Trying to play devil's advocate, I'm failing to see a counter-argument for how he meant anything good by that.

The current narrative of "vaccines are good because they prevent and eradicate diseases" would imply "vaccines would allow for more population growth". Bill's words in the above video seem to imply the opposite.

Am I missing something, or, is population control the only reasonable interpretation of his words?

Trying to play devil's advocate, I'm failing to see a counter-argument for how he meant anything good by that.

The current narrative of "vaccines are good because they prevent and eradicate diseases" would imply "vaccines would allow for more population growth", not the opposite, as Bill says in the above video.

Am I missing something, or, is the only reasonable interpretation of his words is population control?