Brain by Daniel Gardner
http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780452295469-1

The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Glassner
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780465003365-0

[polly7]

57. Noted, but will ignore.

Questioning the 100% noble motives of any corporation or individual tied to Monsanto, when it comes to the well-being of those without a choice in an age of dwindling resources, is hardly going to manipulate my brain. I have no problem looking into every side of a situation. Are there books that deal with closing your mind and attempting to cower others to do the same? Probably.

[HuckleB]

58. Are you going with the "closed minded" routine?

That's already been done on this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

As for supposed questioning, you are simply making up fears, which is part of the point of those books. Why are you afraid of those books?

[polly7]

60. I'm really not afraid of much, especially your books.

I'm not making up fears, I'm using my brain to wonder about the possibilities of misuse of anything related to population-control by corporations that have ties to others that certainly have already harmed millions. Get it?

[HuckleB]

61. I'm sure you actually believe that.

But, again, the reality is that you are spending lots of time supporting fiction-based conspiracy theories. You appear to be quite fearful of these fictions, and yet you claim that you don't fear much. That's interesting, especially since you refuse to read the books you say you don't fear. Books that might open your mind to information that might just challenge your world view.

[polly7]

63. LOL

Funny stuff. You seem to be quite fearful to let others wonder about possibilities ................. that really is close-minded. And ineffective, in this day and age, with the amazing ability to read from so many different sources and decide one-self what to question and what not to.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[HuckleB]

64. I'm fearful when others push conspiracy theories that could lead to unnecessary deaths.

Again, your question is not just a question, and it's not reality based. If it's not reality based, where is the open mindedness? Uh, it doesn't exist.

The things that NaturalNews.com and its fellow woo pushers push, are actually real dangers if people buy into them, and avoid good health care.

[polly7]

66. Exactly. So, you can question something you're fearful of causing harm,

yet can't accept I have the same fear? Weird.

[HuckleB]

68. I am questioning or fearing something that is actually happening.

Woo websites are actually trying to spread their fictions as far and wide as they can. You are fearing a fiction made up by a woo website, with the intention of pushing people away from good health care, and yet you can't see the difference.

Hmmmm.

[polly7]

69. Hmmmm, indeed.

What I 'fear' (question) is based on knowing of all sorts of atrocities against unsuspecting people with nothing and no choice. One thing about living in a free society, I can fear (question) anything without giving a crap about how upset some get that I fear (question) many things. :)




Guatemala.

[HuckleB]

70. I figured you would use that 60-year-old example.

Funny, how the environment that allowed that atrocity to occur is no longer in existence, but you use that as a justification to be afraid of something much bigger.

Seriously, you have the right to fear whatever fiction-based nonsense you want to fear. That's your choice.

However, if you want to help people actually improve their lives, those fictional fears are likely to get in the way.

[polly7]

71. I've spent most of my life helping others improve theirs, you really have

no idea with all your personal jabs what you're talking about.

You bet, it's my choice to question what I want. Thanks.

[HuckleB]

72. I love blind Internet claims. They're so helpful.

:sarcasm:

My supposed jabs are actually just pointing out the obvious, btw.

Meanwhile, the woomeisters like NaturalNews.com are actually trying to push things that could kill people.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/01/jeremy_sherr_using_homeopathy_for_aids.php

-------------------------------

And here's NaturalNews.com supporting one of the sickest things that has happened in public health in recent history.

What actually happened:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/aids_and_south_africa_one_of_h.html

NaturalNews.com's sick defense of nonsense, and thus of death.
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000452_AIDS_Big_Pharma_South_Africa.html

[polly7]

73. You know absolutely nothing about me, how could your jabs be

'obvious' about anything? That's funny stuff ......

[HuckleB]

74. I don't need to know anything about you.

If you truly help people, and if you truly want to continue to help people, perhaps it would be wise to rethink your defense of NaturalNews.com, its likeminded fellows and the fictions they push.

Here's an example of why:

Here's NaturalNews.com supporting one of the sickest things that has happened in public health in recent history.

What actually happened:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/aids_and_south_africa_one_of_h.html

NaturalNews.com's sick defense of nonsense, and thus of death:
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000452_AIDS_Big_Pharma_South_Africa.html

And more on the reality:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=57

[polly7]

77. Oh FFS, Like your skeery NaturalNews site has a single thing to

do a my personal desire to help people in my everyday life. :crazy:

You seem obsessed with a site that has no more to do with anything than hosting an article available on many more sites. That's just crazy.

