Teresa’s answer to “Has anybody read this yet?” > Likes and Comments
Like
I'm confused-because she says "she thinks women should be able to have children whenever they want" (her opinion, that is not stated in this book) she is wrong because "mandatory vaccinations are causing infertility" (your opinion)? One of her biggest points is that women should be able to PLAN their families so that they can choose when and if they have children (maybe how you got to "whenever they want?). How does this have anything to do with vaccinations?
Kate, I am sorry I confused you. "Whenever they want" is a lazy paraphrase of "choose when and if to have children". I am convinced that vaccines are causing a mysterious significant decline in fertility and it is somewhat more than an opinion, unfortunately. So, choice disappears. It sounds confusing because the Gates' mission is depopulation. Forget all the propaganda and fear-mongering and it will all become crystal clear.
The Gates’ desire for depopulation has already been debunked (I’ll post below the excerpt). They don’t want necessarily less people but healthier people which is why they focus on family planning so parents have the time and money to take care of 2 kids for example rather than having 8 kids one right after the other in extreme poverty with the hopes that 1 or 2 MIGHT survive.
Idk...I’ve never heard about this until your comment so I started researching on my own. I think you should give the book a chance. I don’t remember vaccines being mentioned at all and definitely not in conjunction with fertility-which isn’t the problem when pregnancy is possible but surviving after birth is where the chances go down due to a cycle of malnutrition and extreme poverty.
Except from snopes (fact checking site): As discussed in a 21 November 2011 Forbes cover story profiling the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, reducing population growth has always been integral to their stated mission of “improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty”:
In 1997, when he and Melinda first ventured into public health […] they focused on birth control, funding a Johns Hopkins effort to use computers to help women in the developing world learn about contraception. The logic was crisp and Bill Gates-friendly. Health = resources ÷ people. And since resources, as Gates noted, are relatively fixed, the answer lay in population control.
As further discussed in this piece, Gates later came to the conclusion that birth control was not the best approach to achieve the goal of slower population growth, instead realizing that — counterintuitively — a reduction in childhood mortality was the best way to limit population growth:
In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. “It goes against common sense,” Gates says. Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die.
“If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size,” says Melinda.
This is a point Gates has made repeatedly, and his views were clearly articulated in the 2009 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Annual Letter:
A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. […] Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.
In other words, Gates is not interested in using vaccines to reduce the population by using them as an agent of death or a tool to sterilize unsuspecting masses. Rather, Gates is interested in keeping more children alive in order to reduce the need for parents to have more children, thus limiting the overall population growth rate.
@Kate Thank you for your time and effort to explain this misconception to Teresa. I hear this a lot and I was wondering where did people come up with this depopulation theory?! Your thorough answer explains where it came from and why it's misunderstood, and I really appreciate it!
@Vesna of course! I like to help where I can especially for issues as important as this. Truly great book and deserves more attention that it got. The mission and message of the book is so important to women and society as a whole.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kate
(new)
Mar 31, 2019 11:00AM
I'm confused-because she says "she thinks women should be able to have children whenever they want" (her opinion, that is not stated in this book) she is wrong because "mandatory vaccinations are causing infertility" (your opinion)? One of her biggest points is that women should be able to PLAN their families so that they can choose when and if they have children (maybe how you got to "whenever they want?). How does this have anything to do with vaccinations?
reply
|
flag
Kate, I am sorry I confused you. "Whenever they want" is a lazy paraphrase of "choose when and if to have children". I am convinced that vaccines are causing a mysterious significant decline in fertility and it is somewhat more than an opinion, unfortunately. So, choice disappears. It sounds confusing because the Gates' mission is depopulation. Forget all the propaganda and fear-mongering and it will all become crystal clear.
The Gates’ desire for depopulation has already been debunked (I’ll post below the excerpt). They don’t want necessarily less people but healthier people which is why they focus on family planning so parents have the time and money to take care of 2 kids for example rather than having 8 kids one right after the other in extreme poverty with the hopes that 1 or 2 MIGHT survive. Idk...I’ve never heard about this until your comment so I started researching on my own. I think you should give the book a chance. I don’t remember vaccines being mentioned at all and definitely not in conjunction with fertility-which isn’t the problem when pregnancy is possible but surviving after birth is where the chances go down due to a cycle of malnutrition and extreme poverty.
Except from snopes (fact checking site): As discussed in a 21 November 2011 Forbes cover story profiling the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, reducing population growth has always been integral to their stated mission of “improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty”:
In 1997, when he and Melinda first ventured into public health […] they focused on birth control, funding a Johns Hopkins effort to use computers to help women in the developing world learn about contraception. The logic was crisp and Bill Gates-friendly. Health = resources ÷ people. And since resources, as Gates noted, are relatively fixed, the answer lay in population control.
As further discussed in this piece, Gates later came to the conclusion that birth control was not the best approach to achieve the goal of slower population growth, instead realizing that — counterintuitively — a reduction in childhood mortality was the best way to limit population growth:
In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. “It goes against common sense,” Gates says. Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die.
“If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size,” says Melinda.
This is a point Gates has made repeatedly, and his views were clearly articulated in the 2009 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Annual Letter:
A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. […] Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.
In other words, Gates is not interested in using vaccines to reduce the population by using them as an agent of death or a tool to sterilize unsuspecting masses. Rather, Gates is interested in keeping more children alive in order to reduce the need for parents to have more children, thus limiting the overall population growth rate.
@Kate Thank you for your time and effort to explain this misconception to Teresa. I hear this a lot and I was wondering where did people come up with this depopulation theory?! Your thorough answer explains where it came from and why it's misunderstood, and I really appreciate it!
@Vesna of course! I like to help where I can especially for issues as important as this. Truly great book and deserves more attention that it got. The mission and message of the book is so important to women and society as a whole.
