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.
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.