[HuckleB]

78. And now you're off in another direction.

Why not just take responsibility for what you post? Seriously, you brought up Guatemala as a defense for these jerks, and now you offer this as a response when I show the reality that these fools push on people?

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. No, the article was written by the Natural News editor, Mike Adams

It says so, at the top of it. That is his viewpoint. Some of what he said (about how evil Bill Gates is) may have been said already by Engdhal a few months ago in the article that you found, but the stuff about the evil US government is hoping to kill some Americans off with seasonal flu vaccines to save on health care and social security is just from Natural News.

[polly7]

82. I like how posters really get into what's actually none of their business .........

personal information about individual posters, but personal attacks always work so well to intimidate, don't they? Newsflash ..... no, they just make you look foolish.

How shallow to believe I've only read the article from Naturalnews. Do you REALLY think I'd come on here questioning something of such importance without reading many other articles? You are getting more insulting all the time. It's a free world. We can question what we like. Having you swoop down like some censoring avenger is just kind of comical .......... ya know???

[HuckleB]

84. Newsflash.

The responses I made to you are based on the content of your responses. You chose to try to make things personal.

In the end, you have made too many excuses, with too many twists and turns, and you have failed to do anything but prove that you will waste time on ludicrous fears, and on defending the defenseless.

[polly7]

86. LOL. eom.

[HuckleB]

87. It's good to laugh.

[polly7]

88. Very good. Thankfully I can laugh and think and question without

caring if anyone thinks it's good or not ........... freedom is wonderful. Hope you laugh a little too, and not just at posters you're trying to belittle.

[HuckleB]

89. We established that a long time ago.

We also established that your fears derive from defenseless sources who are actually causing harm, and that those fears are based on fictions. Unfortunately, you can't just live with that, for some reason.

[LeftishBrit]

83. Market Oracle?

This is full of right-libertarian economic crap: articles by Ron Paul; Lew Rockwell; someone called Robert Murphy attacking the stimulus and Keynesian economics generally; plenty of references to the Austrian School of Economics; attacks on 'Obamacare'; etc. If their articles on economics are so nasty and anti-progressive, should we trust their articles on health?

[HuckleB]

85. +1

[Posteritatis]

94. An article that equates vaccination with eugenics is also pretty BS-laden.

Never mind that they get their definition of eugenics wrong in the first paragraph. Why would I want to take an article like that seriously?

[Count Olaf]

20. the irony of someone with a name like superduperfarleft being so close minded

and trusting the elite establishment...

[superduperfarleft]

22. What exactly is the "elite establishment?"

Is that like the illuminati or something?

[Count Olaf]

26. oh you are hilarious 'superduperfarleft'

:rofl:

[superduperfarleft]

27. I sure am, "Count Olaf."

If that IS your real name...

[HuckleB]

42. +1,000,000,000,000!!!

[HuckleB]

41. Try to educate yourself on what actual open-mindedness is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Count Olaf]

8. some ideas

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 slowly in 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.

[superduperfarleft]

9. Woo woo woo woo woo! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Or you could pull ridiculuous conspriacy theories out of thin air

Hint: the real-world answer is in reply #6.

[polly7]

12. See, this is what I was afraid of. I don't mind Bill Gates and believe he

does much to help, but his relationship with Monsanto makes me wonder. It's not like we haven't already seen atrocities forced upon poorer nations under the guise of health-care.

[Count Olaf]

21. yes

Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23 mil



Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters



“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

[HuckleB]

36. You're afraid Natural News' fantasies?

:rofl:

[polly7]

38. No, I'm not afraid of a site you don't approve of. Are you afraid of it?

I'm afraid of the possibility poorer nations won't have the power to resist 'health-care' measures imposed on them that may not be as noble and beneficial as they're being made to look. Always room for a little skepticism.


Guatemala.

[HuckleB]

44. I am always afraid of sites that spread disinformation that can harm others.

Natural News does this regularly.

[polly7]

46. Ah, well it's good then I read the same thing on other sites. Thanks for the adivce, again. n/t.

[HuckleB]

48. As has already been pointed out to you, the Internet is full of anti-science disinformation.

[polly7]

51. Really???? You don't say.

What is anti-science about the possibility of mis-using vaccines?

[HuckleB]

55. It's a great conspiracy theory, but it has nothing to do with science, with helping people, or ...

... anything else. It's just a woo woo way of grabbing attention from things that actually matter.

Here's another example of the crap these websites push.

