He claims better health leads to people having less kids. So if more vaccines produce "better health" people will choose to have fewer kids. It's not admitting (openly and directly) that vaccines kill people and are being used for depopulation.
Assuming I'm thinking of the correct thing, bringing up this statement isn't the silver bullet against Gates people want it to be.
It's been a while, but if I recall his argument is something along the lines of "if parents know their kids won't die to disease they'll have less, since they know the ones they do have will be alive to take care of them when they're old and frail."
As if people are basing their choice for how many kids to have solely on getting taken care of when they're old. It's all a bunch of junk, and we know the real reason he pushes vaccines, but I don't see that he's directly admitted that the reason is depopulation.
His position is that higher child mortality leads people to have more kids, so they have a higher chance of some of them living to take care of them in their elderly years.
The idea is that vaccinated kids die less often in their youth, and that vaccines prevent illness in general. So if they are "healthier" (poisoned) due to getting a vaccine they have a better chance of, as he says, living to take care of their parents in their elderly years if they need assistance.
It's a silly reason to think people choose how many kids to have based on their potential to take care of them when they’re old, but this is his position. What he hasn't done from what I have seen is admit that vaccines are for depopulation.
I can understand his reasoning to some extent but from what I've seen it seems like poorer people are the ones to have multiple kids. Maybe bringing people out of poverty would lower the child per family rate.
That would also be an extension of "wanting someone to take care of them when they're older" I'd think. If you're poor and can't afford good medical care, for yourself when you're old, plus your kids in their youth, you'd want kids who could take care of you personally, and enough to ensure they live to do it.
His problem is thinking that countries and/or people getting richer will improve health because now they can "afford" vaccines, and that this will decrease how many kids people have. I agree that the solution is, as you say, to bring people out of poverty. Useless injections not required.
He claims better health leads to people having less kids. So if more vaccines produce "better health" people will choose to have fewer kids. It's not admitting (openly and directly) that vaccines kill people and are being used for depopulation.
Assuming I'm thinking of the correct thing, bringing up this statement isn't the silver bullet against Gates people want it to be.
"Better health leads to people having less kids"
There is literally no logic to this statement, as better health has always tended to lead to more kids.
In africa, mothers will often choose to have more kids so they can have more family support when they(the parents) get old or sick.
Higher intelligence maybe. Watch the movie "Idiocracy" lol
It's been a while, but if I recall his argument is something along the lines of "if parents know their kids won't die to disease they'll have less, since they know the ones they do have will be alive to take care of them when they're old and frail."
As if people are basing their choice for how many kids to have solely on getting taken care of when they're old. It's all a bunch of junk, and we know the real reason he pushes vaccines, but I don't see that he's directly admitted that the reason is depopulation.
Every time I was sick I thought. You know, another baby around me would be nice right now.
I explained it poorly.
His position is that higher child mortality leads people to have more kids, so they have a higher chance of some of them living to take care of them in their elderly years.
The idea is that vaccinated kids die less often in their youth, and that vaccines prevent illness in general. So if they are "healthier" (poisoned) due to getting a vaccine they have a better chance of, as he says, living to take care of their parents in their elderly years if they need assistance.
It's a silly reason to think people choose how many kids to have based on their potential to take care of them when they’re old, but this is his position. What he hasn't done from what I have seen is admit that vaccines are for depopulation.
I can understand his reasoning to some extent but from what I've seen it seems like poorer people are the ones to have multiple kids. Maybe bringing people out of poverty would lower the child per family rate.
That would also be an extension of "wanting someone to take care of them when they're older" I'd think. If you're poor and can't afford good medical care, for yourself when you're old, plus your kids in their youth, you'd want kids who could take care of you personally, and enough to ensure they live to do it.
His problem is thinking that countries and/or people getting richer will improve health because now they can "afford" vaccines, and that this will decrease how many kids people have. I agree that the solution is, as you say, to bring people out of poverty. Useless injections not required.