NaturalNews.com slimes breast cancer research again
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/naturalnewscom_slimes_breast_cancer_rese.php

So while you worry about great corporate horrors, the web sites that are creating that worry are actually trying to create actual horrors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Gates also said health care could reduce world population

Are you similarly suspicious of health care in the developing world?

The 'anti-science' bit is the claim that the seasonal flu vaccine is meant to kill people.

[polly7]

81. There's nothing anti-science about questioning motives.

No-one is arguing the validity and science of vaccines used properly. It's the possibility for misuses imposed upon millions who may be affected negatively due to errors, or even questionable motives. Sorry, I see nothing wrong with looking at every scenario from all sides. And will continue to do so.

[mr blur]

28. You are either a paranoid Woo, or very funny.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and laugh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. The 'ideas' come from the article

which also says "If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you're not too bright and probably don't engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe", and claims there is a "world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments".

[LeftishBrit]

11. Parents tend to have fewer children if they can expect all to live to grow up.

Whether that will lower the population depends on exactly how many children are born vs. die. But certainly vaccines and other childhood health measures tend to lower the birth rate, because people do not have to have 10 children to ensure that at least a few will live to adulthood.

[ck4829]

The "P" in that equation is not very reliable

There are tribes of stone age hunter-gatherers in South America today. Now if you reduced their numbers (Which you obviously shouldn't do) drastically, the CO2 output wouldn't drop all that much.

A better way to approach this, and keep people happy, would be to make the services cleaner.

[Count Olaf]

15. clearly

Just like Africa, like they really need to reduce the population to combat global warming. Africans just can't put down their tech gadgets and their hot tubs are using too much power.

[SidDithers]

3. Unrec for deliberatly misunderstanding the Bill Gates quote...

and especially for using naturalnews as a source.

Sid

[HuckleB]

35. +1 on both accounts...

[Romulox]

4. I don't think there's any evidence for Gates' claim. Logic and experience suggest the opposite.

:shrug:

[krispos42]

5. The objective isn't zero CO2...

... it is reduced CO₂ so that we can get down to 250 ppm before the planet melts.

[raccoon]

16. Does it occur to Bill Gates that HE is part of the problem? First world citizens

use the lion's share of the world's resources. I bet he has a private jet, and probably uses God only knows how many times as much resources as the average Third World citizen.

[Count Olaf]

23. I know! These people really piss me off

He could be investing in clean energy if he really cared.

It seems to me that us serfs are a threat and that is the real problem.

The pentagon predicts doom and gloom by 2020, all out resource,food and energy wars but does it really have to be that way or do they want it to be that way?

There are so many forms of alternative energy, I should hope by 2020 we will have figured it out. Since the pentagon is worried about it, I am sure they will divert their resources to work to prevent it. Monsanto is supposed to be making our food supply increase, so why are they predicting that we will have less food. Do they know something we do not, like GM crops are not better and that was all a big lie?

[laconicsax]

76. What a patent distortion.

"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."

[Crunchy Frog]

80. People whose children are more likely to survive childhood

tend to have fewer children overall.

[evirus]

90. the wonderful world of science journalism

or more accuratly how asinine journalisnts can be in writing headlines:

[GoneOffShore]

91. Leave it to "Natural News" to twist words.

A source I wouldn't trust to tell me if it was safe to cross the road.

[Warpy]

92. Bill Gates is full of it

Vaccination and water improvement in the third world is a large reason population is exploding there as more of their children survive into adulthood instead of dying from preventable disease before the age of five. The high birthrate has continued as giving birth is the only laudable function many of these women serve.

Gates should take his billions and start educating women in those countries, that's the only proven way to lower the birthrate. Women whose status depends on producing as many (male) children as possible will continue to do so until it kills them. Only when their status is raised beyond that of incubator do they stop producing infants every year.

Of course Gates is male, so he'll never see it.

[evirus]

95. Take any journalism about scientific issues with a grain of salt.

especially when it's comming from a site focused on promoting a "natural lifestyle".

in regards to using additional methods of reducing population size the article itself gives a full quote that says just that:
"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."

the point of the article seems vary editorialized "boo vaccines, bill gates likes vaccines, boo bill gates, bill gates say it can be used as population control BOOOOOOOOOO NAZISMMMMM!!!!" and even then the article that they link to to contest the idea that vaccines works, their own article(!) their own claim of 99-100% of the population arn't benefiting from flu vaccines is considerably off consider even a 2008 medical trial by the CDC; 75% effective, so instead of it being the claimed 99% ineffective its 25%